LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SHAMBHOOGIRI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN
A
v.
SHAMBHOOGIRI
OCTOBER 12, 2004
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN,H.]
B
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
ss. 2 (h) and 5·A-Investigatiotr-Complaint of illegal gratification made
to SDM-He verified the currency notes received in bribery, prepared recovery C
memo and sent the same to Superintendent of Police along with the complaint-
Conviction by trial court-Acquittal by High Court holding that SDM was not
authorized to investigate into the case-Held, investigation under the Act
would start after the complaint was given by SDM to Superintendent of Police-
Matter remitted to High Court for decision afresh.
D
PW·l, resident of a village under the Police Station wherein the
respondent was a constable, was facing a case in the court of the Sub-
Divisional M:agistrate. The respondent arrested PW-1 under s.110 Cr.P.C.
and demanded from him Rs.500 as illegal gratification. PW-I gave Rs.300
to the respondent and thereafter, made a written complaint and got it E
handed over to the SDM with currency notes of Rs.200. The SDM noted
the numbers of the currency notes and gave them back to P.W. I. When
the respondent demanded money from PW-I, the latter gave the same to
the former in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, SDM called the respondent
in his chambers and recovered currency notes of Rs.200 from his pocket.
On verification, the numbers of the notes tallied with those noted by the F
SDM. The SDM prepared a recovery memo and sent the same to the
Superintendent of Police along with the complaint. A case under s.I 6I IPC
and ss. 5(I){d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, I947 was
registered. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption
Department collected the documents and filed the challan against the G
respondent. The respondent was convicted of the offences charged. In the
appeal filed by the respondent before the High Court, it was contended
that the complaint was lodged before the SOM who was not the person
authorized to investigate the case, as mentioned in s.5-A of the Act. The
337
H
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. S S.C.R.
A High Court set aside the conviction holding that the trial was vitiated
owing to the investigation having been'conducted by ~he SDM. ·. _ /
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter lo the High Court,
the Court
.
..
·
·
.--- '
: .. •...
;;.:,
•
B
HELD: 1.1. The High Court erred in holding that the SDM
conducted the investigation as he laid the trap and recovered the notes.
On getting the information, the SDM ascertained the veracity of the
allegation. He prepared the recovery memo and sent the same to the
Superintendent of Police along with the complaint. Thus, the SDM was
C not doing any investigation. The investigation of the crime, as defined in
s.2{h) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, would start only after
the complaint is given by the SDM to the Superintendent of Police {Anti-
Corruption). [342-A, C, D,[
1.2. Every citizen is competent and entitled to detect crimes and
-D report and, if any, information regardi_ng the commission of any crime is
known to any person, such information can be passed on to the rolice or
any other competent authority for taking appropriate action. If a crime
is committed in the presence ofany citizen, he can very well ascertain the
truth of the fact and make all efforts to bring home the guilt of the accused.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate had only discharged his duties as a law-
E abiding citizen and the allegation that SDM had conducted investigation
F
.G
·of the case is incorrect. [342-F, G, HI
·
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 955
of 2003.
.
.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.1.200 I of the Rajasthan High
Court in S.B. Crl. A. No. 198 of 1983.
Ms: Madhudma Taiia for Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellant.
: B.D. Sham1a for the Respondent.
· The Judgment of th~ Court was delivered by
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. This appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 16.01.200 l ·passed by the High Court of Rajasthan
at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1983 whereby the High Court
H allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein. The said appeal before the
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SHAMBHOOQIRI [LAKSHMANAN, J.]
339
High Court was directed against the order dated 03.05.I983 passed by the A
Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 47 of
I 978 convictExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.