NARINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 609 · Decided: 25-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 609 
NARINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1564 f 2014) 
JULY25,2014 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND M. Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- s. 12 -Allegation 
A 
B 
c 
that appellant attempted to give bribe to ADM, Bharmourfor 
inducing him, a public servant, to exercise his influence to 
give appellant supply orders for the supply of double-decker 
beds by corrupt or illegal means - Trial Court acquitted the 0 
appellant /Jy giving him benefit of doubt - High Court set 
aside the judgment of trial Court, and convicted appellant u/ 
s. 12 - Propriety of - Held: On facts, proper, as charges made 
against the appellant were proved by the prosecution - High 
Court discussed the evidence of PWs as also DWs and E 
recorded a conclusive finding about the guilt of the appellant! 
accused on analyzing the entire .evidence - Even if part of 
investigation was carried out by an AS/ (PW-7), it cannot be 
said to be illegal - No serious prejudice was caused to 
·appellant by reason of the investigation carried out - High 
F 
Court rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a tribal area, 
there is a single line administration and lot of power is vested 
with the Resident Commissioner since the heads of various 
departments or competent authorities are not available in 
Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also G 
the Resident Commissioner, Bharmour- Trial Court did not 
consider the gravity of the offence as contemplated under 
th() 1988Act. 
609 
H 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
The prosecution case was that the accused-
appellant attempted to give a bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the 
complainant - PW-8, the then Additional District 
Magistrate, Bharmourfor inducing him, a public servant, 
to exercise his influence to give appellant supply orders 
B for the supply of double-decker beds by corrupt or illegal 
means. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the 
charge by giving him the benefit of doubt. In appeal filed 
by the State under Section 378 CrPC, the High Court set 
aside the judgment of the trial Court, and convicted the 
C appellant under Section 12 of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 and imposed upon him sentence 
of six months. Hence, the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD:1. The impugned judgment reveals that the 
High Court discussed the evidence of the prosecution 
witnesses as also the evidence of the defence 
witnesses. On analyzing the entire evidence, the High 
Cou~ recorded a conclusive finding about the guilt of 
E the appellant/accused. It is evident that PW-7 who was 
posted as ASl/10 in the Bharmour Police Station 
requested the SHO to depute a gazette officer to 
investigate the matter. Even if the part of investigation 
F had been carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be 
illegal. Nothing has been said from the side of the 
defence that serious prejudice was caused to the · 
accused by reason of the investigation carried out. The 
High Court rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a 
G tribal area, there is a single line administration and lot of 
power is vested with the Resident Commissioner since 
the heads of various departments or competent 
authorities are not available in Bharmour, and at that time 
the ADM-complainant was also the Resident 
H Commissioner, Bharmour. [Para 11][615-G-H; 616-A-C] 
NARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
611 
2. The prosecution proved charges made against A 
the appellant. The provisions of law considered by the 
High Court ought to have been followed by the Trial 
. Court. The Trial Court decided the matter as if the offence 
has been committed by the appellant under the 
provisions of Penal code and did not consider the gravity B 
of the offence as contemplated under the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988. In the facts and circumstances of 
the case and seriousness of the offence, the view taken 
by the High Court needs no interference. [Paras 12, 13] 
[616-C-F] 
C 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 1564 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13/06/2012 in 
CRLA No. 169/2008, 09/07/2012 in CRLA No. 169/2008 D 
passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shim la. 
Tarun Gupta, S.L. Gupta, Virender Singh and Upendra · 
Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant. 
Surya Narain Singh,AAG, Ms. Pragati Neekhra and Ms. 
E 
Tulika Prakash, Advs., for the ·Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Lea

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