LexRAM KRISHAN AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1956 March 9 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS RAM KRISHAN AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF DELHI (with connected appeal) [1956] [VIVIAN BosE, B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.] Prevention of Corruption-"Obtains", Meaning of-Railway Servants, if public servants-Laying of traps-Propriety-Preven- tion of Corruption Act (II of 1947), s. 5(l)(d), sub·s.ction (2)- Indian Railways Act (IX of 1890) as amended by Act XVII of 1955. s. 187. The appellants were suspected of exporting potatoes at conces· sional rates on false declarations and Madan Lal, a Railway Officer, was deputed to assist the Police in the investigation. In course of that investigation the appellants offered a bribe to Madan Lal for hushing up the case but he refused to accept it. As they persisted in their offer a trap was laid in Madan Lal's house and it succeeded. Two Police Officers and a Magistrate heard the conversation from the adjoining room and saw 'the payment of the bribe through a hole. The appellants were charged under s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for criminal Conspiracy to cause the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under s. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act of 194 7 to be committed by Madan Lal as also under that section read with s. 116 of the Indian Penal Code. They were convicted by the Special Judge on both the counts and their convictions were up- held by the High Court. The contentions on their behalf were that s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had no application to the facts of the case, that Madan Lal was not a public servant with· in the meaning of the Act and, lastly, that the laying of the trap was an invitation to commit the crime and afforded a good reason for reduction of the sentences. Held, that the contentions were untenable and must be rejected. That the word "obta.ins" occurring in clause (d) to sub·section (1) of s. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not exclude the idea of acceptance of a bribe on offer, and a public servant, whether he simply accepts a bribe, or solicits or extorts it, thereby obtains a pecuniary e.dvantage by abusing his position as a public servant and commits an offence under that section 1 any consideration as to motive or reward for showing favour or disfavour being altogether irrelevant. That as a result of the amendment of s. 137 of the Indian Rail- ways Act by the Amendment Act of 1955 all railway servants have become public servants not only for the limited purposes of Ch. IX S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 183 of the Indian Penal Code but generally underthe Prevention of Cor· ruption Act. 1956 RamKrishan That it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule that the laying and another of traps, especially in cases of this nature, should be deprecated as v. constituting an invitation to commit an offence and an offence thus The State of Delhi detected does not lose its gravity thereby so as to call for a lenient sentence. Where, however, proper limits are exceeded and the money to be given as bribe is supplied by the Police, it must be severely condemned. Brennan v. Peek ([194 7] 2 All E.R. 572), considered. Rao Shiv Bahad1ir Singh and another v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh ([1954) S.C.R. 1098) and Ram:janam Singh v. The State of Bihar, (Cr. Appeal No. 81 of 1953), referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 43 and 44 of 1954. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23rd October 1953 of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi in Crimi- nal Appeal No. 24-D of 1953 arising out of the judg- ment and order dated the 26th August 1953 of the Court of Special Judge, Delhi in Corruption Case No. 10 of 1953. Jai Gopal Sethi and Naunit Lal for the Appellants in Cr. A. No. 43 of 1954. Pritam Singh Safeer, for the Appellant in Cr. A. No. 44 of 1954. 0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, Porus A. Mehta, H. R. Khanna and P. G. Gokhale, for the respondent in both appeals. 1956. March 9. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CRANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J.-Ram Kishan, the first appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 43, is a partner- proprietor in the firm of Kundan Lal Raja Ram of Saharanpur. Prem Chand, the second appellant, is a partner in the firm of Narain Prasad and Prem Chand in the same place. The appellant, Gian Chand, is the munim of a firm called Lekh Raj Shambhu Nath. Some of the Saharanpur mt'lrchants, including 1956 Ra
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.