RAJENDRA KUMAR CHATURVEDI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 04-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
it 
\ 
A 
c 
D 
E 
RAJENDRA KUMAR CHATURVEDI 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
April 4, 1974 
IM. H. BEG AND R. S. SARKARIN, JJ .] 
SH 
Practice-:-Criminal P1'octdllre-Dismissal of appeal b)' High Court sum-
r.1a. U_v-D11f)• tn Rh•e a r~tucned onler. 
lbc Soeciat JudJe, after a very thorough. and careful assessment of the whole 
evidence ·in the cue. had come to the conclusion that the prosecution case 
apimt the appelluit was established beyond reasonable doubt and convicted 
him· under sections 1208 as well as 161 read with s. 34 l.P.C. and also under 
se:tions S(l)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The 
High Court dismisaed the ~ppellant's appeal 
summarily without 
giving 
any 
reasons. 
DismissinR the apeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( t) It is necessary for the High Courts, even when they dismiss 
criminal -3Rpeals summarily on facts found, to record the reason'i briefly. 
It 
is often difficult in a criminal case to say whether any material error was 
committed by the trial court in arriving at its findings of fact without atleast 
some e;xamination and consideration of the main features of the evidence- which 
only a reasoned order would disclose. [85 I E-G] 
(2) An examination of the evidence by this Court, because ·of such summary 
dismissal, ho~ver, sho\VS that the findings of the trial court must be up-held. 
it must be deemed that the High Court had affirmed the findings of the trial . 
Co~rt when it dismissed the appeal summarily, and therefore, there is no reason 
·to depart from the general rule that this Court will .not interfere with con-
current findings of fact except under very exceptional circumstances. [851 D-El 
B. c. Go.swanii ·V • . Del/ii Administration, followed. 
CRIMINAL APPEi.LATE JurusmcnoN : Criminal Appeal No. 200 
of 1970. 
· 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
13th October, 1970 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Crimi-
F 
nal Appeal No. 1112 of 1970. 
G 
H 
S. N. Misra and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant. 
M. C. Bhandare and S. P. Nayer, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BEG, J.-J"he Special Judge of Greater Bombay tried the appeal-
iant, a Su6 lnsP"ctor in the Railway Production Force, togeth·~r with 
three other members of the Force, serving under him, on charges for , 
offences punishable under· Section 120B and 161 Indian Penal Code 
and Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
It was ·alleged that the appellant1 and tlle Rakshaks serving under him 
at Bhusaval Central Railway Station had conspired to extort mol)ey 
from Shivaji Ogale, P.W.2, a merchant owning property and goods 
estimated by him at Rs. 1,50,000/-, ?nd paying Income,tax and Sales-
t~x. The .appellant is alleged to h~ve stopped Shivaji from removing ' 
his goods from the goods yard ori the ground thai the .truck brought 
L84Sup.Cl/74 
, 
8~8 
SUPREMil COURT REPORTS 
[1974] 3 S.C.R. 
b~ ~im was parked at tl\e wrong place. Tl!e ap!J!!llant, with the Jielp 
A 
ot his Rakshaks/ was said to ha.ve threatened Kalandar Khan, P. W. 3, 
the driver oi the truck, and to ha·1c actually handcuffed him and tied 
· him With a rope and taken him to the appellant's office at some dis-
tance from the goods ~'Ord. Shivaji was himself said to be present at 
the scene at that time which wan about 4 p.m. on 17-1-1968. The 
appellant and his co-accus:d, Hari Rachu, were 
alleged to have 
demanded Rs. 20:J/- as bribe for releasing the truck driver without 
B 
whom the truck could not be driven away. The vexed Shivaji. is said 
to have fallen at the feet of the appellant and to have begged him to 
release his driver. The appellant then reduced his demanu to Rs. 100/-. 
Shivaji is said to have sent his son Sarjearao, P.W. 4, to his shop to 
get Rs. !OW- which were hroug.~t in Rs. 101- notes within half an 
hour and handed over to the extortionists. The appellant is said to 
hav~ released the driver and allowed ·the truck to go away after this 
C 
payment had been actually made. 
The Special Judge had e~amined the whole evidence in great 
detail. He observed about Shivaji, P.W. 2: 
"It saw his demeanour when he was in the witness box 
and it ne-1er appeared to me that he was gifted with krtile 
D 
imagination or that the present prosecution was the product 
of a deliberate conspiracy between him, Vishwanath, Vasant 
and Rambabu Kate as alleged by the Learned Advocates for 
the accused. Had they really intended to do so, their natural 
co

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