MOHANDAS LALWANI versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 11-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

636 
MOHANDAS LALWANI 
v. 
TiiE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
September ll, J973 
[H. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGmISWAMI, JJ.) 
Indian Penal Code, s. 165-Appel/afll attempted to bribe the Chiei Engi· 
neer to aecure a contract-Trial Court acquitted but High Court convicted and 
sent,nced the appellant- Whether High C?urt has power of review the entire 
t•vidtnce under s. 417, Cr. P.C. 
The accused-appeliant was acquitted by the Special Judge, Bhopal, but con· 
victed by the High Court under s. 165·A I.P.C., and sentenced to one year's 
rigorous in1pri~onment. The pro~ecution case is that on 1\pril 9, 
1966, 
the 
Chief Engineer (Construction) of ff.eavy Electricals Ltd. \Vas present in hi! 
office. The a12pellant-accused went there for an interview with two others. It is 
allef<d that the accused-appellant offered a bribe cf Rs. 3 OfJO/· to tho Chief 
Engineer and requested him to give the contract for which tenders were sub-
n1itteJ earlier by 4 contractors. On being refused. the appe Hant put back the 
currency notes in his pocket. 
P.W. 5. the Personal Assistant of the Chief Engi-
neer. is alleged to have taken out the envelOpe containing the curren~y no.es 
from the trouser-pocJet of the accused and thereafter, the Chief Engineer made 
a report to the Police and the accused and the report were sent ~o the Police 
Station. The First Information Report was prepared in the PoJice Station on 
lhe basis of the report (P-1) and a case was registered against the o.ccused . 
.. \ complaint about the occurrence was thereafter filed in the Court _of the 
Special Judge, Bhopal, by the Police. At the trial, the Chi,f Engineer, (P.W. I) 
gave evidence in support of the prosecution and witnesses were examined by 
both sides. 
The trial Court did not believe wholly the prosecution casz and 
gave the accused the benefit of doubt. 
A 
B 
c 
I) 
On appeal, the High Court considered the evidence on record, and convicted 
.E 
the accused. 
In appeal before this Court, the appellant had assailed the judgment of the 
1-ligh Court and had contended that there was no sufficient ground for the High. 
Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal of the Trial Court. If two views, 
according to the counsel were possible in the matter, the view which was 
favourable to the accused, as had been taken by the Trial Court, should be 
adopted. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) There is no cogent ground as to why the evidence of P.W. l 
~houJd not be accepted. The witness had no animus against the :"J.ccused. 1 The 
witness even did not know the accused till the day of occurrence. There is no 
particular reason as to why P. W. I shoJud falsely involve the accused in this 
case. 
(ii) The vievv taken by the Trial Court in rejecting !he e'fidence of P.W. l 
was clear1y unreasonable and the High Court had the cogent grounds to interfere 
with the judgment of ac<JUittal passed bv the Trial Court. Further, the High 
Coun in reversing the order of acquittal considered the matters on record, in· 
eluding the reasons given by the Trial Court, as well as those aspects which 
could riossibly be . claimed by the accused to be favourable to him. 
[643 BJ 
Tvmu Ambu Vish v. State of Maluzraslzlra, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2256, referred 
to and distinguished. 
(iii) It is well settled that the High Court in appeal, under s. 417 of Cr. 
P .C., bas full power to review at large the evid~nce on which the order of 
acquittal was founded and reach the conclusion that upon the evidenCe 
the 
G 
H 
A 
• 
c 
D 
F 
H 
MOHANDAS v. M.P. STATE (Khanna, /.) 
637 
order of acquittal. should be reverseo_. 
No limitation should be pl""" upon 
fhat power unless 1t be found expressly stated in the Code~ but in exercising the 
power. conferred by the ~ode, and be~ore reaching its conclusion upon fact, 
the H;gh C?urt sho.uld give prol":r weight and considerations to the followin1 
matters :-(1) tho views of the T;ial Judge as to tho credibility of the witnesses 
(ii) the presumption of innocence Jn favour of the accused (iii) the right of 
.the accuse~ to !he benefi! of any doubt. and (iv) the slowness of an appellate 
court 1n d1sturb1ng a finding of fact arnved at by a judge who had the advan-
tage of seeing the witnesses. 
Therefore, from the matters on record and after 
consiJering the judgment of the trial court and the High Cou.rt, we are firmly 
of the opinion that the trial ·Is not vitiated by any such fnfi.rmity as may can· 
for interference by lhis Court. 
[643EJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE J

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