MOHAMED DASTAGIR versus THE STATE OF MADRAS

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 116 · Decided: 26-02-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

1960 
F ebru,ary 26 
116 
SUPREME COURT R,EPORTS 
[1960) 
MOHAMED DASTAGIR 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADRAS 
(B. P. SINHA. c. J., JAFER IMAM, A. K. SAHKAR, 
K. N. W ANCHOO AND J. C. SHAH. JJ) 
Fundamental Right-Protection against conviction-Police Officer 
refusing offer of bribe, but nshing accused to produce notes-Such pro-
duction, if under compulsion-Conviction based on such notcs-
V alidity-Constitution of India, Art. 20 (J). Apj>eal against acqu.it-
tal-Appearancc by Counsel for accused in appeal-Non-service of 
notice· on accused, ifkvitiates conviction-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
I898 (Act v of I898,) s. 422. 
The appellant was tried by the Special Judge Tiruchirappalli 
under s. r65A of Indian Penal Code for attempting to bribe K, a 
Deputy Superintendent of Police. 
The prosecution case was that 
in connection with the investigation by the Inspector of Police of 
a case involving the appellant, the latter went to K's bungalow 
and presented to him a closed envelope, that when °K found that 
it contained currency notes he threw it away which the appellant 
picked up, that thereupon K asked the appellant to produce the 
currency notes and the appellant complied with the demand that 
K then gave information to a Magistrate about the attempt made 
by the appellant to offer him a bribe. The Special Judge acquit-
ted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court accepted the 
prosecution case and convicted the accused. In the High Court 
Counsel for the appellant entered appearance before notice of 
appeal under s. 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was issued 
to the appellant and when the appeal was ready for hearing inti-
mation was given under therulestotheSpecial judge to commu-
nicate to the appellant about the appeal filed against him. The 
questions for determination-were (1) \vhether the protection under 
Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India had been violated by ask-
ing the accused to produce the currency notes, and (2) whether 
the provisions of s. 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, had 
not been complied \Vi th because notice of the appeal had not been 
served on the appellant. 
Held, (r) that there was no contravention of Art. 20(3) as the 
appellant v.1as not in the position of a person accused of an 
offence \vhen he v.'as asked to produce the currency notes and 
that, in any case, on the facts proved the appellant was not com-
pelled to be a witness against him. 
M. P. Sharma v. SatishChandra and others,[r954]S.C.R. ro77. 
considered. 
(2) that in an appeal under s. 417 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure under s. 422 notice of the appeal has to be given to 
the accused, but where, as in the present case, the High Court 
found on the facts that the appellant was fully apprised of the 
time and place at which the appeal would be heard, and counsel 
-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
117 
appeared on his behalf and argued the appeal the fact that a for-
r960 
mal notice of the appeal was not served on him would not vitiate 
-
the conviction. 
Mohamed Dastagir 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
v. 
Appeal No. 137 of 1957. 
State of Madras 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated Octo-
ber 31, 1956, of the Madras High Court in Criminal 
Appeal No. 20/1956. 
· 
C. B. Aggarwala, S. N. Andley, J.: B. Dadachanji, 
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, for the respon-
dent. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, H.J. 
Umrigar_ and T. M. Sen, for the Intervener (Union of 
India). 
1960, February, 26. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
· 
IMAM, J.--This is an appeal on a certificate gran-
ted by the High Court of Madras. 
The appellant was tried by the Special Judge of 
Tiruchirappalli under s. 165A of the Indian Penal 
Code for attempting to bribe Mr. Kaliyappan, Deputy 
Superintendent of Police of Ramanathapuram. The 
Special Judge came to the conclusion that the charge 
framed against the accused had not been established. 
He, accordingly, acquitted the appellant. Against 
the order of acquittal the State of Madras appealed to 
the High Court of Madras under s. 417 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure. The High Court came to the 
conclusion that the evidence established that the 
appellant had attempted to bribe the aforesaid Deputy 
Superintendent of Police. It accordingly convicted 
the appellant under s. 165A, Indian Penal Code and 
sentenced him to 6 month's rigorous imprisonment 
and a fine of Rs. l ,000, in default, to undergo furth

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