LexCHATURDAS BHAGWANDAS PATEL versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
CHATURDAS BHAGWANDAS PATEL
v.
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
April 6, 1976
(R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 161-Scope of.
Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), ss. 4(1) a11d 5(1) and (2)-
Statutory presiunption under-Rebuttal by accused.
Code of (,'rin1inal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) s. 537-Cflarge under ss. 161
and 34 l.P.C.-Co.accused acquittcd-('011victio11 und!'r s. 161 simplr'clter-
Validity.
'
'fhe appellant (a Head Constable) an<l the Sub-Inspector of Police were
charged with offences under s. 161 read with s. 34 and s. 165A, IPC, and
!'ndcr s. 5 (2) read with s. 5 (I )(d)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The appellant admitted the receipt of money and its recovery froo1 him but
stated that PWs 1 and 4 came to the Police Station, that PW 4 claimed to be a
relative of the Sub-Inspector and that it was P\V 4 and not PW 1 who gave
him the money to be handed over to the Sub-Inspector ,.,.-ho vt'as absent. The
prosecution adduced evidence to show that the two accused arranged for the
production of PW 1 at the Police Stati~n in connection with the investigation
of a charge of abduction of a woman; that the Sub-Inspector directed the
appellant to take charge of PW I when he arrived; that the appellant demanded
a bribe from PW 1 to save himself from the charge as \vell as the indignity
of being handcuffed, locked up and paraded;
that a trap was set the next
day when PW 1 paid the amount in the presence of PW 4 and that the
amount 'vas recovered fi:om the appellant in a raid. The trial court acquitted
both the accused, but on appeal, the High Court acquitted the Sub-Inspector
but convicted the appellant under s. 161 IPC and s. 5(2), Prevention of Cor-
ruption Act.
In appeal to thiS Court, the appellant contended, ( 1) that P\V l's evid-
ence regarding the payment of gratification should not be accepted without
independent corroboration, (2) that the statutory presumption under s. 4(1),
Prevention of Corruption Act that the appellant accepted the gratification as
a motive or re\vard such as is mentioned in s. 161, I.P.C., should not be
drawn against the appellant, because, (a) ther_e was, in fact, no complaint
\\"hatever against PW 1 in respect of the commission of the offence of abduc-
tion; and (b) the effect of the acquittal of the Sub-Inspector was tl>Jlt the
money could not be held to have been paid to the appellant pursuant to any
demand of bribe; and (c) that since the two accused were charged under s.
161 read vtith s. 34, on the acquittal of the Sub·Tnspector the appellant could
not be convicted under s. 161 si'!npliciter.
Disffiissing the appeal,
HELD :
( 1) The testimony of P\V 1 stood fully corroborated by other
/
independent and reliable testimony and hence could be safely acted upon.
The defence version that it was PW4 who paid the n1011ey was falsified by
the fact that no anthracene powder; with 'vhich the notes used in the raid
were smeared, was found on PW 4's hands, while it was found on the hands
of the accused and PW!. [l057E; 1059B-Cl
(2) (a) The n1ere fact that no complaint of abduction or of any other
offence had been made or registered against PW 1 could not take the act of
the appellant-in den1anding and accepting the gratification from PW 1 in
the context of the threat by the appellant-out of the mischief of s. 161, 1.P.C.
The section does not require that the public servant must, in fact. be in a
I
:i
-·J
~~~:~
/
'
CHATURDAS v. GUJARAT (Sarkaria, J.)
1053
position to do the official act, favour or service at the time of the demand or
A
receipt of the gratification. To constitute an offence under this section it is
enough if the public servant who accepts the gratification takes it by inducing
a belief or by holding out that he would render assistance to the giver, with
any other public servant, and the giver gives the gratification under that
belief. lt is also immaterial if the public servant receiving the gratification
does not intend to do the official act, favour or forbearance which he hold~
himself out as capable of doing. The last Explanation and Illustration ( c)
to the section show that the person who receives a gratification as a motive
B
for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he
has not done, comes within the purview of the words "a motive or reward for
doing". When a public servant, being a police officer, ii chExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.