LexNIRANJAN PATNAIK versus SASHIBHUSAN KAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
470
V•
APRIL 11, 1986
[V. BAI.AKRISHNA EHADI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India, Art. 136/Criminal Procedure Code,~
1973, s. 482 - High Court making disparaging remarks against
prosecution witness - Expunction of by the Supreme Court.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 : s. 8 - Prosecution
C
witness - Immunity of from prosecution under s. 165-A of the
D
E
F
G
H
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
~
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. 4(1)/Indian Penal~
Code,
1860,
s.
161
-
Accused
not denying receipt of
money/seizure of currency notes from his possession - Burden
of proof - Whether shifts to the accused.
---
Criminal trial -
Evidence pertaining
to
a
previous
offence not subject-matter of the charge - Whether needs to be
critically examined.
The appellant was a licensee of an iron ore mine where
P.W.2 was employed as his manager. The first respondent was
the Senior Mining Officer for the area. On a complaint by the
manager that the first respondent had been extracting illegal
gratification at the rate of rupees one thousand per month ,..-
during January, February and March 1979 from P.W.2 for
allowing mining operations to be carried on peacefully and.J
suddenly raised the demand to rupees two thousand per month, a
trap was laid by the vigilance police and marked currency
nctes of the value of rupees two thousand tendered to the
first respondent were recovered from his brief case. The
receipt of the illegal gratification was denied by him but no
explanation was ·offered for the possession of the currency
notes.
Before the trial court the defence of the accused
first respondent, was that the mney was given by way of
doo.ation for the welfare projects launched by the Mining
Officers • Club. 'l'be appellant was cited as a prosecution
~. PATMIK. v. SASHIBHUSAN KAR
471
. '1 witness {P.W.8) to corroborate the testimony that his manager
:!
had informed him of having parted with a sum of rupees three
1
..
thousand to the first respondent during the first three months
of 1979, and subsequently about the trap that had been laid.
The trial court rejecting the belated explanation of the first
f
'l
respondent found him guilty under s. 5(2) read with s.5(l)(d)
of the Act and s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and convicted
}.
~ and sentenced him.
I
The High Court while setting aside the conviction and
sentence of the first respondent, observed that the appellant
P. ~
and his manager being accomplices to the commission of the
I
crime. having willingly played the role of bribe givers for
f
three months, the evidence of these self-condemned persons,
~!
.,. who, on their own showing had thrown moral scruples and sense
·
of honesty, if they had any • to the winds, would be unworthy
of credit without corroboration in material particulars.
In his appeal to this
Court by special leave the
appellant (P. W. 8) sought expunction of the aforesaid highly
derogatory remarks made against him by the High Court,
. #
contending that the failure of the Court to apply the legal
presumptions against the first respondent led it to the making
of uncalled for caustic comments against him, and that the
receipt of bribe during the earlier months not being the
subject matter of the charge there was no need for the Court
t
to have critically examined the evidence of the appellant on
l
that aspect of the matter.
I
:~ /'.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
UFJJ):
1. Harsh and disparaging remarks are not to be
made against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into
consideration before courts of law unless it is really
necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part
thereof to animadvert on that conduct. (483 B)
._
' State of U.P. v. Hnba-ed NBD. (1964] 2 S.C.R. 363;
' LL J.aksbmanao v. A.L Srinivasan & Anr •• [1976] l S.C.R.. 204
and Pam:Juman BaDerji v. Upeodra Math Bbattacbarji• A. I. R.
1927 All.·l93, referred to.
In the instant case, the derogatory remarks made against
·- ·- - ----·--
A
I
. I
I
B
1 j.
c
D
E
F
G
H
:
t
i
'I
;
1 .. ..
t
'·
..
I ,
'•
)
..
;
A
B
c
D
r:
F
G
:
I
H
'
47'2
SUP~ffi COURT REPORTS
(1986} 2 S.C.[{.
. ' .
~·
the appellant · were neither justified nor called for. These ~
shall stand expunged from the judgment under appeal. Having \ \
regard to the hearsay nature of evidence of the appellant it . · [
was not at all . necessary for the appellate court to have . ·
castigateExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.