Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Hari Singh vs State on 25 July, 2025
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2025:RJ-JP:27091]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 168/1988
Hari Singh son of Shri Budhiram, resident of village Palikhera,
Post Krishna Nagar, Mathura (U.P.) at present Inspector Phones,
District Manager Telephones, Jaipur
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through C.B.I.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Shri Mahesh Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Shri Shyam Singh Yadav, Special
Public Prosecutor
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
Judgement reserved on : : 07/07/2025
Judgement pronounced on : : 25/07/2025
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement dated
04.05.1988 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI
Cases, Jaipur (for short- “the learned trial Court”) in Special
Criminal Case No.3/1984 whereby, the accused-appellant was
convicted and sentenced as under:
1) Section 161 IPC: One year rigorous imprisonment plus
Rs. 500 fine; in default whereof, three months simple
imprisonment.
2) Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short- “the
Act of 1947”): one year rigorous imprisonment plus Rs.
500 fine; in default whereof, three months simple
imprisonment.
Both the sentences to run concurrently.
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (2 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
The relevant facts in brief are that the complainant Shri
Gopal Krishna Bihani lodged a written report dated 17.11.1983
(Ex.P2) with the Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau Rajasthan,
Jaipur (for short-`ACB’) alleging therein that for shifting telephone
of his partnership firm M/s. Rajasthan Plywood and Allied Agencies
from his residence situated in Shastri Nagar, Jaipur to Janta
Colony, Jaipur, the accused-Hari Singh-the Telephone Inspector,
has demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.300. The accused was
apprehended having accepted the tainted money whereafter, the
ACB handed over investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (for short-`CBI’) which, after investigation,
submitted charge-sheet against him.
The accused was charged with the offence under Section 161
IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947.
He pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After trial, the accused
has been convicted and sentenced vide judgement dated
04.05.1988 as stated hereinabove.
During pendency of the appeal, the appellant-Hari Singh
expired. On an application filed by Smt. Swaroop Devi, his wife,
she was granted leave of the Court to continue the appeal.
Assailing the judgement, the learned counsel for the
appellant Shri Mahesh Gupta submitted that the learned trial
Court did not appreciate that the allegation of demand of illegal
gratification levelled by the complainant-Gopal Krishna Bihani
(PW-3) was not corroborated by any other evidence and his sole
testimony was not sufficient to warrant a finding of conviction. He
submits that from the prosecution evidence, it is apparent that
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (3 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
except Shri Bihani, no other prosecution witness has either heard,
or seen the demand raised by him or exchange of money. Shri
Gupta submits that although, Shri Jaswant Singh Yadav (PW-8),
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, who carried out the
trap proceeding, deposes that he has not only seen the
complainant giving the illegal gratification to the appellant; but,
also heard the accused demanding it; however, Shri Bihani, during
his cross-examination as PW-3, has categorically stated that Shri
Yadav was not in a position either to hear the demand or to see
the exchange of money. He submits that in view thereof, the
learned trial court erred in relying upon the testimony of Shri
Jaswant Singh Yadav.
Shri Gupta further submits that from the evidence on record,
it is apparent that the money was forcibly thrust in the pocket of
the pant of the accused by the complainant and he neither
demanded it nor, accepted it as alleged. Lastly, Shri Gupta
submitted that since, the accused was a Central Government
employee, the ACB, being a State Investigating Agency, was not
competent to carry out the investigation. However, in the same
breath, he admitted that it did not vitiate the trial.
He, therefore, prays that the judgement of conviction and
sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge be quashed and
set aside and the accused be acquitted from the charges levelled
against him. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.
Satyanarayana Murthy vs. The District Inspector of Police &
Anr.: Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2009 dated 14.09.2015 and a
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (4 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
coordinate Bench judgement of this Court in the case of
Gajanand vs. State of Rajasthan-1989 (2) WLN 391.
Per contra, Shri Shyam Singh Yadav, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the CBI, supporting the findings recorded by
the learned Special Judge vide judgement dated 04.05.1988,
would submit that the prosecution was able to establish the
demand of illegal gratification by the accused as well as its
acceptance. Shri Yadav, referring to and relying upon the
prosecution evidence, would submit that not only the complainant-
Shri Bihani; but, other witnesses have also corroborated the
demand of illegal gratification by the accused. Learned counsel,
inviting attention of this Court towards the testimony of
complainant-Gopal Krishna Bihani (PW-3) and Shri Jaswant Singh
Yadav (PW-8), submits that since, there was urgency involved in
the matter and on account of paucity of time, the CBI was not in a
position to lay down the trap proceeding immediately, the ACB
was requested by the CBI itself to conduct the trap proceeding
and to handover the papers to it for further investigation. He
submits that even otherwise, it is permissible for a State agency
to lay the trap proceeding/carry out investigation in corruption
matters as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.C.
Sharma vs. Delhi Administration-(1973) 1 SCC 726 and as
also under the CBI Crime Manual. He, therefore, prays for
dismissal of the appeal.
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, the deceased-appellant was a public servant
being employed as Telephone Inspector with the Telephone
Department at the relevant time. It is also an admitted position
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (5 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
that the complainant-Shri Bihani has submitted an application with
the Telephone Department for shifting the telephone of his
partnership firm from Shastri Nagar to Janta Colony. As per the
testimony of Shri Tilak Raj Nanda (PW-4)-Assistant Engineer
(Vigilance), Telephone Department, the commercial office of the
department examines the validity and genuineness of the request
for transfer of the telephone and on being satisfied about it, issues
“O.B.” for shifting the telephone. He further deposed that the
telephone is to be shifted within a period of 15 days from the date
of issuance of the “O.B.” by the concerned Junior Engineer and
Telephone Inspector. The learned trial court has held, vide
judgement dated 04.05.1988, that from the concerned file
(Ex.P10), it was reflected that the “O.B.” for shifting the subject
telephone was issued on 07.11.1983 and till the trap proceeding
was conducted on 17.11.1983, it was not shifted. The defence
taken by the accused that he, along with the Junior Engineer, went
to the residence of the complainant to verify the genuineness of
the request of transfer, was rejected by the learned trial court
holding that from the prosecution evidence, it was established that
once the “O.B.” was issued, it was not open for the Junior
Engineer or the Telephone Inspector to examine the validity or
genuineness of the request for transfer as the commercial office
issues it only after verifying the details.
The complainant-Shri Bihani as PW-3 has categorically stated
in his deposition that the accused approached him and demanded
a sum of Rs.300 for shifting the telephone. In his cross
examination, he has specifically stated that the demand was
raised a day prior to the day the accused was trapped. Although,
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (6 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
in his cross examination, he has stated that the accused had come
with another person when the demand was raised; but, it is not
mentioned in the written report (Ex.P2); however, the learned trial
Court has held the same to be a minor contradiction not materially
affecting the prosecution case which otherwise establishes the
demand of illegal gratification by the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. In this regard, the learned trial Court has also relied upon
the testimony of Shri Nand Kishore Bihani (PW-7), brother of the
complainant who has deposed that on 16.11.1983, i.e., a day prior
to the trap proceeding, the accused came to the shop and met his
brother. The learned trial Court has further held that the accused
himself has admitted in his written statement of defence that he
had visited the shop of the complainant twice on the day he was
trapped, i.e., 17.11.1983 and his plea that he did so to collect the
documents, did not find favour for the cogent reason that it was
not expected in normal course of nature from a public servant to
visit the shop of an applicant for shifting the telephone for getting
the relevant documents unless interested otherwise, more so,
when, it was not open for him to have examined the validity of the
“O.B.” already issued by the commercial office after verifying the
details. This Court, upon perusal of the record, is in respectful
agreement with these findings.
Further, it is found that the demand stands corroborated
from the testimony of Shri Jaswant Singh Yadav (PW-8), the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB who conducted the trap
proceeding. He has categorically stated that he heard the demand
raised by the accused inside the shop of the complainant on
17.11.1983 immediately before he was trapped. Although, Shri
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (7 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
Gupta, inviting attention of this Court towards the cross
examination of the complainant (PW-3), has canvassed that he
has stated therein that Shri Yadav was not in a position either to
hear their conversation or to see the exchange of money; but,
from the site plan (Ex.P6), it is apparent that there was no
obstruction of any nature in between the places where Shri Yadav
and the accused along with the complainant were standing.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not satisfied
that the prosecution has not been able to prove the demand of
illegal gratification by the accused and the findings recorded by
the learned trial court in this regard deserve confirmation.
So far as the submission of learned counsel for the accused
that the money was forcibly thrust in his pocket is concerned, it is
established beyond the pale of doubt that the tainted money was
recovered from the left pocket of the pant of the accused. While,
defence of the accused is that it was forcibly thrust in his pocket
by the complainant, the prosecution has come out with a case that
it was knowingly and willingly accepted by him. From the evidence
on record including the testimony of S/Shri Gopal Krishna Bihani
(PW-3), Sampat Raj Purohit (PW-5) and Jaswant Singh Yadav
(PW8), it is established that the accused accepted the illegal
gratification from the complainant, had put it in the left pocket of
his pant and was caught once he had walked 4-5 feet after
accepting the illegal gratification and not immediately after putting
the money in the pocket. The learned trial court has held that
even assuming that the money was forcibly thrust in the pocket of
the accused by the complainant, he could have thrown it away
immediately; but, he was caught when he had already traversed
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (8 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
4-5 feet with the money in the pocket which shatters his defence.
After critical analysis of the evidence on record, the learned trial
court has further held that apart from the prosecution evidence
which established demand of illegal gratification and its
acceptance by the accused, his unnatural conduct, i.e., to visit the
shop of the complainant twice on the day he was trapped without
any plausible reason, to go further inside the shop along with the
complainant after coming out from the cabin as he seems to have
developed a suspicion on account of presence of one of the
shadow witnesses Shri Om Prakash Mishra (PW2) in the cabin and
recovery of the tainted money from his pocket, lends credentials
to the prosecution case. After going through the material on
record, this Court agrees with the aforesaid findings.
The last submission of the learned counsel for the accused
that he being a Central Government employee, the State
Investigating Agency, i.e., the ACB was not authorised and
competent to lay the trap proceeding, is misconceived and does
not merit acceptance. A three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in the case of A.C. Sharma (supra), after
examining the scheme of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
Act of 1946 as also the Act, 1947, proceeded to hold as under:
“13. Turning to the D.S.P.E. Act it extends to the whole of
India. For the constitution and powers of the establishment,
we have to turn to Section 2 of this Act which reads :-
“2. Constitution and Powers of Special Police
Establishment:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Police Act, 1861, the
Central Government may constitute a special police force(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (9 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]to be called the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the
investigation in any Union territory of offences notified
under Section 3.
(2) Subject to any orders which the Central Government
may make in this behalf, members of the said police
establishment shall have throughout any Union territory
in relation to the investigation of such offences and arrest
of persons concerned in such offences, all the powers,
duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers of
that Union territory have in connection with the
investigation of offences committed therein.
(3) Any member of the said police establishment of or
above the rank of Sub-Inspector may, subject to any
orders which the Central Government may make in this
behalf, exercise in any Union territory any of the powers
of the officer in charge of a police station in the area in
which he is for the time being and when so exercising
such powers shall, subject to any such orders as
aforesaid, be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police
station discharging the functions of such an officer within
the limits of his station.”
Section 3 which empowers the Central Government to specify
the offences to be investigated by the D.S.P.E. has already
been set out. The Notification, dated November 6, 1956
referred to earlier specifies numerous offences under various
enactments including a large number of ordinary offences
under I.P.C. Clauses (a) to (j) of this notification take within
their fold offences under a number of statutes specified
therein. Clause (k) extends the sweep of this notification by
including in its scope attempts, abetments and conspiracies in
relation to or in connection with offences mentioned in clauses
(a) to (h) and also any other offence committed in the course
of those transactions arising out of the same facts. It may
also be stated that after 1956 in a number of further
notifications the list of the offences specified under Section 3
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (10 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
has increased manifold. We consider it unnecessary to refer to
them in detail. According to Section 4 the superintendence of
D.S.P.E. vests in the Central Government and Section 5
empowers the Central Government to extend to any area in a
State not being a Union territory the powers and jurisdiction
of members of this establishment for the investigation of any
offences or classes of offences specified under Section 3.
Subject to the orders of the Central Government the members
of such Establishment exercising such extended powers and
jurisdiction are to be deemed to be members of the police
force of that area for the purpose of powers, functions,
privileges and liabilities. But the power and jurisdiction of a
member of D.S.P.E. in such State is to be exercised only with
the consent of the Government of the State concerned. The
scheme of this Act does not either expressly or by
necessary implication divest the regular police
authorities of their jurisdiction, powers and
competence to investigate into offences under any
other competent law. As a general rule, it would require
clear and express language to effectively exclude as a
matter of law the power of investigation of all the
offences mentioned in this notification from the
jurisdiction and competence of the regular police
authorities conferred on them by Cr.P.C. and other laws
and to vest this power exclusively in the D.S.P.E. The
D.S.P.E. Act seems to be only permissive or
empowering, intended merely to enable the D.S.P.E.
also to investigate into the offences specified as
contemplated by Section impairing any other law
empowering the regular police authorities to
investigate offences.
14. Turning now to the Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of
1947), we find that this Act was enacted in March, 1947
several months after the enactment of the D.S.P.E. Act for the
more effective prevention of bribery and corruption. By virtue
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (11 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
of Section 3 of the Act an offence under Section 165-A, I.P.C.
was made a cognizable offence for the purposes of Cr. P.C.
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in that
Code. Section 4 provides for presumptions in certain cases.
Section 5 defines criminal misconduct and also provides for
punishment for such offences. It further provides for
punishment for habitual commission of offences under
Sections 162, 163 and 165 IPC and also renders punishable
attempts to commit some offences. Section 5 is expressly
stated to operate in addition to and not in derogation of
other laws. Section 5-A which is of importance may
here be set out:
“5-A. Investigation into cases under this Act.-(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898, no police officer below
the rank-
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment,
of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the presidency-towns of Calcutta and Madras, of an
Assistant Commissioner of Police;
(c) in the presidency-town of Bombay, of a
Superintendent of Police; and
(d) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of
Police,
shall investigate any offence punishable under Section
161, Section 165 or Section 165-A of the Indian Penal
Code or under Section 5 of this Act without the order of
a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first
class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor
without a warrant :
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an
Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in
this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (12 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]any such offence without the order of a Presidency Magistrate
or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make
arrest therefor without a warrant;
Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (e) of
sub-section (1) of Section 5 shall not be investigated without
the order of a police officer not below the rank of a
Superintendent of Police.
(2) If, from information received or otherwise, a police officer
has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he
is empowered to investigate under subsection (1) and
considers that for the purpose of investigation or inquiry into
such offence, it is necessary to inspect any bankers’ books,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the
time being in force, he may inspect any bankers’ books in so
far as they relate to the accounts of the person suspected to
have committed that offence or of any other person suspected
to be holding money on behalf of such person, and take or
cause to be taken certified copies of the relevant entries
therefrom, and the bank concerned shall be bound to assist
the police officer in the exercise of his powers under this sub-
section :
Provided that no power under this sub-section in relation to
the accounts of any person shall be exercised by a police
officer below the rank of a Superintendent of Police, unless he
is specially authorised in this behalf by a police officer of or
above the rank of a Superintendent of Police.
Explanation.-In this sub-section, the expressions ‘bank’ and
‘bankers’ books’ shall have the meanings assigned to them in
Sub-section (1) of this section, while regulating the
competence of the officers both of D.S.P.E. and of the regular
police force to investigate offences to the extent considered
necessary, over-rides the provisions of Cr.P.C. It expressly(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (13 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]prohibits police officers, including those of the D.S.P.E., below
certain ranks, from investigating into offences, under Sections
161, 165 and 165-A, I.P.C. and under Section 5 of Prevention
of Corruption Act, without orders of Magistrates specified
therein and from effecting arrests for those offences without a
warrant. The plain meaning of this sub-section appears
to be that Inspectors of Police of D.S.P.E. in all places,
Assistant Commissioners of Police in the Presidency
Towns of Calcutta and Madras, Superintendents of
Police in the Presidency Town of Bombay, and Deputy
Superintendents of Police in all places, other than
Presidency Towns of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, are
authorised to investigate into the offences mentioned
therein. The word “elsewhere” in clause (d) does not
indicate, as was contended by Mr. Anthony that a Deputy
Superintendent of Police is debarred from investigating
offences mentioned in this clause even when so ordered by a
Magistrate of the First Class in the areas in which D.S.P.E. is
also empowered to function. The word “elsewhere” in clause
(d) appears to us to refer only to the three Presidency Towns
mentioned in clauses (b) and (c). This sub-section, therefore,
does not confer sole power on D.S.P.E. to investigate into the
offences mentioned therein to the complete exclusion of the
regular police force. It is merely concerned with the object of
making provision for safeguarding against arbitrary use of
power of investigation by officers below certain ranks, so that
public servants concerned are saved from frivolous
harassment at the hands of disgruntled persons. In this
connection it is also noteworthy that apart from the restriction
contained in s. 5-A(1) the applicability of the provisions of
Cr.P.C. to the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid offences
is, subject to certain modifications contained in Section 7-A,
expressly recognised. The schemes of the two enactments,
namely, D.S.P.E. Act, 1946 and the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947, suggest that they are intended to serve as
supplementary provisions of law designed to function(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (14 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]harmoniously in aid of each other and of the existing regular
police investigating agency for effectively achieving the object
of successful investigation into the serious offences mentioned
in Section 5-A without unreasonably exposing the public
servant concerned to frivolous and vexatious proceedings. Mr.
Nariman also drew our attention to D.O. No. 21/8/63GD dated
October 5, 1963, addressed by the Central Bureau of
Investigation, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
to the Inspector General of Police inviting their attention to
the Government of India Resolution No. 4/31/61-T, dated April
1, 1963 establishing the Central Bureau of Investigation
consisting of six Divisions to assist the State Police Forces.
The authority of Central Bureau is stated therein to have been
derived from the D.S.P.E. Act. In this letter Para 6, reads :
“6. In this connection it may also be mentioned that, on
account of inadequacy of staff, it is not possible for the
S.P.E. Division to take up every one of the cases which
might fall under the categories mentioned in the
Annexure to the Government of India Resolution and
which might be considered suitable for investigation by
the S.P.E. Division. A certain discretion has, therefore, to
be exercised in taking up cases for investigation. In some
instances it may not be possible for it to take up even
those cases which are committed by Central Government
servants, i.e., petty cases of theft, misappropriation,
cheating. Such cases could be dealt with easily and more
expeditiously by the local police which has concurrent
jurisdiction over these cases also.”
In para 7 it is stated that for successful investigation of cases
it is most essential that a quick decision is taken about the
Agency which has to investigate them: One of the Agencies
mentioned therein is S.P.E. Division of the C.B.I. In para 8, it
is stated that in respect of cases involving Public Servants or
Public Concerns there is an administrative arrangement and
understanding between the S.P.E. and the State Police about
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (15 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
the manner in which they are to be dealt with so as to avoid
difficulties and delays. This para then refers to the existing
procedure and practice which, it is suggested, should continue
to be valid in future. No doubt, this letter contains only
administrative instructions but it clearly shows the
construction placed during all these years by the
administrative officers concerned with administering this law
on the provisions of the S.P.E. Act and the Prevention of
Corruption Act. If the views stated in this letter is not clearly
against the language and scheme of these Acts then it is
entitled to due consideration and has some persuasive value.
The contention raised by Mr. Anthony that Delhi not being a
State but only a Union territory, the directions contained in
D.O. No. 21/8/63-GD are, inapplicable and that in Delhi it is
only the D.S.P.E. which has exclusive authority to investigate
into the offences mentioned in Section 5-A is not easy to
accept. Reference to the State Police Force in that D.O. in our
view includes the police force of the Union territory of Delhi.
15. As the foregoing discussion shows the investigation in
the present case by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
cannot be considered to be in any way unauthorised or
contrary to law. In this connection it may not be out of place
also to point out that the function of investigation is merely to
collect evidence and any irregularity or even illegality in the
course of collection of evidence, can scarcely be considered by
itself to affect the legality of the trial by an otherwise
competent Court of the offence so investigated. In H.N.
Rishabud & Inder Singh v. State of Delhi-AIR 1955 SC 196, it
was held that an illegality committed in the course of
investigation does not affect the competence and jurisdiction
of the court for trial and where cognizance of the case has in
fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination
the invalidity of the preceding investigation does not vitiate
the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused
thereby. When any breach of the mandatory provisions
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (16 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
relating to investigation is brought to the notice of the court
at an early stage of the trial the Court will have to consider
the nature and extent of the violation and pass appropriate
orders for such re-investigation as may be called for, wholly or
partly, and by such officer as it consider appropriate with
reference to the requirements of Section 5-A of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1952. This decision was followed in Munna
Lal vs. The State of U.P.-AIR 1964 SC 28, where the decision
in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mubarak Ali-AIR 1959 SC 707,
was distinguished. The same view was taken in the State of
Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Venugopal-AIR 1964 SC 33 and more
recently in Khandu Sonu Dhobi vs. State of Maharashtra-
(1972) 3 SCC 118. The decisions of the Calcutta, Punjab and
Saurashtra High Courts relied upon by Mr. Anthony deal with
different points : in any event to the extent they contain any
observations against the view expressed by this Court in the
decisions just cited those observations cannot be considered
good law.” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, from the aforesaid judgement, it is apparent that the
State Investigating Agency is not precluded from carrying out
investigation in a corruption case involving a Central Government
employee; but, it has to be by a Police Officer not below the rank
of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Indisputably, in the instant
case, the trap proceeding was laid by an Officer in the rank of
Deputy Superintendent Police.
Further, the CBI Manual (Crime)-1982, as was applicable at
the relevant time, also provides as under:
“9. It has also been agreed that:-
(a) The State Police may take immediate action in respect of
the Central Government Employees in the following
circumstances:-
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (17 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
(i) Where a `trap’ has to be laid to catch a Central
Government employee red-handed and there is no time
to contact any representative of the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Division, the trap may be laid by the State
Police and thereafter the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Division should be informed immediately
and it should be decided in consultation with them
whether the further investigation should be carried out
and completed by the State Police or by the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Division.
(ii) Where there is likelihood of destruction or suppression
of evidence if immediate action is not taken, the State
Police may take necessary steps to secure the evidence
and thereafter handover the case to the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Division for further investigation.
(b) Information about cases involving Central Government
Servants which are being investigated by the State Police
should be sent by them to the Head of the Department and/or
the Office concerned as early as possible but, in any event,
before a chargesheet or a Final Report is submitted.
(c) All cases against Central Government servants which are
investigated by the State Police and in which it is necessary to
obtain sanction for prosecution from the Central Government
Department, shall be referred to the Inspector General, Delhi
Special Police Establishment Division, who will take necessary
action to obtain the required sanction.”
It is not disputed before this Court that the conditions
enumerated in Clause-9 of the Manual stand satisfied in the
instant case. As is evident from the material on record, the ACB,
before conducting the trap proceeding, contacted the CBI office at
Jaipur as it was found that the accused happens to be a Central
Government employee; but, the CBI Officer requested the ACB to
conduct the trap proceeding in view of urgency involved in the
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (18 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
matter and the paucity of time to arrange the same by it and
thereafter, to handover papers to it for further investigation.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the backdrop of
the prcedential law, this Court finds no illegality in the trap
proceeding carried out by the ACB and the trial does not stand
vitiated on this count as also admitted by the learned counsel for
the accused in all his fairness.
The reliance placed by learned counsel for the accused on
the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.
Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) is of no help to him. In that
case, it was held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is
the gravamen of the offence under the provisions of the Act of
1947, in absence whereof, mere acceptance of an amount by way
of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, would not be sufficient
to warrant conviction. However, in the instant case, after
appreciation of the evidence on record, it is found that the
prosecution has been able to establish the demand of illegal
gratification by the accused as also its accpetance.
Similarly, the judgement of a coordinate bench of this Court
in the case of Gajanand (supra) would not come to rescue of the
accused wherein, it was held that solitary statement of the
complainant was not sufficient, in a bribery case, to return the
finding of guilt when his testimony was not found at all of worth
reliability and credibility. However, in the instant case, not only the
credibility of the testimony of the complainant is found to be of
sterling worth; but, stands corroborated from the testimony of
other prosecution witnesses as well.
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:01 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27091] (19 of 19) [CRLA-168/1988]
The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that this Court finds
the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 4.5.1988 to be
well reasoned, based on appreciation of cogent evidence on
record, and not to be suffering from any illegality or perversity
and further, is of the considered view that the prosecution has
been able to bring home the charge under Section 161 IPC and
Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 by
proving the demand as well as acceptance of the tainted money
by the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
RS/1
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 01:01:02 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link