LexMAHA SINGH versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
MAHA SINGH
v.
STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
January 8. 1976
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND P. N. SJIINGHAL, JJ.J
11 9
CrI111inal Procedure Code (Act V) 1898- Sec. 367 contents of j11dg'!11ent-
Verdic! of g11ilty-Duty of the Court to exercise caution .
Crin1inal Procedure Code (Act V) 1898-Sections 222, 223
and 225-
Whcn e~'idencc is led to prove a charge and the accused is fully. aware of the
charge and n1adc 110 niistake in takinf: a definite defence, oniission of a nan1e
in the charge is not "material prejudicial" to the accused,
A
Pica of defence in Prevention of Corruption Act cases-Plea of planting of
C
;ncritninatinR object without the knowledge or acquie.1ce11ce of ti1e accused is valid.
"Participe.1· crhninis"-Whcther a11 unwillinf{ and a forced bribe given a//
accomplice-Indian Evidence Act (Act I) 1872, s. 133.
fndian Evidence Act (Act /), 1872-Se(·. 3 read with s. 133 eridentiar\'
value of a trap witness in a pre-arranged raid-Trap witness is neither a;i
accamp!icc per se nor an interested witness-Appreciation of such evidence.
Crl!ninal Procedure Code (Act 5), 1_898-Sections 4(1), 161 and 162-
Steps ta1~e11 by the Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Departn1ent to detect the
accused in a case under the
Preyention of Corruption Act, 1947 is "investi-
lgation" within the n1eanb1g of s. 4(1)-Sending complaint of the investigation
for for:na( registration does not take away the character of "investigatio1i".-
Staten1ent n1ude by the accused in such an "invesagafion" admitting to have rt'-
ceivcd the incrin1inatin.r: ohiect is a staterne111 under s. 161, Cr. P.C. and /Jenee
fnadnihsible under s. 162, Cr. P.C.
Indian Evidence Act (Act I) 1872--Sec. 8 relevancy of the conduct of the
accused ill pro.\eCution for o!Jence of, bribery under Prevention of Corruption
Act.
After recording a complaint dated 7-4-1969 by one "SDM" that the accused-
appeliant, a head constable, demanded a sum of Rs. 10/- for not puttiag up a
challan on 8-4-1969 before the SDM, Delhi in a case pending against him, (the
said sum being payable by 3.00 p.m. on 7-4-1969) and also a sum of Rs. SO/-
for not challaning him in future, the Anti-Corruption Departn1ent arranged a
raid to detect the accused, as his name was not known to the complainant.
On
a signal from the complainant., after the receipt of the G.C. Note of Rs. 10/-
(the number of which was already noted by the Anti-Corruption Department)
by the accused, the raid party including the trap witnesses surrounded the ac-
cused, recovered the G.C. note of Rs. 10/- which tallied with the number already
nott:d, besides a further sum of Rs. 51 /- and two challans referred to in the
compfoint of "SDM".
The statement of the accused duly signed by him and
witnessed by the trap witnesses and also a search memo duly signed by the ac-
cused and the trap witnesses, were produced as docun1entary evidence at the
trial. The accused was charged under s. 161, T.P.C. read ,vith s. 5(2) read
withs. 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption A<.:t, 1947, found guilty. con-
victe<l anU ~eutenced to one year rigorous in1prisonment besides fine.
On appenl
the High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
HELD: (1) In a case under s. 161 !.P.C. ands. 5(2) read withs. 5(l)(dl
cf the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, where there was a clinching factor
that a particular already marked currency note v.ras recovered fron1 the left side
front rocket of the shirt of the <tCCU<;ed that too immcdiale!y after its
:-~ceipl
from the complainant anJ which fact is corroborated by the seizure m•::mo dul~
,c,igned by the accus:.:tl about the state of its recovery duly witnessed and also by
9--Ll90SCl)76
D
E
H
!'.W
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 976] 3 S.C.R.
A.
the oral evidence, the defence story of the complainant giving a ten rupee not\!
·wrapped inside the "purchee" is absolutely false.
When such a conclusive proot
is found with regard to this part of the case, viz. "'seizure of the currency note··;
deficieT1cy of corroboration with regard to the negotiation of the accused with
the co1nplainant pales into insignificance. [126 A-F]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
(2) When \vitnesses swear home through a two inch board and somctin1es
quantitatively the defence musters up a number of witnesses, the court has to
be extren1ely cautious and careful to enter a verdict of guilty only if the com-
plainant's version is supported by some cliExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.