Holding

The evidence established the demand and acceptance of a bribe, satisfying the elements of the offences, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Doctor R.R.S. Seth demanded Rs 500 from a relative of a patient for proper medical treatment, directing the payment to be made to his ward boy Nag Narain who would pass it on. A CBI‑led trap recovered the money and the doctor and ward boy were arrested. They were convicted under IPC sections 1208 (conspiracy) and 161 (public servant taking gratification) and under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 s.5(2) read with s.5(1)(d). On appeal, the High Court reduced the sentence on the ground of the passage of time. The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved a demand for bribe and its acceptance, and held that the evidence clearly established both, satisfying all statutory requisites. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved that the doctor demanded a bribe for medical treatment.
Whether the acceptance of the bribe by the doctor was established.
Whether the convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 s.5(2) read with s.5(1)(d) and IPC s.1208 and s.161 are sustainable.
Whether the procedural aspects of the CBI trap affect the validity of the conviction.
Whether the passage of time can justify reduction of the sentence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 1208, s. 161
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. 5(1)(d), s. 5(2)

Subjects

briberycorruptionPrevention of Corruption ActIPC 1208IPC 161medical professionCBI trapevidence of demand and acceptancecriminal conspiracy

Judgment

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 66

A RAJ RAJENDRA SINGH SETH @ R.R.S. SETH
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.1135 of 2008) r
JULY 22, 2008
B
. 1'-·
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Prevention of r:Jorruption Act, 194 7: s. 5(2) read with
s. 5(1 )(d) - Conviction under, on the ground that doctor de-
c manded bribe for giving proper medical treatment - Justifica-
tion of - Held: Justified...,... Evidence establish that the doctor ;.'
asked money to be passed on to ward boy who in turn handed
over money to doctor -All requisites for proving demand and
acceptance of btibe established - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.
D 1208 and 161. '
f-
Prosecution case .was that father of PW-3-complain- 1- ~.
:,.i_
ant was admitted in hospital where appellant was doctor
an.d ac~used no.2· was ward boy. Father of PW-3 com-
plained to him about lack of proper treatment. PW-3 re-
E quested accused no.2 to allow him to meet appellant. PW- I.

3 met appellant who demanded Rs . 500 from him for giv-
ing proper treatment to his father and also insisted to pay
the amount on 1.9.1985. The doctor also told PW-3-that in ,__
case he was not available in the hospital, he would pay ;

F the am·ount to his ward boy,· who would pass the amount F
to him. ;t..

PW-3 filed complaint. Trap was laid and on the day
fixed for paying the bribe money, appellant and accused
no.2 were caught red handed. Special Judge held the
G appellant and accused no.2 guilty of offence punishable
under ss. 1208 and 161 IPC and also under s.5(2) read
with s.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. >-
Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous impris- ...1-
onment for one year and to pay fine. On appeal, High Court
H 66 ,_
~
RAJ RAJENDRA SINGH SETH @ R.R.S. SETH v. 67
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

held that the accusations were established but consider· A
ing passage of time reduced the sentence to the period
already undergone. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The evidence is to the effect that the appel- B
lant had asked PW-3 to pay money to co-accused who
was to pass the money to him. PW-2 in his evidence has
categorically stated that the decision was taken in CBI
office that money is to be paid to accused no.2 who has
made payment to the accused. Similarly, PW-10 while C
making verification about the genuineness of the allega-
tions made by PW-3 has stated that he went to the resi-
dence of the appellant and he hid himself behind the bush
and from there he heard talks between PW-3 and appel-
lant. He has stated that the appellant asked PW-3 to make o
payment to accused no.2. PW-3 corroborated this part of
the statement of PW-10 who is a constable. He was en-
trusted with the job to verify the genuineness of the alle-
gations made by PW-3. He went to his Chamber and ac-
cused no.2 was present there. PWs 1 and 2 were inde- E
pendent witnesses and in their presence money was de-
livered to accused no.2 by PW-3. This was done because
when PW-3 and others reached the hospital, the cham-
ber was found locked. PW-3 met accused no.2 and paid
money to him and proceeded to residence of the appel- F
lant. After reaching there PW-3 and accused no.2 went
inside the gate and PW-2 and others remained at the gate.
It is clear from the evidence that the appellant came out
after the call bell was pressed and accused no.2 passed
the money to him. PW-2 who saw passing of money to
the appellant, gave a signal and immediately thereafter G
accused no.2 and the appellant were arrested and money
was recovered from the right hand of the appellant and
both the hands of the accused persons were washed in
separate solution and they turned pink. The currency
notes were also recovered and the requisite formalities H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S. C.R.

A were followed. The plea that there is no demand made by
the appellant is clearly belied by the evidence on record.
The evidence clearly establishes that the appellant had
asked the money to be passed on to accused no.2 who
in turn handed over the money to the appellant. All the
B requisites for proving the demand and acceptance of
bribe have been established. [Paras 8, 10] [72-C,D,E,F,G,H;
73-A & B; 7 4-D]
B. Noha v, State of Kera/a and Anr. (2006) 12 SCC 277 -
relied on.
c CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1135 of.2008
From the Judgment and Order dated 10/9/2003 of the High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Crl. Appeal No. 7 of 1998 (R)
D C.D. Singh and Merusagar Samantaray for the Appellant.
Rajiv Dutta, Saket Singh and P. Parmeswaran for the Re-
spondent No. 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by
a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. Two ap-
peals were filed by the present appellant and one Nag Narain ~
I

F who was accused no.2 questioning correctness of the judgment
dated 4th December, 1997 and order of sentence dated
16.12.1997 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi in R.C.
case No.15 of 1998. Learned Special Judge held the appel-
lants guilty of offence punishable under Sections 1208 and 161
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and also
G under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). Each of them was
sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,00/- with default stipulation.
3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
H
RAJ RAJENDRA SINGH SETH @ R.R.S. SETH v. 69
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

A written complaint was made to S.P. CBI, Dhanbad on A
1.9.1985 by one Raju Hadi, Safayi Mazdoor of Pathological
Laboratory Area-9, BCCL, Dhanbad alleging therein that he had
visited Chamodih Dispensary in connection with treatment of
his father Sri Hublal Hadi who was examined by Doctor L.B.
Sah, who referred him to Central Hospital, Dhanbad. Hublal Hadi B
was admitted in Bed No.16 ENT Department of Central Hospi-
tal on 29.8.1985. Raju Hadi had been to the hospital on
31.8.1985 to see his ailing father and his ailing father com-
plained of lack of proper treatment and he requested htm to
meet the concerned doctor, Raju Hadi ascertained that his fa- c
ther was under the treatment of Dr. R.R.S. Seth, the appellant.
He requested Nag Narain to allow him to meet Dr. R.R.S. Seth
and met Dr. R.R.S. Seth, who demanded a sum of Rs.500/-
from him for giving proper medical treatment to his father and
also insisted that the amount be paid on 1.9.1985. The doctor o
also told Raju Hadi that in case he was not available in the hos-
).
pital, he would pay the amount to his ward boy Nag Narain, who
would pass the amount to him. Since Raju Hadi was not willing
to make the payment of bribe amount to the doctor and ward
boy, he lodged a complaint to the S.P. CBI, Dhanbad for taking E
necessary action.
On the basis of complaint; verification was made and on
getting confirmation report, Sri R.C. Choudhary, Inspector, reg-
istered the complaint on 1.9.1985 and took up the investiga-
tion. The 1.0. obtained the services of the two independent wit- F
nesses Devraj Prasad Sinha (PW-2) and Ved Prakash Pahuja
(PW-1 ). These two independent witnesses reported before Shri
R.C. Choudhary in the office of the CBI. Thereafter members of
the CBI.formed a raiding party and this party also assembled
before him. After formal introduction of each other, the purpose G
of assembly was explained and practical demonstration regard-
ing the purpose and use of phenolphthalein powder and chemi-
-(
cal reaction with sodium carbonate was given in the immediate
presence of two independent witnesses and the members of
raiding party. After demonstration was over, the informant Raju H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A Hadi was asked to produce a sum of Rs.500/- (five G.C.C. notes
of rupees one hundred denomination each) and he produced
the same and numbers of these notes were noted down and
these G.C.C. notes were tai:ited with phenolphthalein powder
and handed over to Raju Hadi. The informant was directed to
B pay the amount to the accused only on demand. Instructions
were also issued to the witnesses and the members of the raid-
ing party to play their respective parts before and after trap. All
these practical demonstrations were noted down and demon-
stration chart was prepared on which all the members of the
c raiding party made their respective signatures.
After pre-trap formalities, PW3 and others members of
the team including independe~t witnesses proceeded towards
Central Hospital and PW2 was directed to shadow PW3 and
to hear conversation in between the PW3 and the appellants.
D When they reached Central Hospital and went to the charnbe:-
of appellant Dr. Seth, chamber was found locked but informant
met other appellant Nag Narain and PVV3 paid the tainted money
amounting to Rs.500/- to Nag Narain who kept the same in his
right pocket of his shirt and asked PW3 to proceed with him to
E the residence of Dr. Seth as he will give money in his presence
and PW3 appellant Nag Narain proceeded from Central Hos-
pital to the residence of Dr. Seth and PW2 and other members
of the team were following them. When PW3 remained near
the gate, other persons of the team remained outside the gate.
F On reaching burand of the house, appellant Nag Narain pressed
call bell whereupon appellant Dr. Seth opened the door and
came out and he gave money to him. ln the meantime, PVV2
who saw this came out of the gate and gave signal and thereaf-
ter members of the team pcur:ced upon them introducir.g them-
G selves as CBI officials and they c~~ught Dr. Seth and recovered
money from his possession, Nag Narain was also caught.
Thereafter right hand of Cr. Seth was dipped in a solution which
turned pink and this solution was kept in a bottle and sealed. )- .

Similarly, left hand of Dr. Seth was aiso dipped in another solLI··
h tion which also turned pink and this 5olution was a:so Kept !n a
RAJ RAJENDRA SINGH SETH @ R.R.S. SETH v. 71
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

separate bottle and sealed. At the same time, right hand of A
appellant Nag Narain was dipped in similar solution which also
turned pink and was kept in a bottle and sealed. Similarly left
hand of Nag Narain was also dipped in another solution which
also turned pink and this solution was also kept in a bottle and
sealed. His shirt was also dipped in a solution and that solution B
turned pink and that solution was kept in a bottle and sealed.
Thereafter members of the team put their respective signatures
on all the bottles which were sealed. Thereafter post-trap for-
malities were carried out at the premises of Dr. Seth, upon which
all the members of the team put their respective signatures. c
Both Nag Narain and Dr. Seth were later arrested soon after
recovery of money. After investigation of the case charge sheet
in the case was submitted and cognizance of the case was
taken and learned court below in course of trial recorded evi-
dence of witnesses of both sides and marked exhibits of docu- o
ments produced on behalf of both sides and ultimately came to
> a conclusion and held both the appellants guilty and accord-
ingly, convicted them and sentenced them.
4. The two accused persons filed appeals before the High
Court. Their stand was that there are a lot of contradictions in E
the evidence of witnesses. It was submitted that everything was
pre-planned and conspiracy was hatched to falsely implicate
the appellant. It was highlighted that so much preparations were
made before trap, but it is not clear as to who recovered the
money from the hands of the appellant. It was stated that PW8 F
was the brain behind the so-called trap.

5. After considering the rival stands the High Court held
that the accusations were established but considering passage
of time reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
G
6. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appel-
lant submitted that both the Trial Court as well as the High Court
lost sight of the following features:

(1) No demand was established;
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

·A (2) Role of PW.:.8 is highly suspicious and his evidence
lacks of.
(3) There were no independent witnesses;
(4) There was no positive evidence as fo who had
.B recovered the money as Claimed by the prosecution
from the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand
submitted that both the Trial Court as well as the High Court
C have analyzed the evidence in great detail and there is no infir-
mity in the impugned judgment.
8. Much has been made of the fact that most of the wit-
nesses were in the same office. The evidence is to the effect
that the appellant had asked PW-3 to pay money t6 co-accused
o Nag Narain who was to pass the money to him. PW-2 in his •
evidence has categorically stated that the decision was taken
in CBI office that money is to be paid to Nag Narain who has
made payment to the accused. Similarly, PW-10 while making
verification about the genuineness of the allegations made by
E PW-3 has stated that he went to the residence of the appellant
and he hid himself behind the bush and from there he heard
talks between PW-3 and appellant. He has stated that the ap-
pellant asked PW-3 to make payment fo Nag Narain. PW-3
corroborated this part of the statement of PW-10 who is a con-
F stable. He was entrusted with the job to verify the genuineness
of the allegations made by PW-3. He went to his Chamber and
Nag Narain was present there. PWs 1 and 2 were independent
witnesses and in their presence money was delivered to Nag
Narain by PW-3. This was done because when PW-3 and oth·-
ers reached at the hospital, the chamberwasfound·locked. PW-
G 3 met Nag Narain and paid money to him and proceeded to
residence of the appellant. After reaching there PW-3 and Nag
Narain went inside the gate and PW-2 and others remained at )- '

the gate. It is clear from the evidence that the appellant came
out after the call bell was pressed and Nag Narain passed the
H money to him. PW-2 who saw passing of money to the appel-
RAJ RAJENDRA SINGH SETH @ R.R.S. SETH v. 73
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

lant, gave a signal and immediately thereafter Nag Narain and A
the appellant were arrested and money was recovered from
the right hand of the appellant and both the hands of the ac-
cused persons were washed in separate solution and they turned
pink. The currency notes were also recovered and the requisite
formalities were followed. The plea that there is no demand B
made by the appellant is clearly belied by the evidence on
record. The evidence clearly establishes that the appellant had
asked the money to be passed on to Nag Narain who in turn
handed _over the money to the appellant.
9. In B. Noha v. State of Kera/a and Anr (2006 (12) SCC
c
277) it was, inter alia, observed by this Court as follows:
"10. The evidence shows that when PW-1 told the accused
that he had brought the money as directed by the accused,
the accused asked PW-1 to take cut and give the same D
to him. When it is proved that there was voluntary and
conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further
burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence,
the demand or motive. It has only to be deduced from the
facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case.
E
It was held by this Court in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi
v. State of Maharashtra (2000 (8) SCC 571) as follows:
"12. The premise to be established on the facts for
drawing the presumption is that there was payment
I
•' or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise F
. is established the inference to be drawn is that the
said gratification was accepted 'as motive or reward'
for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the
word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean
reward because reward is the outcome of the G
presumption which the court has to draw on the
"' factual premises that there was payment of
--'. gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at
the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each
other like 'gratification or any valuable thing'. If
H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw
the presumption that it was accepted as motive or
reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act,
the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context
to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the
B public servant who received it."
11. This decision was followed by this Court in M. Narsinga
Rao v. State of A.P (2001 (1) SCC 691 ). There is no case of
the accused that the said amount was received by him .as the
C amount which he was legally entitled to receive or collect from
PW-1. It was held in the decision in. State of A. P v. Kommaraju
Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000 (9) SCC 752), that when amount
is found to have been passed to the public servant the .burden
is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal
gratification. That burden was not discharged by the accused."
0
10. In the case at hand all the requisites for proving the
demand and acceptance of bribe have been established.
11. There is, therefore, no merit in this appeal which is
accordingly dismissed.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.