Hari Dev Sharma vs State
1971 Latest Caselaw 48 Del

JUDGMENT

Pritam Singh Safeer, J.

(1) The prosecution has come in for serious criticism in this case. "THE first contention raised is that Exhibit Public Witness I/K could not have been depended upon as the first information report, and it could not have been used as corroborative evidence. If reference is made to the statement of Mr. B. K. Shukia Public Witness 8. who organized the raiding party and assumed the responsibility of investigating the case then it becomes clear that according to his statement:- "The statement given by Hari chand was reduced to writing and then I got it typed."

(2) The statement made by Public Witness I Hari Chand, which initiated the proceedings, was reduced to writing. That was the first information re- port. Public Witness 8 had no business to get it typed. I accept the contention that Exhibit Public Witness 1/K cannot be used as a piece of evidence for any purpose in this case.

(3) The second contention raised is that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is hit by the provisions of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That contention is sought to be substantiated by relying upon the observations contained in Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma and others v. State of Bombay, . The contention can best be estimated in terms of the provisions of sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are:- "161.Examination of witnesses by police- (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this chapter or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the fact and circumstances of the case . (2) Such person shall be bound to answer all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose 'him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. (3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section, and if he does so he shall make a separate record of the statement, of each such person whose statement he records. 162. Statements to police not to be signed; use of such statements in evidence.- (1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (save as hereinafter provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made : Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such. witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of section 32, clause (1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or to affect the provision of section 27 of that Act.

(4) As is visible from the provisions, reproduced above the statement recorded under section 161 covered by section 162 can be used only in terms of the proviso to the latter section. The accused can use those statements for contradicting the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution can also after obtaining the' permission from the court use the said statement for the purposes of proving as to where the truth would lie and as to what extent a witness was resiling from what he had stated to the police when he made the statement which may have been recorded under section 161 of the Code of criminal Procedure. The contention to start with is meritless. It finds no foundation on any substance disclosed by the record. It is not the case of the appellant that any statement recorded under section 161 has been used contrary to the proviso contained in section 162. The prosecution witnesses were examined in the ordinary manner in accordance with the procedure established by law. No statements recorded under section 161 were obviously used during the examinations-inchief. The real witnesses on whose testimony the case rested were - P.Ws. 1, 3 and 6. None of them turned hostile. No necessity arose for the prosecution to use the statements recorded under section 161. mentioned above, in terms of the proviso to section 162. The statements made by the prosecution witnesses were used within the orbit of the proviso to section 162 by the appellant himself during the cross-examinations. Turning to the case relied upon it passes comprehension as to why the reliance is placed with the persistence which the learned counsel for the appellant has employed. The Supreme Court there was dealing with the circumstances which disclosed that identification parades had been held where the police officers were supervising the same in 'the presence of the Panch witnesses. In the course of paragraph 21 of the judgment it was observed :- "THE whole of the identification parades were thus directed and supervised by the police officers and the Panch witnesses took a minor part in the same and were there only for the purpose of guaranteeing that the requirements of the law in regard to the holding of the identification parades were satisfied."

(5) The court was of the opinion that the evidence collected through the identification parades was necessarily so collected as to incur the obligations of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the same could not have been utilised outside the proviso. Here is a case where the appellant is faced with the testimony given on oath in accordance with law by the prosecution witnesses. The third contention raised is .that the testimony of Public Witness I is in the nature of the deposition by an accomplice. Reliance has been placed on Jagat Chandra Sarma v. Lal Chand Das, 5 Calcutta Weekly Notes 332(2). The case is cited after urging that in the case in hand according to the deposition of Public Witness I, the amount to be paid towards illegal gratification had been settled at Rs. 100.00 and that he had paid Rs, 20.00 already to the appellant on or about the 30th of A January, 1969. It was turn the remaining amount that the appellant had gone to him on the 26th of February, 1969. Mr, Frank Anthony submitted that in terms of the view taken in the Calcutta case the bribe was a single transaction and, as such, by paying Rs. 20.00 on or about the 30th of January, 1969, the prosecution's star witness Public Witness I had become an accomplice. It would not be safe in this case to hold on the bare testimony of Public Witness I that Rs. 20.00 had been paid by him to the appellant on the dale alleged. No corroboration can be sought from Exhibit Public Witness 1/k. It is not a case where one could depend upon a first information report and say with certainty as to what was the earliest version of an occurrence disclosed therein. The prosecution must thank Public Witness 8 for suppressing the statement which he originally recorded when Public Witness I approached him for organising the raiding party. Public Witness I certainly is an interested witness Without corroboration it would not be appropriate to conclude that he paid Rs. 20.00 to ;the appellant on or about the 30th of January, 1969. If charges (firstly) and (secondly) are attended to then the date mentioned therein is 28th January, 1969. That is not, however, the aspect which weighs with me. I am ruling out the prosecution case on the first two charges because their sustenance is only derived from the evidence of Public Witness 1. I am not going to depend upon his uncorroborated testimony so far as the first two charges are concerned. Having come to that conclusion I cannot categories him as an accomplice. That is so because what is left to be dealt with is the incident which took place on the 26th of February, 1969. Moreover, an absurd embellishment in evidence does not call for discarding that part of it which may be true.

(6) The admitted circumstances of the case disclose that in January, 1969, the appellant was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Land and Development Office, Property Section (III). That office was .dealing with the cases of transfer of properties. It also is an admitted fact that accused was dealing with the applications pertaining, to the transfer of properties which had been sold. If a reference is made' to the statement made by the accused-appellant under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure then along with the evidence adduced by the prosecution the admissions contained therein clearly establish not only what has been stated above as being admitted but also that the files Exhibits Public Witness 5/A and Public Witness 5/B were being dealt with by the appellant. The accused-appellant was dealing with those files since 1966. I have seen file Exhibit Public Witness 5/B. The prosecution case is that objections had been raised to the affidavits filed with the office in which the appellant was working. Those affidavits have also been seen by me. It is clear that those affidavits typed on stamped papers bear the date 20th November, 1968. The date of their attestation, however, is 20th December, 1968. The objection was raised that the affidavits were of a doubtful nature. I cannot understand as to which provision of law called for an explanation regarding the delayed attestation of those affidavits. A communication, however, seems to have been sent to Hari Chand Public Witness I to explain the objection. Hari Chand, according to his deposition, went to the office concerned and came into contact with the appellant. Leaving aside unnecessary facts narrated by Public Witness 1, the appellant is alleged to have enquired about his address at which lie later on contacted P.W.I and gave him the the draft of the application. Exhibited as Public Witness 1/H. It is quite perplexing as to how does the file Exhibit P.W.5/B contain the document which also has been placed on the record of this case and exhibited. The document contained in the file Exhibit P.-W.5/B bears the office stamp of the Land and Development Office and the stamp carries the date 31st January, 1969. The circumstances then start with a velocity of assurance pointing in the direction of the guilt of the appellant. It is he who is alleged to have furnished the draft exhibit Public Witness I/H to Public Witness I at his shop. He certainly had no business to go all the way to the shop of Public Witness I to furnish the draft on the basis of which the said document explaining the objection raised in respect of the affidavits, mentioned above, was typed out and set to the Managing Officer, Nirman Bhawan, new Delhi. The subject of the communication as contained in the draft and Exhibit Public Witness I/H is :- "SALE permission of Quarter No. 6/38 BSA."

(7) Hari Chand's wife was the purchaser of the property. She was purchasing the same from one Shri N. C. Lakhanpal. That person had constituted Hari Chand as his attorney for obtaining the permission for sale. Whenever the contact may, have been established between the appellant and Public Witness 1 one thing is clear that over several years Hari Chand had been struggling to get the necessary permission. The state of Hari Chand's mind, which is material in this context is visible from the fact that he got the draft given to him by the appellant photographed. Its negative has been produced. The enlarged photographic copy has been proved on the record as Exhibit P. 11/A. The draft, in original, was returned, according to Public Witness 1, to the appellant when the typed copy signed by the said witness was given in the office. What reward was the appellant seeking ? Why did at all he prepare a draft? It is significant that in reply to question No. 10 put to him in the course of his statement under section 342 the appellant admitted:- "Q.10 It is in evidence that you prepared a draft application for Hari Chand to be moved by him in the office of the Managing Officer, Nirman Bhawan, for sale permission, photo-stat copy of which application is Exhibit Public Witness I I/A and the original manuscript was given by you to Hari Chand. What have you to say ? Ans. It is correct. Handwriting in the photo-stat draft P.W.11/A is mine and I gave the manuscript thereof to Hari Chand."

(8) Although I have recorded the finding that it is not safe to sustain charges (firstly) and (secondly), the admission that the draft was prepared by the appellant and was in his handwriting does provide a background to the actual occurrence on the 26th of February 1969.

(9) The statement of an accused person can be taken into consideration in terms of sub-section (3) of section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While it can be urged on behalf of the accused that the explanation offered through such a statement negatives the proof rendered by the prosecution, it can be urged on behalf of the prosecution that considering the admissions in a statement under section 342 along with the material evidence produced in respect thereof, the prosecution case stands established.

(10) Even keeping apart the admissions contained in the statement of the appellant, he has of necessity to meet the prosecution case established through the testimony of Public Witness s.1 and 3. What is to be seen is as to whether the prosecution has established the case under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(d) read-with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Those provisions are:-

"161.Whoever, being or expecting to .be a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain from any person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or for- bearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favor or disfavor to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or with any local authority, Corporation or Government company referred to in section 21, or with any public servant, as such shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both. Explanations.-Expecting to be a public servant'. If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. 'Gratification'. The word 'gratification' is not .restricted to pecuniary gratifications, or to gratifications estimable in money. 'Legal remuneration'. The words legal remuneration' are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which -he is permitted by the Government, which he serves, to accept. 'A motive or reward for doing'. A person who receives a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, comes within these words."

5.(1) A public servant is said to commit .the offence of criminal misconduct- (a) to (c) (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or (1) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine : "Provided that the court may, turn any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year."

 (11) It is significant that section 161 in terms makes an attempt to obtain illegal gratification as a motive or reward punishable. Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has of necessity to be read along with sub-section (3A) of that section, which is :-    "(3A)Whoever attempts to commit an offence referred to in clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."  

 (12) This provision has been introduced by way of amendment. That amendment was incorporated in section 5 by the passage of Act 40 1964. The offence in this case was committed in 1969. The question then is as to whether the prosecution has merely established a case of an attempt or that it bus succeeded in establishing that the accused-appellant actually obtained the amount ? If a reference is made to the statement of Public Witness 1 then he deposed in his examination- in chief:-    "THE accused demanded the money and told me that he was in hurry as he had to go to attend a party. I sent my workman for a Coca cola and he gave a signal to Mr. Chowdhry. Mr Chowdhry then came to my shop with the cloth pieces posing himself as a customer. The accused again demanded money from me but I asked him that my work should be done. The accused assured me that my work would be done before Holi. Then I took out all the eight G. C. notes from my pocket for handing them over to the accused, but kept one note of Rs. 10.00 with me and asked the accused to accept Rs. 70.00 only to which he agreed and accepted Rs. 70'.00 in his hand in the presence of Mr. Chowdhry punch witness. As the accused was counting G.C. notes. Inspector Shukia arrived at the spot and captured the accused."  

 (13) According to the statement reproduced above, the accused had actually accepted seven G.C. notes of the denomination of Rs. 10.00 each and was counting the same when Public Witness 8 arrived on the scene. I may say here that I am not at all depending upon the evidence of Public Witness 8 He was the author of the raiding party. He assumed the role of an investigating officer. I may observe that it would be safe in such cases if the investigation at the earliest is handed over to another officer. The narration of evidence recorded in the Ziminis by Public Witness 8 could not constitute statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and could not thus be available for purposes of proviso to section 162. In every criminal trial the investigation preceding it should be such as to make the benefit of all provisions contained in the Code available to the accused. Ignoring the statement of P.W.8 and returning to the cross-examination of Public Witness 1 when he was confronted with the assertion that no money held actually been handed over to the accused, he replied :--    "THE accused was still counting the money when Shukia Inspector came there. Shukia caught hold of both the hands of the accused with his both hands,"  

 (14) The unshaken testimony of Public Witness I who had no grudge whatsoever against the appellant except that after four years of struggling to ge.t the permission he had been faced with the demand of illegal gratification, is corroborated by the independent testimony of Public Witness 3 The said witness touching the crucial aspect as to whether the money had been actually obtained by the appellant or not said in his examination- in-chief:-    "THE complainant told the accused that he had not been able to arrange Rs. 80.00 as promised to be given to the accused and that he had been able to arrange only Rs. 70.00 by pawning his gold rings. The accused then told the complainant to give him Rs. 70.00 complainant asked the accused if his work would be done to which the accused replied that it would be done. The complainant then passed on seven G.C. notes of Rs. 10.00 to the accused. The accused then took them in his hand and counted them. As the accused was counting the G.C. notes, to give the arranged signal the complainant lighted a match stick upon which Inspector Shukia reached the shop with others."  

 (15) Before going to the cross-examination of this witness I must say that (here are several embellishments in the evidence of prosecution witnesses showing a departure from one or the other version. For one thing it is not clear as to what the arranged signal was because the version is not the same in the deposition of all the prosecution witnesses. That, however, is not which would in any way affect the proving of the ingredients contained in sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.  
 

 (16) In his cross-examination Public Witness 3 stated :-    "THE accused did in my presence ask the complainant for money. In fact, I did not hear the same specifically, but from the talk that ensued between the complainant and the accused after the complainant handing over Rs. 70.00, I could make out that the accused had demanded some money. The word 'bribe' was not used in the talk. The purpose of handing over the money of course was discerned by me to be one that the accused would attend to the work of the complainant in the discharge of his duty. The details of the work to be done were not then discussed."  

 (17) Towards the close of his cross-examination the witness stated :-    "IT is correct that the accused did try to rub his hands with his pant and Dari and also lick his fingers. He was able to lick them for a while but not completely."  

(18) The last deposition related to another aspect of the case. The currency notes, the numbers whereof had been noted, were treated b.y Phenoloathelene Powder and when the accused handled them he incurred the Phenoloathelene Powder on his fingers. His hands were forcibly dipped and then the liquid disclosed that the Phenoloathelene Powder had been there .on his hands. I am not concerned with that aspect of the case. Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code "will come in as soon as it is established that the accused received gratification which was not legal remuneration. It is not at all contended on behalf of the appellant that any legal remuneration was due to him from Public Witness I. The plea raised is that one Devki Nandan Wahi had given some clothes for stitching to Public Witness I, who had spoiled them. The version put in the cross-examination of Public Witness I suggests that the clothes had been given some time in October-November, 1968. Considering the explanation so furnished along with the evidence of Devki Nandan Wahi it passes comprehension why at all the accused was the person to obtain Rs. 70..00 .in respect of the clothes belonging to Devki Nandan Wahi which by alleged by had been spoiled by Public Witness 1, who happened to be a tailor ? The said witness had deposed that he was keeping the record of all his customers. Such a plea, as the one adopted by the appellant, can be very easily coined. Without attaching any importance to the falsity of that plea and depending entirely on the appraisal of the evidence of Public Witness s. 1 and 3, it stands firmly established that the appellant had obtained the amount of Rs. 70.00iin the circumstances established by the prosecution on the 26th of February, 1969. It is not a case of an attempt to obtain. It is not a case where any nicety of interpretation may be required. The facts speak eloquently . It was none of the business of the appellant to go twice to the shop of Public Witness 1 for diverse purposes. The admitted purpose of his first visit was to give the draft on the basis of which Exhibit Public Witness 1/H took its birth. The second visit; the court- is asked to believe, was entirely disconnected with the first one and was to realise Rs. 70.00due not .to the accused-appellant but to Devki Nandan Wahi. Looking at the case from every angle I find that it is not the interested testimony of P.W.I but its strong corroboration, which is furnished by the evidence of Public Witness 3, that combines with it to establish the case under both the provisions in respect whereof the conviction has been recorded. That being so, while maintaining the convictions of the appellant under charges (thirdly) and (fourthly) for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 70.00 from Public Witness I on 26th February, 1969, his conviction in respect of the alleged acceptance of Rs. 20.00 towards the end of January 1969, are set aside. The accused being guilty of offences under sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(l)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count and the sentences are to run concurrently. Finding no reason to. interfere, the appeal is dismissed.