KISHAN CHAND MANGAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 14-10-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I ...... 
• 
L 
• 
·• 
·i 
I I 
S69 
j(ISHAN CHAND MANGAL 
v. 
'. 
STATE OF RAJAS:rHAN 
'/ 
October 14, 1982 
[D.A. DESAI AND A.P. SEN, JJ.] 
. 
' 
E1idence-Of persons belonging to office-wise, wealth-wise' lower strata 
of_society-Rejection on sole groMJ_ of humble origin-Not justified • . 
Evidence-Witnesse.1 independent of police inf/~enc~Empfoyees of 
nationalised banks and institutioru receiving grants from gover'f111ent-Position of. 
\ 
-
/ 
The appellant, a Factory Inspector, visited the complainant's factory and · 
demanded an illegal ·gratification of ~s. 150/- on the· threat of entangling him in 
A 
B 
· some legal proceedings. The complainant, who wa1 not inclined to give the bribe,. 
D 
made a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Anti-Corrup-· 
tion Department (DySP) requesting for suitable actiOn~ A_ trap was arranged by 
smearing IS currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each with phenolph-
\ 
th3.lein powder ·and, on the direction of the DySP, two motbirs were requested 
to accompany the" raiding p_arty and to ·watch what happens. The motbir1 wetit 
along with the complainant to the residence of the appelJant and witnessed 
the acceptance of the· money given to him ·by the com.plaicant, the subsequent. 
E 
. search for thC recovery of the currency Dotes from the appellant,. the dipping of 
his hands in sodium carbonate solution and the .consequent change in the colour 
.) · 
of tho hands into pink, 
• 
· 
.. 
By the time the c3.se "came up for trial, the complainant was dead. In the 
absence of the evidence of the complainant, the trial Judge noted that the first 
de~nd of the bribe at the factory of the complainant had not been proved. , He, 
·'. boWever, held that the evidence of the two mo1bir1 was reliable· and was amply 
· corroborated by the · recovery of the Currency notes as well as the presence of 
phenolphthalein powder on the hands or the appellant. 'The trial_ ,Judge' ~nviCtCd' I 
and sentenced the appellant under_s. 161, 1.P.C. and s. S(l)(d) read w:ith s. 5(2)' 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. -
' 
. 
. 
The High Court which examined the ~vrdence of the 'molbir1 agreed with 
the findings recorded by the trial Court and 4ismissed the appeal filed by the 
appetliint. 
,. 
One of the contentions urged on behalf of the ·appellant was that 
!, once the complainant was not available· to give evidence not· only of the first 
demand but also on the payment ·dr bribe PUrSuant to the demand, the evidence 
ot the two morbirs had assumed cotlsiderable importance and it Was unwise and · 
dangerous to pJace implic!t ,reliance on their testimODJ'. to convict the appellant 
. -
F 
G 
H 
._ 
I 
/ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
• 
F. 
G 
H 
570 
SUPRBMB COURT 'REPORTS 
(19831 1 s.c.R. 
··as (i) both the motbirs were petty clerks and (ii) by virtue of ·their scrvi~, they 
were likely to be under pOiice influence.. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal;, 
• 
., 
/. 
. ' 
HELD : Truth is neither the monopoly nor the preserve of the affluent or 
of highly placed persons. In a country where renunciation is worshipped and the 
grandeur and wild display of wealth frowned upon, it would·. be the travesty of 
truth if persons coming from bumble origin and belongin"g to office-wise, wealth-
wise lower strata of society are to be disbelieved or rejected as unworthy of belief 
Solely on th_e ground of their bumble position in society. (577-P] 
Khairatl Lal v. The State, (1965) l belhi Law Times, J62'overruled. · 
/ 
- In the "instant case it is factually not correct to say that both the motbir.J 
are petty clerks : one was serving as a clerk in a nationalised bank and the other 
was a teacher in a lniddle school. The testimony or the' motblrJ which had been 
. accepted as Wholly reliable by the trial Judge and the High Court cannot be 
rejected on the sole ground that they are petty clerks. (577-E: 578-A-B] · 
. 
' . 
It nlay be. that officers. of Anti-Corruption Depart~eni h3ve jtirisdiction 
to inVestigate lapses on the part of clerks_ in nationalised banks. It is not clear 
whether the motbir who was a teacher was a government cmploYee or the scboOI 
itself was a government school. It' may be that the school was· receiving grant 
but. if all institutions which receive grant from government are styled as 
govCmi:nent departments and have to be treated as fallirig under the police 
infiueDce then the net will have tO be spread so wide as not to exclude anyOne . 
as independent of poliCc influence. There 

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