VIJAY KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 03-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 11 S.C.R. 893 
VIJAY KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1345 of 2011) 
AUGUST 03, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
s.311 -
Summoning of witness in a bribe case - 'R', the daughter of 
appellant, owned a piece of agricultural land -
To avoid C 
encroachment on the land, 'R' started constructing boundary 
wall thereon - However, the construction was objected to, by 
the Nagar Pa/ika whereafter 'R' filed suit to restrain the Nagar 
Palika and its servants, agents, etc. from putting up any 
obstruction in construction of the wall - After filing of the suit, o 
'R' went to U. S.A and the case instituted by her was supervised 
and looked after by the appellant - Prosecution case that in 
order to settle the matter, respondent No. 2 and 'S', the 
Chairman and Executive Officer respectively of the Nagar 
Palika demanded bribe from appellant whereupon appellant E 
filed complaint pursuant to which a trap was laid and the said 
two accused were arrested while receiving part payment of the 
bribe amount- Trial against the two accused uls. 7 ands. 13(2) 
rlw s.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act - Respondent 
no.2 filed application uls.311 CrPC requesting the Court to 
F 
summon 'R' as a court witness - Application dismissed by trial 
court - Order set aside by High Court - On appeal, held: 
Power u/s.311 CrPC should be exercised judicially for reasons 
stated by the Court and not arbitrarily or capriciously - As is 
provided in the Section, power to summon any person as a 
witness can be exercised if the court forms an opinion that the G 
examination of such a witness is essential for just decision 
of the case - In the instant case, 'R' had nothing to do with 
the bribe case either as a complainant or as a witness to the 
893 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A trap arranged by the police - 'R' was also not present at the 
time when the bribe was allegedly demanded - Her name did 
not figure as one of the witnesses to be examined by the 
prosecution when charge-sheet was submitted in the trial court 
- To prove the bribe case it was not necessary for the court 
B to examine 'R' as a courl witness - Neither respondent No.2 
in his application nor the High court in the impugned 
judgment specified the reason as to why and how examination 
of 'R' as a court witness was necessary- Power uls.311 CrPC 
was exercised by the High Court arbitrarily and, therefore, the 
c order rendered by it directing the trial cowt to examine 'R' as 
a court witness set aside - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
- s. 7 and s.13(2) rlw s.13(1)(d). 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 73 -
s. 311 -
Discretionary power under - Scope and ambit of - Held: 
D Though s. 311 confers vast discretion upon the court and is · 
expressed in the widest possible terms, the discretionary 
power under the said Section can be invoked only for the ends 
of justice -
Discretionary power should be exercised 
consistently with the provisions of the Code and the principles 
E of criminal law - The discretionary power conferred uls. 311 
has to be exercised judicially for reasons stated by the Court 
and not arbitrarily or capriciously. 
'R', the daughter of appellant, owned a piece of 
F agricultural land. To avoid encroachment on the land, 'R' 
started constructing boundary wall thereon. However, 
the construction was objected to, by the Nagar Palika 
whereafter 'R' filed suit praying for permanent prohibitory 
injunction to restrain the Nagar Palika and its servants, 
G agents, etc. from putting up any obstruction in 
construction of the wall. During pendency of the suit, 
respondent No.2, became Chairman of Nagar Palika. After 
filing of the- suit, 'R' went to U.S.A and the case instituted 
by her was supervised and looked after by the appellant. 
H 
VIJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
895 
The prosecution case is that in order to settle the 
A 
matter relating to construction of wall on the property, 
which was being supervised by the appellant, the 
respondent No. 2 and 'S', the Executive Officer of the 
Nagar Palika demanded a sum of Rs.2 lacs as bribe 
amount from the appellant as a result of which the 
B 
appellant had filed complaint pursuant to which a trap 
was laid and the said two accused were arrested while 
receiving an amount of Rs.50,000/- as part payment of the 
bribe amount of Rs.2 lacs. After success of the trap, 
further investigation was carried out and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.