STATE OF U.P. versus DR. G. K. GHOSH

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 21-09-1983 · 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

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
\ 
. STATE OF U.P. 
/ 
v. 
I;>R. G. K. GHOSH 
September 21, 198~ 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A, VAllADARAJAN 
AND M. P. THAKKAR JJ.] ' 
Evidence-Re-appreciation of evidence by the Supreme Court in an appeal 
" 
by Spe~ial Leave-Article 136 of the Constitution read with Order XXI. 
Witnesses-Evidence of the complainant Probative value of. 
Prevention, of <:;__orruption Act,- 1947-Pollce officer leading the raiding 
party-Not an interested witness. 
Respondent was an orthopaedic surgeOn in the U.H.M. Hospital and 
was incharge of the Orthopaedic Departtnent. IIe. was allotted an official· 
residence within tlie campus of the hospHal and as per the prevailing· rules he 
was permitted consultation practice at his residence, He was found guilty Of 
demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the father of a patient 
under his treatment at the hospital and Was convicted for an· offence under 
section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Coriuption Act,· 1947 and for an offence 
under section 161 of the Penal Code by the Special Judge, Kanpur. Conse-
quently he was sentenced to undergo to two years' rigorous imprisonment 
and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 (in default to· undergo 4 months' R.I.) 
Tlie 
appeal preferred by the convict was allowed and the order of conviction 
and sentence was set aside by-the High Court. Hence th~ appeal by State, by 
special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, restoring the finding of guilt, and order of con-
viction, but modifying the sentence, the Court, 
HELD: (1) Only in exceptional cases and in .the peculiar facts and 
circumstances of a case, the Supreme Court would be obliged, as in the instant 
case, to undertake upon itself the function of appreciation of evidence
1 which 
function properly falls within the sphere of the High Court in its capacity as 
the appellate•Court. Here, the High Court resorted to surmises and conjec-
tures for which there was not the ·slightest basis. The iligh. Court failed to 
undertake the exercise of scrutinising, and making assessment" of the evidence 
and failed to record a finding of fact in after considering the question of reli-
ability and credibility_of t!J_e witnesses an<t weighing the probabilities in the 
context -of the circumstantial evidence. (996 B-E] · 
. 
-
2:1. By a.nd large-a citizen is somewhat reluctant, rather than anxious. 
to complain to the vigilarice Department and to have a trap arranged even if 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME cotiRr REPORTS 
[1983) 3 S.C.R. 
illegal gratification is demanded. by a Government servant. There are nume.; 
rous reasons for the reluctance.. Jn the first place, he has to make a number 
of visits to the office of Vigilance Departmefit and to wait on a number of 
officers. He has to provide his own currency 'notes for arranging. a trap. He 
has to comply with several formalities. He,has to accompany the officers and 
participants of the raiding party. All the while he has to remain away from 
his job, work, or avocation. He has tq sacrifice his time and effort whilst 
doing so. Thereafter, he has to attend the court at the time of the trial from 
day to day. He has to withstand the searching cross-examination by the 
defence counsel as if he himself is guilty of some fault. In the result, a citizen 
who has been harassed by a Government officer, has to face the humiliation 
of being considered as .a person who ·.tried to falsely implicate a Government 
servant, not to speak of facing the wrath Or the Government serv3.nts of the 
department collcerned in· his future dealings with the department. No one 
would therefore be too keen or too anxious to face such an ordeal. Ordinarily, 
it is only when a citizen feels ~ppresSed by a feeling of being wronged and 
finds the situation to be beyond cnduranse, that he adopts the course of 
. approaching the Vigilance Department for laying a tfap. His evidellce cannot 
therefore be easily or lightly brushed aside. [1001 E-H; 1002 A BJ 
2:3. or'course, it cannot be gain said .that it does not mean that the 
court should be o,blivious of the need for caution and circumspection hearihg 
in mind that one can conceive of cases where an honest or strict Government 
official inay be falsely implicated by a vindictive person to whose demand, 
for shOwing favours, or for according a special treatment by giving a go-bye 
to the rules. the official refuses to yield. 
[1002 B-C] 
3:1. The evidence of a. policf'. officer cannot be brushed aside as that ,0f 
an inte

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