STATE OF U.P. versus ZAKAULLAH

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 12-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
ZAKAULLAH 
DECEMBER 12, 1997 
.. 
B 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) 
Prevention of Con11ptio11 Act, 1947: Section 5(2). 
Bribe-giver-Testimony of-Bribe-giver had grouse against ac-
C cused-Held: His evidence does not call for outright rejection merely because 
he is aggiieved by the conduct of accused-However, his evidence is required 
to be scrutinised with greater care-Penal Code, 1860, S.161, Trap-So/utio11 
used for conducting phe110/phthalei11 test not sent to the Chemical Ex-
ami11e1'---/ield : 171ere is no statutory provision wlfich requires that such 
D solution be sent to the Chemical Exami11er-Phe11olphthalein solution is used 
for the satisfaction of the officials that the suspected public servant would 
hd4Je really handled the bribe money-He11ce, failure to send such a solution 
to Ch~mical Examiner, i11co11seque11tial. 
E 
Bribe1y--Co11victio11 of accused reversed 011 ground that nobody over-
F 
heard the demand made by accused or that the amount was found in the left 
pocket of the accused-Held : Such reversal of conviction not justified. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section JOO( 4). 
lndepe11de11t Wit11ess--Mea11i11g of-Held : Mere acquaintance with 
police officer would 1101 make a witness 11011-i11depe11de11t-Every citizen must 
be presumed to be an i11depe11dent person until it is proved that he was a 
dependent of the police or other officials for any pwpose whatsoever-Merely 
because the witlless was a complai11a11t in another bribery case or that he was 
G a witness iii two other cases though not yet examined i11 those cases would 
1101 render him a no11-i11dependent witness-Similarly, mere fact that one of 
the witnesses was a driver of the vehicle in which the officials raided the place 
would 11ot result in his losing the status of independent witness. 
H 
Criminal Tiial : 
456 
-
STATE v. ZAKAULLAH 
457 
Witness-Police officials-B1ibery --Evidence of DSP who WTanged the 
trap-Held: Can be acted upon even without co1Toboration--lt cannot be said 
that he has any animosity against the delinquellt officer merely on the ground 
that he is interested in the success of the trap. 
The respondent-government servant was convicted by the trial court 
under Section 161 of the Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 5 (2) of 
the Prevention of C~rruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to substantive 
terms of imprisonment and fine but he was acquitted by the High Court. 
Hence this appeal. 
A 
B 
According to the prosecution, a person was in occupancy of a certain C 
land. Since the occupation was illegal, proceedings had been afoot for 
evicting him •. PW-5 purchased the tight of the aforesaid person and 
approached the respondent-accused for regularisation of occupancy for 
which the respondent, who was a public servant, demanded a certain sum 
by way of gratification. However, PW-5, before handing over the money, D 
secretly met the officials of the Anti-Corruption Bureau and they arranged 
a trap. In accordance with their scheme, currency notes were handed over 
to the respondent-accused but the bribe-taker was soon intercepted by the 
Anti-Corruption squad with the tainted cash. The currency notes were 
seized from the respondent-accused and phenolphthalein test conducted 
showed a positive result. 
The following were the reasons, which were advanced by the High 
Court for interfering with the conviction and sentence of the trial court : 
E 
(1) PW-5 had a motive to falsely implicate the respondent. (2) Independent 
witnesses had acquaintance with the police officers. (3) One of the inde-
F 
pendent witnesses was a complainant in another bribery case and also he 
was a witness in two other cases although he was not yet examined in those 
cases. (4) PW-4 (DSP of Allti-Corruption Bureau) was interested in the 
success of the trap and, therefore, he had animosity against the respon-
dent. (5) Nobody overheard the demand made by the respondent for bribe. G 
(6) The amount was found not in the right pocket of the respondent but 
only iu his left pocket. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The complainant's evidence was jettisoned on the mere H 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A ground that since he had a grouse against respondent- delinquent public 
servant he might falsely have implicated the latter. Such a premise is 
fraught with the consequence that no bribe giver can get away from such 
stigma in any graft case. No doubt the complainant would

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