LexGIRIJA PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GIRIJA PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS. A v. STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH AUGUST 27, 2007 (C.I(. THAKKERANDTARUNCHATTERJEE,JJ.) B Penal Code, 1860: s. 161-Prosecution of accused u!s 161 /PC and s.5(/)(d) rlw s.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-Accused caught by trap party accepting C money from complainant-Plea of "false involvement" and "total denial" by accused-Money said to have been accepted on behalf of his senior officer- Acquittal by trial court-Conviction by High Court-Held, High Court wholly justified in setting aside acquittal and recording conviction-There being positive finding by both Courts below of accused accepting money, presumption D u!s 4 of Prevention of Corruption Act would get attracted-It was also inmaterial whether acceptance of money by accused was for himself or for someone else-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-ss. 5(/)(d) and 5(2)- Presumption. Evidence: Evidence of Police official-Trial court termed complainant and police official as interested witnesses and discarded their evidence-Held, credibility of witness has to be tested on touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness- No infirmity attaches to testimony of police officials merely beca.use they E belong to police force. F Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Appeal against acquittal-High Court in appeal setting aside acquittal and recording conviction-Held: Appellate court had every power to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence as a whole-On facts, High G Court justified in setting aside acquittal. The appellant was prosecuted under s. 161 IPC ands. S(l)(d) read with s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution case was 483 H 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R. A that PW-4; the Divisional Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, accompanied by .the appellant-accused, on a surprise visit to one Ayurvedic Chikisalaya, found that several members of the staff of the said chikitsalaya including the Ayurvedic Chikitsak himself(PW-1) were absent from duty. When Pw-1 approached PW-· 4 in order to explain his absence, the latter was said to have informed the former either to pay him Rs. 500/- through the accused or to suffer B suspension. PW-1 was said to have paid Rs. 300/- to the accused the same day and assured him to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 200/-on a particular day. PW-1 thereafter lodged a complaint in the office of the Lokayukt On the specified day, the trap was laid and the accused was caught with the currency notes which had already been treated with chemical powder. The accused denied C the prosecution case before the trial Court. Two panch witnesses were also treated 'hostile'. As regards the evidence of PW-1, the complainant and PW- 10, the Inspector of Special Police Establishment, the trial court observed that the same could not be relied upon as both were interested witnesses. However, on appeal by the State, the High Court_set aside the order of acqittal and convicted the accused of the charges and sentenced him to simple D imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence u/s 161 lPC. Aggrieved, the accused filed the instant appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the accused died and his wife was allowed to prosecute the appeal under s. 394 Cr. P.C. .E It was contended for the appellant that since he was not in a position to oblige the complainant and the demand and acceptance was for and on behalf of PW-4, the trial Court rightly ot:iserved that the accused was merely made a 'scapegoat', and the High Court erred in disturbing the order of acquittal: and that the trial Court rightly discarded the evidence of PWs 1 and 10 holding them as interested witnesses. It was also submitted that the accused having F died, if conviction and sentence were set aside, the family members of deceased accused would be able to get the retrial benefits, Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court was wholly justified in setting aside acquittal G of the accused and in recording an order of conviction against him. Bo~h the Courts below recorded a positive finding that the accused accepted an amount of Rs. 200/- from PW-1, the complainant. Therefore, Section 4 of the Act got attracted and presumption came into play against accused. There was no rebuttal by the accused by leading any evidence whatsoever. The defence was H of 'total denial' and 'false involvement'. Hence, the doctrine of 'preponderance -- GIRIJA PRASAD
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.