STATE OF U.P. versus UDAI NARAYAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 255 · Decided: 01-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. 
A 
v. 
UDAI NARAYAN AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER l, 1999 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act 1947/Penal Code, 1860/Criminal 
Procedure. Code, 1973: Sections 8, JO, 13(2) read with Section 13(I)(d)/ 
Section 120-B/Section 2 39-Respondents charged for cprruption and criminal 
conspiracy-Application seeking discharge rejectei by the trial court- C 
Challenged in revision-Revision allowed and respondents discharged-On 
appeal, Held: High Court exceeded its jurisdiction-Evidence and materials 
produced by prosecution cannot be scanned at the stage of discharge 
application-A private individual could also be prosec.uted under the Act. · 
Respondent No. 1 was the Additional Collector of Customs and 
.. Respondent No. 2 was a private individual On the basis of information received 
by the Police that some illegal transaction was going to take place between 
R-1 and R-2, a trap was arranged by the police. On the day of occurrence 
when R-2 came out of the aircraft and entered the airport lobby, he was received 
D 
by R-1. After some conversation between the two, R-2 went in the personal E 
car of R-1 which was intercepted by the police authorities and a sum of Rs. 2 
lacs was recovered from the briefcase of R-2 .. lt was alleged that R-1 had 
earlier teleplioned R-2 and told him to come with necessary papers and a sum 
of Rs. 2 lacs, in order to.settle the pending case at Jaipur. Both the respondents 
were chargesheeted under Sections 8, 10, 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )( d) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the IPC. Respondents F 
application seeking discharge, moved under Section 239 of Criminal 
Procedure Code, 1973 was rejected by the Special Judge. The revision 
· challenging the said order was allowed. Hence this appeal by the State. 
The Appellant contended that the High Court had erroneously examined G 
the statements recorded during investigation elaborately and had wrongfully 
formed an opinion after scanning and shifting the same as that was not 
warranted under law at the stage of considering the application for discharge. 
The respondents contended that if the court is fairly certain that on 
consideration of the materials produced by the prosecution, the case would 
255 
H 
256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A end in non-conviction then the valuable time of the court should not be wasted 
for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure 
to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. It was also contended that R-2, 
not being a public servant, could not have been prosecuted under the provisions 
of the Act. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court committed serious error in discharging the 
accused persons by advancing elaborate arguments on scanning and 
scrutinising the evidence and materials produced by the prosecution. A bare 
C perusal of the Judgment of the High Court would indicate that the High Court 
exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering discharge of the accused persons as if 
sitting in appeal against an order of conviction. [258-F, G) 
D 
E 
F 
Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr., [1996) 9 SCC 766 
referred to. 
2. R-2, though not a public servant could be prosecuted under the 
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, there is no force in the 
contention that R-2, not being a public servant, could not have been prosecuted 
under the provisions of the Act. [258-H; 259-A] 
P. Nallammal etc. v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, (1996) 6 Supreme 
Today 516, relied on. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 
1164-1165of1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.99 of the Allahabad High Court 
in Crl. R.No. 177 and.225of1998. 
Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Rekha Pandey and Ms. 
G Sushma Suri for the Appellant. 
Rakesh Dwivedi and Rao Ranjit for the Respondent. 
G. Krishnan, Radha Krishnan and Gopal Singh for the Respondent No. 2. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
' ' 
r 
-· 
STATE OF U.P. v. UDAY NARA YAN [PATTANAIK, J.] 
257 
PATIANAIK, J. Leave granted. 
A 
The State of U.P. is in appeal against the Judgment of the High Court 
of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Revision No. 177 of 1998 and 
Criminal Revision Ne. 225 of 1998. By the impugned Judgment, the High 
Court allowed both the revisions, filed by the accused and discharged the B 
accused persons. 
Accused Udai Narain is an officer of the Customs Depart

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