TARSEM LAL versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 30-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

---
TARSEM LAL 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
JANUARY 30, 1987 
[G.L. OZA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s.5(2) and s.161 Indian 
Penal Code, 18~Accused a patwari-Demanding money for supply 
of copies from revenue record-Defence that money received for 
deposit in small savings scheme-Defence version disbe/ieved-
Conviction and sentence upheld. 
The appellant, who was a Patwari, had been demanding money 
for supply of copies from the revenue record to the complainant who 
needed them in connection with the execution of a sale deed. The bar-
gain was settled for Rs.200. Rs.SO were paid in advance and therefore 
copies were given, hut the appellant ,was to receive the balance of 
. Rs. 150 for which the complainant had promised to pay it on the date of 
registration and accordingly on the date of registration it was fixed up 
that the appellant will he available at the tea stall near the Tehsil where 
this amount will be paid. The complainant brought the conduct of the 
appellant to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Officer who sent a com-
plaint to the Police Station, on the basis of which first information 
report was lodged. 
As the concerned Police Officers were not available, the Sub-
Divisional Officer himself laid a trap. The complainant handed over the 
currency notes initialled by the Sub-Divisional Officer to the appellant. 
On receiving a signal, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the witnesses 
reached there and on personal search currency notes of Rs. 150 were 
recovered from the person of the appell;mt. 
The appellant was prosecuted and convicted under s.5(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to rigorous impri-
sonment for two years and fine of Rs. 150 and also under s. 161 of the 
Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of 
Rs.100. The plea of the appellant that the Government wanted to collect 
money from the land holders for small savings scheme and the Patwaris 
were instructed to collect this am9uut was rejected by the Special 
Judge. 
115 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the High Conrt. 
In further appeal to this Conrt, on behalf of the appellant it was 
contended that the copies of the revenne record which were needed by 
the complainant had already been supplied to him and the sale deed was 
registered before the trap and that the appellant had received the 
money for depositing the same under the small savings scheme on behalf 
of the complainant. 
Partly allowing the aippeal, 
HELD: 1. The com1iction of the appellant under s.5(2) of the 
C 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code 
is maintained. However, his sentence as regards sentence of imprison-
ment is reduced to the sentence already undergone but the sentence of 
fine is maintained. [1200-E I 
D 
2. The explanation given by the appellant was that he had re-
ceived the amount to be deposited in the small savings scheme on behalf 
of the complainant. He had neither made any note of this fact nor given 
any receipt to the complainant. The Sub-Divisional Officer was a 
Revenue Officer and the appellant being a Patwari was his subordinate. 
The normal conduct of the appellant would have been to tell him as soon 
E as h~ arrived for search that in fact he had received this amonnt for 
depositing it under the small savings scheme. The conduct of the appel-
lant in not coming out with this explanation instantaneously goes a long 
way to make his explanation just an after thought specially when Sub-
Divisional Officer conducted tine search and recovered the amonnt from 
his person. The Courts below were right in discarding this explanation 
F of the appellant. [119G-H; 120A-B] 
3. Where the receipt of the amount and its recovery is not dis-
puted it is not necessary for this: Court to go through the evidence and 
examine it afresh. l119EJ 
G 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 208 of 1978. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.1977 of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 1974 
H 
M.R. Sharma, C.M. Sharma and H.K. Puri for the Appellant. 
+ 
.... 
·~·· 
,
i 
TARSEM LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA [OZA, J.] 
117 
Harbans Lal, I.S. Goel and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondent. A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
OZA, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant after the 
grant of special leave by this Court against his 

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