STATE OF M.P. versus HARISHANKAR BHAGWAN PD. TRIPATHI

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 1148 · Decided: 13-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 1148 
STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
HARISHANKAR BHAGWAN PD. TRIPATHI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1513 of 2010) 
AUGUST 13, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - s.5(1)(d) rlw s. 5(2), 
s.6(1)(c) ands. 161 /PC - Prosecution for demand and 
C acceptance of illegal gratification -
Of two accused -
Complaint for demand of illegal gratification against one 
accused - Trap arranged - Tainted notes recovered from both 
the accused - Acquittal by courts below - Appeal before 
Supreme Court - Appeal against the accused who demanded 
D bribe, abated on account of his death - Held: Possession of 
tainted currency notes by the respondent-accused has not 
been explained by the defence - The order granting sanction 
does not suffer from any infirmity- Matter remitted to trial court 
for decision on merits -
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 161. 
E 
The respondent-accused, alongwith another accused 
was tried for offences u/s 161 IPC ands. 5 (1) (d}, r/w s. 5 
(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7. The 
prosecution case was that the o~her accused demanded 
illegal gratification from the complainant for issuing him 
F an excise licence. The respondent-accused was working 
as a 'clerk' in that establishment. A trap was arranged on 
the complaint of the complainant made before the office 
of Lokayukt. The othec accused, after receiving the 
tainted currency notes from the complainant, gave two 
G of the tainted notes (Rs. 200/-) to the respondent-
accused. 
Trial court, though found the trap to have been 
proved, yet acquitted both the accused on the ground 
H 
1148 
STATE OF M.P. v. HARISHANKAR BHAGWAN PD. 1149 
TRI PATH I 
that the sanction u/s. 6(1)(c) of the Act, to prosecute the 
A 
accused had been granted without application of mind. 
The appeal against the order was dismissed by the High 
Court on the ground tha~, there was no proper sanction. 
As regards respondent-~ccused, the dismissal of the 
appeal was on the grounds that there was no demand 
B 
from him and mere recovery of Rs. 200/- from his 
possession, was not sufficient to hold him guilty. The 
instant appeal was filed by way of SLP against both the 
accused. During pendency of the SLP, the accused who 
had· demanded the bribe, died and thus the appeal c 
against him abated. 
Allowing the appeal, and remitting the matter to trial 
court, the Court 
HELD: Both the courts below have come to an 
D 
erroneous finding that although the trap had been 
proved, the circumstances in which a sum of Rs. 200/-
was recovered from the respondent-accused, had not 
been properly considered. No attempt was made by the 
defence to explain as to how the tainted currency came 
E 
to be in the possession of the respondent-accused, 
except for the statement that the same had been handed 
over to him by the deceased accused. Unless there was 
an understanding between the respondent-accused and 
the deceased accused, there can be no reason f.or the 
F 
deceased accused to have given the respondent-
accused a part of the money which he had received by 
way of illegal gratificatibn. [Para 12] [1155-B-D] 
2. The reasoning of the trial court as also the High 
Court in dismissing the case of the prosecution, on the G 
ground that proper sanction was not obtained to 
prosecute the accused persons, was not correct. The 
records 'of the Lokayukt's office had been examined by 
the Principal Secretary of the State Government, while 
granting such sanction for prosecution. While granting 
H 
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A sanction, the officer concerned is not required to indicate 
that he had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived 
at the satisfaction for granting sanction. The narration of 
events granting sanction for prosecution clearly indicates 
the case and the reason for grant of such sanction. In the 
8 instant case, the order granting sanction does not suffer 
from any infirmity which prompted the courts below to 
acquit the accused persons. The matter is remitted to the 
trial court for passing appropriate orders on the merits 
of the case. [Paras 12 and 13] [1155-E-H; 1156-A-B] 
c 
D 
State of Maharahstra vs. lshwar Piraji Kalpatri and Ors. 
1996 (1) sec 542 - relied on. 
C.S. Krishnamurthy vs. State of Karnataka 2005 (4) SCC 
81 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2005 (4) sec 81 
1996 (1 l sec 542 
Referred to. 
Relied on. 
Para 9 
Para 13 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1513 of 2010. 
From t

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