LexSTATE OF U.P versus BHAIYA LAL VERMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 123 STATE OF U.P. II. BHAIYA LAL VERMA (Cr1minal Appeal No. 285 of 2001) JULY 7, 2008 lDR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ] , Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: A B .• s.5(2) and s.161 /PC - Government servant - Caught C ~ while accepting illegal-gratification - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court - Held: High Court recorded contra- dictory finpings - It noted that. marked currency notes were recovered from accused -· There was no reason to discard · evidence of prosecution witness - Order of High Court set . D aside -:- Conviction and sentence awarded by trial court re-_ stored -Penal Code, 1860- s.161. - The respondent-accus~d was prosecuted u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and s.161 IPC. PW- 3, an Ag~icultural Inspector, made a confidential complaint E to the DistricfMagistrate that th~31ccused, who was work- in~f in the office of the District Agri~ulture Project Officer, was harassing him by giving threats of recovery on the . basis of fictitious bills and demanded Rs.150/- from him. A trap yvas laid and the accused was caught with two F marked currency notes of Rs.100/-· and Rs.50/-. The trial . court convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigor- . ous imprisonment for two years under each count, and . directed him to pay a firie of Rs. 5,000/-. On appeal by the accused, the High Court acquitted him holding that re- G covery order against PW.3 had already been issued and thereafter the accused could not have frustrated the re- covery on any ground. Aggrieved, the State filed the in- stant appeal. 123 H 124 SUPREME COUR.T REPO_fnS [2908] 10 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court overlooked the fact that the recovery order against P.W.3 itself contained the sig- nature of the accused. There was thus no question of his 8 being not.involve-d·in the ·recovery. [para 6] [130-~ & B] .1.2. The High Court attached unnecessary impor- tance to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 to hold that they did not clearly hear the demand for bribe. It is contrary to the evidence on record. PW 2 stated that the appellant en- c quired from police party the reason fo.r his arrest. This is a ·very mateFia.I piece of evidence which hints at an ele- ment of surprise· ·m-th_~ conduct of the appellant instead of an exhibition of shocl<:--rrus_clearly supports prosecu- tion. case. of demand of bribe by appellant for stalling the 0 recovery. There was no reason indicated to discard the evidence of P.W 3. [para 7] [130-C,E & F] · 2.1. The· recovery-of the marked currency notes from the -accused has not been disputed. The evidence of PW 3 clearly establishes the demand and acceptance of bribe E and the recovery. The High Court noted that in the per- sonal search the marked currency notes were recovered from the accused. The High Court recorded contradic- tory findings. At one place it has noted that the recovery ~ · memo co·ntained tlie signature of th_e accused but at ·an- F other place it says that the copy of the recovery memo was neither handed over to the accused nor his signa• ture was obtained on that. With this erroneous conclu- sion the High Court came to hold that the recovery memo was prepared behind the back of the accused. Accord- G ing to High Court's own conclusion it was not really so. [paras 6 and 8] [130-B & C; 131-A,B & C] H 2.2. The order of the High Court 'is clearly indefen- sible and is set aside. The order of conviction recorded by the trial court is restored. [para 9] [131-0 & E] l--. STATE OF U.P. v. BHAIYA LAL VERMA 125 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] ~ CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDIC1:"10N: Criminal Appeal A No. 285 of 2.001 Fr.om the final Judgment and-Order. dated 20.7.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2633 of 1987 S.G. Hasnianan, Mohd. ·Fuzail Khan, Archana Singh and An ii Kumar Jha for the Appellant. Anis Ahmed Khan and Shoaib Ahmad Khan for the Re- - spondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to B c the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing _the crimin;:t! appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). The accused was con- - D~ victed by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Banda in Special Case No. 3of1985 for offence punishable under Section.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.