STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus NARSINGRAO GANGARAM PIMPLE

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 27-10-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

r
~
\
~·.
621
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
NARSINGRAO GANGARAM PIMPLE
· October 27, 1984
Prevention of Corruption Act~S. 5(1) (a) and 5(2) and •· 161. of 1-P.C:-
. Accused prosecuted/or demdndlng and accepting Illegal gratification..:CTrial Court
convicted ·and sentenced the accused~High Court a,cquitted the accused-Whether
and when Supreme Court should interfere.
What ;hould be judicial .approaeh to
ev.ldence of witnesses in a trap ca4e. _ · ... ·
,
A
B
c
. .
. The respondent,~· Sub~ln~pe~to~ of Police, \Vas charged under s. 161 ,of
. ·ihe Indian Penal Code and also under. SS. 5(1) (a) and 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. .The prosecution case was that one Rego had filed a complaint
D
·. ~ains·t his tenant Walawalker, that_ ·he:. was running a distillary. ·· On. a narch·
of Walawalker's house made by P.W .. 8 Gangur~e, a police officer subordinate.
to. the respondent~ no trace Of distillary was found. The respondent", told
. RcgC that sijl.ce.ihe complaiJlt made by him was prima_facie fou_nd to: be fillse
he waS liable to:be prosecuted under-the Bomba·y Prohibition Act. The n~spon ..
·dent demanded ·froln Rege Rs. 2000 on·9-4-1972 as aratification· for not taking
E
_- a11y·action again~t--him and rcpe8ted· the ·same demand on 13-4:.1972. R,ege Was
directed to see the· respondent nearabout thC poliCe-.statiOn at a .place calICd
padavi. Rege out of despe~ation .. corit3.cted PW ll, M.S. ~haCnkar and.after
narrating his· story requested hirll to iay a trap in.order to catch the ~ccuscd,
R.ege also gave 20 hun(fred-rupee notes _to PW 11-which _he proposed ·,to hand~
over to the accused-at the .. time of' the trap .. The raiding party. reached padavi ·
, r.Ound iibout 7.c:>O P.M. and ·waited -for tho; respondent to come .. The respondent
F
appeared on tQe_scene-
~t about 8.30 P.M. and o~ seeing Reie. repeated hiS
demand fo·r the 3rd time, Rege g·aye the mOney to tho re~pOndent. nits ·was
watched by P.W. 11, P.W. 3 and soino others pf the raiding pacy. Thereafter
· Khamkar, PW 11, went into the room and tried fo hold the hands of the rcspon·
4ent who had inad_e an attempt tb take-out the n~te~ from ·the right sidC pOcket, -
of hii pant but desi>fte this tbe re!pondon~.succeeded in throwing out t\le notes:
As the moi:iey tlius passed'had,already' been treated With 8.ntbracbie powder, the
- .G
handS and the fiSht side pocket of th~ Rccused were put before the ultra violet
lamp and were found ~o be·staine'd wi~h-tbe said powder;
.
The trial court convicted and aentenced the respondent. under a:·5(1)(ay ·
and 5(2) of tho Prevention of Corruption Act. In appeal tho . High Court set
.aside the conviction aria serit(lnces. imposed upon the respondent. HCnce this
appeal J>y the State. The State argued that tliere was .. no real and meaningful
<liscu•.sion of the important evidence produced by tbe prosecution in .•upport or
H
B
c
D
E
F
,
G
H
SUPREMB COURT REPORTS ·
(1984j I s.c.R.
frs ca~e and.the mgh,CoUft had m~fely .Darrited-the !'Yiden~ without exaffiinina
Hs intrinsic inerit and had sidetrac.ked an issue which was not at all germane for
deciding this case. the respondent argued that the High Court having acquitted
the accused. this Court should very rclrely interfere with- the judgment of the
Hiah ·court and sh_otild do so only in cases where there ·wa·s a grave error of law
ot serious miscarriage of justice and that' too when the accused faced a trial for ·
several years and had been reinstated and prompted as an Inspector.
Allowing tho appeal,
•
HELD : The iudiment of the High Court suffers from serious and
s~bstanti81 errors of Jaw-:3.nd Jegai infirmities. This is-one.of those farestof rare
cases where this:Court would be failing'. in jts duty if it did not interfere .with the·
order of acquittal and set aside the judgment.of the High Court. ·on a full and
complete discussion of the facts and circumstances of the case ·the Court·. is· of
the opiniOn tbaf thC Charges against the· respondent-accused have· .. been .clca~JY
proved and his acquittal by the High Court was wrong both on law ·and, on
facts.· [644 E,FJ
.The resporident took .ao ingeq.ious though improbable defence that Rege
attempted to thrust the notes intO his pocket in .the prcsencC of Khamkar but he
pve·a push and.the notes fell ori the ground; ·thereby he tried to explain the
stains of.the.anthracine pow_der on.- his hands. While P.utting forward. this
·defence th~ respondent

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