LexFAGUNA KANTA NATH versus THE STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS FAGUNA KANTA NATH v. THE STATE OF ASSAM (J. L. KAPUR and K. N. w ANCHOO, JJ.) Criminal Law-Abetment--Bribery-Conviction for bribery set aside-Maintenance of conviction for abetment-Legality-Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of r86o), ss. ro7, r6r, r65A. The appellant was triedJor an offence under s. l65A of the Indian Penal Code for having abetted K, an Inspector in charge of checking paddy, in the commission of an offence by the latter under s. 161 of the Code. The prosecution case was that while the complainant was taking paddy for sale K demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe and threatened him that unless the money was paid the paddy would be seized, that at the instance of K the complain- ant handed over the bribe money to the appellant for being counted and that the latter after checking the money paid it to K. The Special Judge who tried the case accepted. the prosecu- tion story and convicted K under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant for abetment of the offence. On appeal, the High Court was of the opinion that the evidence was not strong enougli to prove payment to K, and set aside his conviction, but confirmed that of the appellant on the ground that money was taken by him for P,ayment to K as illegal gratification and whether he actually paid it to him or not the offence fell under s. l65A. Held, that the conviction of the appellant for abetment under s. l65A of the Indian Penal Code must under the circum- stances be set aside. On the facts found, the appellant received the money in the presence of and for and on behalf of K and if K was acquitted on the ground that no offence under s. l6I was committed, then no question of int~ntionally aiding by any act or omission the commission of the offence arose. Consequently, the appellant's conviction for the offence of abetment was not maintainable. Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, [1954] S.C.R. 145, distingui- shed. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal ·Appeal No. 203 of 1956. _ Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 14, 1955, of the Assam High Court at Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated May 23, I959 January IJ. / 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. z959 1955, of th1l Court of the Special Judge, Lower Assam Districts at Dhubri in Special Case No. 2 of 1954. Faguna Kanta 1 • Nath Nur-ud-Din Ahmad and K. R. Ohaudhury, for the v. appellant. The State of Assam Naunit Lal, for the respondent. 1959. January 13. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Kapur J. KAPUR, J.-This appea.I by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Assam. The appellant before us was tried for an offence under s. l65A of the" Indian Penal Code for having abetted one Khalilur Rahman in the commis- sion of an offence by the ·latter under s. 161, Indian Penal Code. Both the appellant and Khalilur Rah- mau were convicted of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the High Court acquitted Khalilur Rahman but maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The facts of this appeal are that on May 9, 1952, the complainant Narendra Nath Brahma was taking two carts carrying 25 Mds. of paddy for sale to Billas- hiparabazar along the path which runs by the side of the river Gauranga. When he had gone only a short distance he was stopped by the paddy-checking In- spector, Khalilur Rahman, who was accompanied by the appellant and three others. Khalilur Rahman demanded Rs. 200 as bribe and threatened the com- plainant that unless the amount demanded was paid his ·cart and paddy would be seized. In this he was supported by the appellant and three others. The complainant expressed his inability to give that much amount but ultimately he agreed to pay Rs. 150. He borrowed Rs. JOO from one Surajmal Oswal out of which he offered Rs. 80 to Khalilur Rahman who asked him to hand them over to the appellaut who. counted the money and made it over to Khalilur Rah- man. The complainant was also forced to execute a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 70 in favour of the appellant and he promised that the money would be paid the following day after the paddy was sold. The r • ., (2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 3 1959 complainant learnt in the bazar that another person Happaram Rai had been similarly
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.