SOM PARKASH versus STATE OF DELHI

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 25-01-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

200 
SOM PARKASH 
v. 
STATE OF DELHI 
January 25, 1974 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ. ') 
Preventwn of Corrupt/011 Act, 1947_,.S(l)(d) and S(Z)-Whether trapping of 
co"upt officials q polluted procedure-Whether inl·estigating officers a suspect specles-
WhetMr chemical test reliable. 
The appellant, an Inspector of Central Excise, was charged under s.161, I.P.C. · 
and S.S(l)(d) read with s.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac~ 1947for having 
acoepted a bribe. He was convicted and sentenced by the Special ]udge. Tho 
High Court confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to one year's imprf .. 
sonment. 
Th~ ·allegation against the appellant was that he accepted a sum of Rs. SO/- as 
iilegal gratification, At the instance of the complainant the raiding police party 
passed on to the appellant currenc~r notes. worth Rs. 50 smeared with a chemical 
substance. On recovery of the money from his pocket traces of the chemical subs. 
tance were found ~n his fingers his kerchief and his trouser pocket. 
It was contended (i) that trapping of corrupt officials in the usual course is a pot .. 
luted procedure (ii) the investigating officers arc a susp.ect species and (iii) the che-
mical test was not reliable. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: It is not possible to accede to the theory that the trapping of corrupt 
officials in the usual course is a pol1uted procedure. Our social milieu is so vitiated 
by a superstitious belief that any official can be activised by illegal gratification, so 
confidential is the technique of giye and take in which the white.collar offender is 
an adept and so tough is the forensic problem of proof beyond reasonable doubt by 
good testimony in this area that the only hope of tracking down the tricky officers is 
by lying traps and creating statutory presumptions. Condemn2tion of all traps and 
associate witnesses is neither pragrnatic nor just. nor is it. fair to denounce -all public 
servants indiscriminately. Judjcial attitudes have to be discriminating. An awk'ard 
judicial conscience and an alert critical appraisal ·are the best tools in this process. 
[202 G; 203 A] 
(ii) Courts are aware of the exaggerated criticisms of the police force as a whole 
and of the reluctance of the framers of the Criminal Procedure Code to trust state .. 
ments recorded by police investigators, but these are, partly at least, the hangover of 
the British past. Today trust begets trust and the higher officers of the Jildian police, 
especially in the Special Police Establishment, deserve better credence. [203 D·E] 
(iii) The evidence furnished b~ 
~norganic chemistry often outwits the technology 
of corrupt officials, provided no aiternative reasonable possibility is made out. It 
is but meet that science-oriented detection of crime is made a massive programme of 
police work, for in our technological age nothing more primitive can be conceived 
of than denying the discoveries of the sciences as aids to crime suppression and nothing 
cruder can retard forensic efficiency than swearing by traditional oral evidence 
only thereby discouraging liberal use of scientific research to prove guilt. {204 EJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 143 
of 1970. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 31st 
October, 1969 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Criminal 
Appeal No. 70 of 1967. 
The appellant appeared in person. 
H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SOM PARKASH v. DELHI (Krishna Iyer,/.) 
201 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER J. The appellant, a quondam inspector of Central 
Excise, has argued his case with perspicacity and plausibility, taking 
liberal advantage of our solicitude for giving this lay man a lengthy 
hearing. The charge broadly stated, is one of corruption falling 
under s.161,1.P.C. ands. 5(J)(d), read with s.5(2), of the preven~ion of 
Corruption Act, 1947 ; the proof of guilt is built on a trap laid by the 
Special ·police Establishment, apparantly clinched by processes of 
chemical detection ; and the uphill task of the accused is to challenge 
in this Court, under art. 136, the concurrent findings upholding his 
culpability. Undaunted he has attempted to explain the incriminating 
evidence with adroitness worthy of a better cause and has taken 
us critically through the testimony of the P. W.s in an effort to 
substantiate a credib

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