LexDALPAT SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B DALPAT SINGH & ANR. v. STA'IE OF RAJASTHAN February 13, 1968 [G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (4S of 1860), ss. 120B and 161-Public ser- vants threaten ill-treatment and harassment unle.rs money paid to them- JVhetht-r C<o'li be convicted under. s. 161. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 o/ 1947), ss. S(l)(a), S(I) C (d) and S(2)--0ffence not under s. 161 IP.C.-1/ conviction under s. S(l)(a) possible-Scope of s. S(l)(d). On the allegation that the first appellant•Havaldar and the second appellant-a Subedar in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, were demand- ing certain amount from a perron accusing him of indulging in black- marketing and constandy visiting Pakistan and unless he paid the amount demanded he would be beaten and prcoecuted. a police trap was success- fully laid, and the appellants convicted under ss. 161 and !20B I.P.C. D and under s. 5(2) read withs. 5(l)(a) ands. 5°(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In appeal, this Court. HELD: The conviction of the appellants under s. 120B and 161 as well as under s. 5(2) read withs. 5(l)(a) of the Prevention of Co<Tuption Act must be set aside. The second appellant"s wnviction under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1}(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be sus- tained. The first appellant's conviction be altered to one under s. 5(2) of E the Prevention of Corruption Act read with s. 114 I.P.C. The first appellant was a subordinate of second appellant. From the evidence it is clear that both the appellants were acting togetl::er. It is obvious that tho second appellant was mainlv responsible for the exto'rtions complained of and the first appellant was aiding him in his activities. Hence there was no need to charge the appelllll& under s. 120 B. I.P.C. F The evidence clearly showed that neither the appellants intended to show any official favour to the-persoos from whom they exlll<ted money nor those persons expected any official favour from them. The amounts in question were paid solely with a view to avoid being ill-treated or haras- sed. Therefore, it is diflicult to hold that the acts complained can be held to constitute offences under s. 161 I.P.C. State of Ajmer v. Shivji Lal, [1959] !!opp. 2 S.C.R. 739 and State of C Uttar Pradesh v. Kuljas Rai. Cr. A. No. 177 of 1960 dated 22-8-62, referred to. Before an offente can be held to come within s. 5 (I)( a) of the Pre- vention of Corruption Act, the requirements of s. 161 I.P.C., have to be satisfied. If an offence does not fall under s .• 161 l.P.C. it cannot come -.ithin s. 5(l)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. [196 CJ I • But so far as s. 5 (I)( d) . of the Prevention of Corruption Act is con- H cerned, that stands on a different footing. To bring home an offence Wider s. S(l)(d), it is not necessary to prove that the acts complained of were done by the appellants in the discharge of their official duties. Oause 5(l)(d) is much wider in scope than cl. S(IHa). (196 D-197 BJ 190 SUPREME COURT llBPOllTS (1968 j 3 S.C.R. State of Ut1ar Pradesh v. K11/ja5 Rai, Cr, A. No. 177 of 1960 dated A 22-8--62 a11d Dhanesh1var Narain S(L\"ena v. Tlte Dellri Adniinistration, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 195, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1965. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 1 December 14, 1964 of the Rajasthan High Court in S. B. Crimi- nal Appeal No. 656 of 1963. K. R. Chaudlmri, for the appellants. K. Balde" Mehta, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c Degele, J. The two appellants were convicted by the High Court of Rajasthan under ss. 120 B and 161, IPC, and under ss. 5 ( 1) (a) and 5 ( 1 )( d) read with s. 5 ( 2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They have come up in appeal to this Court by special leave. D The first appellant was a Havaldar and the second appel- lant a Subedar in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. At the relevant point of time they were serving in the outpost at Sajan- Ka-Par in Barmer district of Rajasthan State, which was a border outpost. That post was within two miles from the Pakistan border. The prosecution case is that the two appellants cons- E pircd to extort money as well as other valuable things from the villagers by using force or threat of force or by harassment. Though they were indulging in these activities for quite some time, the matter came to a head when they tried to compe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.