MAHENDRA SINGH CHOTELAL BHARGAD versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 12-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHENDRA SINGH CHOTELAL BHARGAD 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 1997 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOM~S, JJ.) 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
Section 163---Conviction unde~Two police officers allegedly demand-
ing illegal gratification for dropping oiminal case and directing the gratifica-
C 
tion money to be paid to appellant-Money paid accordingly and 
subsequently recovered from appellant-High Cowt acquitted the police of-
ficers for an offence committed under Section 161 and Section 5(1)(d) read 
with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Cormption Act, 1947-Appellant 
convicted under Section 16~Held, in view of the acquittal of the police 
officers, conviction of the appellant under Section 163 !PC w1sus-
D 
tainable--Penal Code, Section 161-Prevention of Conuption Act, 1947, 
Sections 5(l)(d) and 5(2) . 
. For obtaining an illegal gratification from PW-1 for dropping the 
criminal case pending against him through the appellant, A-1 and A-2, two 
E 
police officers were convicted under Section 161 IPC read with Sections 
5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the appellant 
was convicted under Section 163 IPC. Two separate appeals were filed 
before the High Court against said conviction. The High Court allirmed 
the conviction of the appellant and acquitted the two police officers. Hence 
this appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. High Court, after having disbelieved the prosecution 
case qua Al and A2, could convict A3 and that too for an offence under G 
Section 163 IPC. On a plain reading of Section 163 IPC, it is manifest that 
to convict an accused for the said offence the following ingredients are 
required to be proved :-
(i) The accused accepted or agreed to accept, obtained or attempted 
to obtain for himself or anyone on his behalf, a gratification; 
465 
H 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
(ii) The gratification must be as a motive or reward to induce a public 
B 
servant by the exercise of personal influence:-
(a) to do or to forbear to do any official act, or 
(b) to show in exercise of his official functions favour or disfavour; or 
(c) to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any 
person with the Central Government or with any public servant as such. 
[468-A-D] 
1.2. The gist of the offence, therefore, is that the person arraigned 
C must accept the gratification to induce a public se1vant by the exercise of his 
personal influence (emphasis supplied) to do any of the acts mentioned in 
the Section. It is the positive case of the prosecution, as testified by PWl, 
that it was Al and A2 who initially demanded the money from PWl and in 
terms of the arrangement that he had with Al and under his instruction 
and direction that he paiill the money to the appellant. It was not the 
D appellant who struck the deal and received the money to induce Al and A2 
to show some favour to a Guest House and its proprietor. On the contrary, 
it was Al and A2 who had struck the deal and the appellant was the 
recipient of the money in terms ofan arrangement which he had (obviously) 
entered into with Al and A2. By no stretch of imagination, therefore, can it 
E be said that the appellant is guilty of the offence under Section 163 IPC. Of 
course acceptance of money by the appellant from PWl for handing over 
the same to Al and A2 certainly constitute an abatement of the offences 
allegedly committed by Al and A2, but then this aspect of the matter need 
detain this court : firstly because, such was not the charge framed against 
the appellant and secondly, because, Al and A2 stand acquitted of the 
F 
offences alleged against them. [ 468-E-H; 469-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUR1ISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
663 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.94 of the Bombay High 
G Court in Cr!. A. No. 6 of 1993. 
A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant. 
D.M. Nargolkar and S.M . .Jadhav (NP) for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MAHENDRA SINGH CHOTELAL BHARGAD v. STATE [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.) 
467 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. For obtaining an illegal gratification of Rs. A 
3000 from Rajkumar Mohanram Sawani, (P.W.l) through Mahendra Singh, 
the appellant before us, Uttamrao .Baburao Raut, Inspector and Abdul 
Kadar, Sub Inspector (hereinafter referred to as Al and A2 respectively), 
of Ramdaspeth· Police Station, Akola were convicted under Sections 161 
I.P.C. and 5(1)( d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corrup

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