LexSTATE OF A.P. versus M. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 67 STATE OF A.P. V. M. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY Criminal Appeal No. 386 of 2002 MARCH 6, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] A B Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7, 13(2) rw s. 13(1)(d) - Conviction under, for demanding and accepting bribe - Acquittal by High Court relying on Hari Dev Sharma's C case that since part of prosecution case version about demand and acceptance not proved, remaining part of the case cannot be accepted - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - In Hari Dev Sharma's case no rule of universal application laid down that whenever aipart of case relating to demand and D acceptance is not acceptable, whole case would fail even if case relating to trap, recovery of money and chemical test by prosecution is established - When part of prosecution version relating to demand and acceptance of bribe stands by itself, ratio of decision not applicable. E Precedents -Applicability of- General principles - Held: Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed - Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's F theorems nor as provisions of statute - It must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Prosecution case was that the respondent-Excise Inspector demanded Rs. 4,000/- as bribe from the G complainant. It accepted Rs. 2,000/- as bribe. Subsequently, a trap was laid and accused was caught receiving bribe from the complainant. Trial court convicted and sentenced the respondent under sections 7, 13(2) 67 H 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A read with sections 13(1)(d) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988. High Court relying on decision by this Court in Hari Dev Sharma vs. State (Delhi Admn.), acquitted the respondent since first part of prosecution version about demand and acceptance was not proved, the remaining B part of the case could not be accepted. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Courts should not place reliance on c decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These 0 observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges E interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. [Para 6] [72-G-H; 73-A-B] 1.2 Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or diffe- F rent fact may make a world of difference between conclu- sions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. [Para 8] (73-G-H) 2. On a bare reading of the judgment in Hari Dev Sharma's case, it is clear that no rule of universal G application was laid down that whenever a part of the case relating to demand and acceptance is not acceptable, the whole case would fail even if the case relating to trap, recovery of money and chemical test by the prosecution is established. When part of the prosecution version H relating to demand and acceptance of bribe stands by • STATE OF A.P. V. M. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY 69 itself, the ratio of the decision does not apply. Unfor- A tunately, in the instant case, the High Court lost sight of the aforesaid aspects and by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision directed acquittal. Thus, the judgment of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside and that of the trial court is restored [Paras 5 and 1 O] [72- 8 E-G; 74-D-E] Hari Dev Sharma v. State (Delhi Admn.) 1977 (3) SCC 352 - referred to. London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton 1951 AC 737; Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. 1970 (2) All ER 294; C · Herrington v. British Railways Board 1972 (2) WLR 537 - referred to. Case Law Reference 1977 (3) sec 352 Referred to. Para 2 1951 AC 737 Referred to. Para 6 1970 (2) All ER 294 Referred to. Para 7 1972 (2) WLR 537 Referred to. Para 7 CRI
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.