HAZARI LAL versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 1053 · Decided: 15-02-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

> > 
• 
--
' 
' 
HAZARI LAL 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
February 15, 1980 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Prevention of CorruptiQn_ Act, 
1947-Section 4(1)-Scope of-Accused 
.charged with den?anding and taking illegal gratification-Many prosecution wit-
nesses turned hostile-Staten1ents 1nade by witnesses in the course of investiga-
.Jion-Jf could be used as substantive evidence-Evidence of police. inspector-
1/ needs corroboraition. 
A 
B 
·Panch l-Vitncsses-Clerks-lf could not be called independent lvUncs!.eS. 
C 
The accused (appella.nt) who \Vas charged with offences under section 5(1) 
{<!) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 of the Perutl Code 
was convicted and sentenced by the 
Specit1l 
Judge. The 
convictions 
and 
.. entences were confirmed by the High Cuurt. 
The prosecution alleged that the &eooter rickshaw of the complainant driven 
'.by his driver was one day involved in a traffic accid'ent and the vehicle ;vas 
ttarken to the police station by the accused1 who was a police oonstablC. 
The 
.cooiplainant obtained orders of the Magistrate for its releese but the accused 
·detlined to release the vehicle unless he w.as paid a sum of Rs. 60. 
·fhe 
complainant was not prepared to pay the sum demanded. He then went to an 
inspector of the Anti-Corruption Department and lodged a complaint th at the 
.accused was demanding illegal gratification from him for the release oI his 
·.scooter rickshaw which \\'tls ordered by the Magistrate to be r'eleased'. 
The prosecution further alleged that the lnsp·ector called two panch 
v:it-
nesses and after noting down the numbers of six ten rupee currency notes given 
~y the complainant, treated them with phenol phthalene powder and gave them 
to the complai1u1nt. 
It was arranged that the complainant should hand over 
th'e currency notes to the accused and should thereafter make ai signal at whicb 
·-the Inspector and panth witnesses would enter the room. 
The complainant 
carried out the plan as arranged and gave the call on which the 
Inspector 
and panch witnesses enter'ed the room of the accused. 
On seeing the lnsptct<Jr, 
·the accused 1-cn10\'ed the currency notes from his pocket aind flung then1 across 
·the wall into the adjoining room. 
The notes were coll'etted and when com-
pared with the numbers noted earlier, they tallied. 
The hands of the accused 
·were th'en dipped in sodium bicarbonate solution 
which, 
colourless 
earlier, 
turned pink. 
Similarly the oondkerchief in the right 
side 
pocket 
of 
the 
·trousers of the accused was removed and also dipped in sodium bicarbonate 
,solution. Th>! too turned pink. 
Before the trial court many of the \Vi1.nesses turned hostile and one of the 
,panch witnesses became mentally deranged. 
Jn appeal it was contended before this Court that ( 1) the courts below 
had made free use of the statements made by the witnesses in the course of 
'investigation as if they were substantive evidence and, if they were excluded, the 
.rest of the evidence would not be sufficient to draw the presumption under 
D 
F 
G 
n 
1054 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1980] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
soctioo 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (2) the fact that the lmp<C· 
t.or wa<> the very police officer 'vho laid the trap, should be sufficient to insist 
on corroboration of his evidence. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: l(a) The courts below were clearly wrong in 
tive evidence statements made by witnesses in the course 
[1059El 
using as 
substan-
of 
investigation. 
(b) Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes a bar on µte· 
use of any statement made by any person to a police officer in the course . of. 
investigaition at nny enquiry or trial in respect of any offence under inve~tiga­
tion at the tirne wh'en such statement was made, except for the purpose of 
contradicting the witnesses in the manner provided by section 145 of the Evi-
dence Act 
W'here any part of such statement is so used any part thereof 
may also he used in the re-examination of the witness for the limited purpose 
of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination. The only other 
exception to this emb&rgo on the use of statements made in the course of an 
investigation relates to the statements falling within the provisions of section 
32 ( 1) of the Evidence Act or permitted to be proved under s. 27 
of the 
Evidence Act. 
[1059A-(\,l 
(c) The contention of the prosecution that the earlier statements wit

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.