Holding

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses proved the acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act stands.

Summary

The respondent, an Income Tax Officer, was tried and convicted by a Special Judge for accepting a bribe of Rs.12,500 under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution relied on the testimony of two panch witnesses (postal officers) and a police deputy superintendent, whose evidence indicated that the accused received the money and concealed it in a newspaper. The High Court acquitted the accused, holding that the witnesses were not independent and that the evidence was doubtful. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, held that their testimony was truthful and corroborated, and found no reasonable doubt of guilt. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the conviction, and affirmed the prescribed minimum sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the testimony of the panch witnesses and police officer was sufficient to prove the acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused on the ground of alleged lack of independence of government servant witnesses.
Whether the minimum sentence prescribed under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be relaxed in the facts of the case.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

BriberyCorruptionEvidencePanch witnessesSection 161 IPCPrevention of Corruption ActMinimum sentenceConvictionAppeal

Judgment

733

STATE OF GUJARAT

v.
B
RAGHUNATH VAMANRAO BAXI

April 16, 1985

[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E.S. VENKATAAMIAH, JJ.]
c
Evidence-A.ppreciaaon of oral evidence of different witnesses, explained-
Where the oral evielence supported by circumstantial evidence lead 011/y to one
possible view of guilt and no two views were reasonably possible, the accused must
be held guilty of the offence charged-Trap witnesses, evidentiary value of--
Sentence-When the statute prescribes a n1inim11m sentence. the fact that t/Je
offence was committed long back or that the accused retired from service will he
of no avail.
D
The Respondent was an Income Tax omccr. He was tried aad cocvic..
ted of the offences under section 161 Indian PeDal Code read and sectioa 5(2)
read with section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention or Corruption Act. T.b.i:- proseK!liltion
produced amons others, PWs the manaa:iog partaer of a ir• k:a1"a ., M/s.
Hind Ftrtilizers, Bhavna1ar, an assc1see befor• the accusetl from wltoM a
bribe of Rs. 12,500 was demanded aad acccpttd on 1-4.3.1972, Sri Parikh, E
Manager Postal Store Departmeet, witaess, to the traD laid a1ainst the accu"ed
and Mr. Judei• (PW 9) the Dy. Supdt. of Police. The defonc' or the &CCU•ed
was that the prosecution v~rsion of how the currency notes were seized from
him was false and that PWs 2 & 3 must have placed the notes ill the newspaper
when he had aone to the toilet. The Ai. dditiohal Specia.1 Judae, Ah1nedabad
accepted the prosecution version, co11victed the_ respo•dent of the offences with
which he was ell.arced and sentenced him to undergo rigorous irnprisoJllment for
F
one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 on each or the two counts. On ADpeal,
the High Court of Gujarat acquitted the accused of both the offences. Hence
the State-appeal by special leave of the Court.

Allowin1 the appeal, the Court.

HELD: 1.1 From the c:vidcnce of PWs 2, 3 and 9 it is clear beyond doubt G
that a sum of Ri. 12,500 was paid to and received by the accused as a bribe and
therefore, his conviction by the Trial Court was wrongly set a~ide by the High
Court. This is not a case where two views were reasonably possible. The only
possible view was that the accused was guilty of both the offences under section
161 Indian Penal code and section 5(2) read with section S(l)(d) of the Preven-
tion of Corruption Act, 1947. [741G·H] H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.

A 1.2 Jn the instant case, both Parikh (PW 3) and Panchal (not examined)
are certainly independent witnesses. Both of the1n are government servants
belonging to a different department, and if Jn5pector Sharma thought that they
could be called as independent panch witnesses, no motive can be
imputed to the investigating agency and no aspersions can be cast on the
said witnesses. The evidence of Parikh was truthful. His evidence substan-
8 tiates the evidence of PW 2, about the acceptance of the bribe by the accu~ed
and his keeping the money in a folded newspaper. ·From the circumstances t~at
the accused did not keep open the doors of his house expecting PW 2, that ·he
was in conversation with PW 2 for more than 40 minutes instead of sending hJm
away after taking the alleged bribe, tha• the colour of the solution had changed
to yellow when the Chemical Examiner, examined it· and that the failure to
examine Sharma the Inspector no adverse inference can be drawn against the
c prosecution. In fact, the prosecution offered Sharma for cross-examination and
kept him ready in court. The counsel for the accused stated that since the v.lic.
ness had already been dropped by the prosecution, he did not want to examine
him unless the court directed him to do so. After the failure of the counsel of
the accused -to take advantage of the oITer made by the prosecution it is not open
' to the accused in the appeal by special leave to comment upon the so.called
failure of the prosecution to e11:amine Inspector Sharma as a witness.
[740B·D, F; 741B, B·E)
n
2.1 In appreciating oral evidence, the question in each case is whetl~er
the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anvthing to doubt his vefa.
city in any particular matter about which he depose;. \Vhere the witness: is
found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter. Where fhe
witness is foun.d to be partly truthful or spring from tainted sources, the coUrt
E may take the tfr~caution of seeking sJm~ coLroJ:iration, adequate and reasdnM
able to meet the demands of the situation. (738F·G]

2.2. But a Co~rt is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merbly
brcausc they are government servants, who, in the course of their duties or eVen
othe_rwise might have come into contact with investigating officers and \Vho
might have been requested to assist investigating agencies, If their association
v.'ith the investigating agencies is unusual, frequent designed, there may be occa·
sion to view their evidence with suspicion. But m~rely because they are cal.led
in to associate themselves with the investigation as they happened to be available
-y
i
or it is convenient to call them, it is no ground to view their evidence with su'i-
picion. Even in cases where offic~rs who. in the course of their duties, ge~e·
rally assist the investigation agencies, there is no. need to view their evidepce
with suspicion as an invariable rule. For e11:ample, 1n rural areas, investigating
officers would ordinarily think of calling in the village officers, !luch as, ~he
Headman, the Patel or Patwari to act as punch witnesses, as -they are expected
to be re~p~ctable persons of the locality. It does not mean that their evidePce
should b"c viewed with suspicion because they are government servant'> or
because they are generally associated with investigating agencies whenever th:cre
is a crime in the village. For that matter it would be wrong to reject the evi~
<lence of pOlice officers either on the mere ground that they are interested in the
H success of the prosecution. POSH; 739A·D)
GUAJRH v. R. YARMAN RAO. (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 735

2.3 The court maY be justified in looking with suspicion upon the evi~ A
dence of officers who have been demonstrated to have displayed excess of zeal
in the conduct and success of the prosecution. But to reject the evidence of all
official witnesses as the High Court has done in the present case, is going far
too far. It is extremely unfair to a witness to rl!ject his evidence by merely
giving him a label. [739D-E]

3. Under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the
B
minimum sentence that can be imposed is imprisonment for <'ne year and the ·
maximum sentence is seven years. However, the Court, for any spcci11l reasons
to be recorded in writing, may impose a sentence of imprisonn1ent of less than
one year. There is no special circumstance in this C<!Se justifying the court to

>----.
,_ take a 1enient view. Corruption ha5 becom~ so rampant in the collntry and
the offence in this particular case cannot be considered trivial at all. This is not
a case of a petty clerk or a peon accepting a small amount as a bribe for doing c
some little favour. The Court can!1ot take a lenient vi;;:w of the conduct of an
Income tax officer, who accepts a large amount as a bribe for causing loss to
public r<veoue. [742A·CI

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Crim,nal Appea! No. 180
of 1976. 0

From the Judgment and Order dt. 17.10.1974 of the Gujarat
High Court in Cr!. Appeal No. 750 of 1973.

N. L. Kakar, and R.N. Poddar for the Appellant.
E
S.K; Dho/akia, R.C. Bhatia and P.C. Kapur for the Respondent..

The Judgment of the ·court was delivered by

\~ CHINNAPPA REDDY.J The Respondent was an Income-tax, F
\ Officer. He was tried and C)nvicted by the Additi0nal Special Judge,
Ahmedabad of offence under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and
Section 5(2) read with s,ction 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corrup-
tion Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year and to pay a fine of Rs, 2,000 on each of the two counts. On
appeal, the High Court of Gujarat acquitted the accused of both the G
'offences. The State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal by special
leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The case of the prosecution briefly was as follows :

One Shashi Kant Mansukh Lal Sheth (P.W. 2) was the H
736 SUPREY:E COURf REPORTS (1985) 3 S.C.R.
A Managing partner of a firm known as M/s Hind Fertilizers,
Bhavnagar. The assessments for the years 1968-69, 1969-70,
19\J.71 and 1971-72 were ponding before the accused-Incom~-tax
Officer. Between June and October 1971, there were nine hearings
of the case. On3 .5.72, Laxmilrnnt Sheth (p.W. 7) the Income-tax
B practioner who was representing the firm, received a notice directing
the firm's representative to attend his office on 14.3.72 with the
firm's book! of account and to show cause why sums tot&lling Rs.
1,94,378 should not be added to their returns of income for the
years b question. The firm felt that the notice was not justified.
As P. W. 7 would be busy on 14.3. 72, it was decided that they would
c go to the income-tax office with their books of account on: 13th .....i.·'
itself. On 10.3.72, Shashi Kant Sheth (P.W. 2) contacted the.~- · "'-:
income- tax officer on tbe telephone and the latter asked liim to
meet him at his residence at 2.00 P.M. Shashi Kant went to the
house of accused at Bhavnagar that afternoon. He was told to
come again on the evening of 13th. On the 13th, P.Ws 2 !Ind 7
went to the office and submitted the reply to the show cause uotice.
D
The accused wanted them to meet him again on 14th. P.W.7 said
he was busy on 14th. The accused then asked P.W. 2 to come· alone.
As previously agreed on 10th, Shashi Kant went to the house of the
accused on the night of 13th when the accused told him that the
clarification given by the firm was not satisfactory and that they
E would have to pay a sum of about Rs 12500 by way of tax unless
a sum of Rs. 40,000 was given to him as a bribe. On P.W. 2
pleading his inability to pay such a large sum, it was settled that
ff sum of Rs. 12,500 should be paid . . P.W. 2 wanted to consult
his partner. He was told by the accused that he should bring the
amount t0 his house on the evening of 14th March, 1973. · There-
F after, Shashi Kant contacted Shri. Judeja, Deputy Superint~nde~f:-j" '
of police, CBI who was campmg · at Bhavna&ar Shasht Kant f
complained to him about the demand of bribe of Rs. 12,500 by the
accused. Shri Judeja then took the neces5ary steps for laying a trap.
Two officers of the postal department Shri Parikh, Manager, Postal
Store Depot, Ahmedabad (P.W. 3) who was staying in the guest-
G house, and Shri Panchal, an officer of the Postal Department statio-
ned at Bhavnagar itself were requested to serve as panch-witnesses. ·
Shashi Kant was asked to bring currency notes of the value of Rs.
12,500. The notes ll'ere treated with phenol-phethelen powder.
Shashi Kant put the notes in his pocket. He was instructed to go
to the house of the accused accompanied by Parikh and to ten<.ler
H
GiJJARAt v. R. YAMAN RAO (Chinnappa ~eddy, j,) 737
A
the amount to the accused. On the accused receiving the amount
Shri Parikh was tO' come out of the house and signal the police party
to como. A panchn 1m' stating all these facts was duly prepared
at the guest-house. Thereafter, as arranged, the raiding party
proceeded towards the house of the accused. Shahsi Kant and
Parikh, P. Ws 2 and 3, went inside. Shahsi Kant introduced Parikh ll
to him as a member of his staff. They chatted generally for some
time. The accused then mentioned about the amount to be paid
to him whereupon Shashi Kant handed over the bundle of currency
notes to him. The currency notes were received by the accused
who carefully put them in a newspaper and folded the newspaper.
......._ Parikh then went out and signalled to the police party. Judeja, c
...... --Py. Supdt. of Police P.W. 9, tho other panch-witness Panchal and
the rest of tho polic• party ruslo.ed i1uide. The notes wen seized.
The accused was asked to dip his fin1ers in a solution of bicarbonate.
The solution turned pink. Thereafter, the pauchnama was prepared.
After the investigation was duly completed, the respoudent was
charge-sheeted for the two offences of which he was ultimately D
convicted.

The defence of the accused wa> that the prosecution case was
false. Shashi Kant came to his house with a stranger on the ni~ht
of 14.3.72. He was surprised at his visit, but for the sake of F
courtsey, he asked him to sit down and asked him the purpose of
his visit. Instead of replying him, Shashi l(ant and the stranger
started talking about politics to him. He told him that he was a
public servant and he was not interested in politics. He also told
them that he wanted to go to bed. He went to the toilet for a few
minutes and when he returned, Shahsi Kant and the stranger stood E
~lip and went away after shaking hands with him. A few moments
\later they returned with the police party. They must have planted
the notes in the newspaper which was lying on the table when
he had gone to the toilet.

It is seen from the facts narrated above that meeting of Shashi G
Kant and Parikh with the accused on the night of 14.3.72 at 8.00P.M.
is not disputed. It is a.lso not disputed that Shashi Kant and
Parikh talked to the a accused for quite considerable time, nearly 40
minutes. It is further not disputed that within a few moments after
Shashi Kant and Parikh left the accused, Judeja, Panchal and rest of H

•
138 StlPREMB CotiRT REPORTS (1985] J s;C.R.
A police party entered the house of the accused and currency not~s of
the valne of Rs. 12, 500 were seized from in a fold of a news paper
laying on the table. The accused was present all the time and there
was no protest by him. That the fingers of the accused were;, also
dipped in some solution is not disputed. The only question is
B whether the amount of Rs. 12,500 was received by the accused as a
bribe or whether the amount was planted by Shashi Kant and
Parikh during the brief visit of the accused to the toilet.
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of Shashi
Kant, Parikh and Judeja and convicted the accused as aforesaid.' The
'
High Court, however, took are markably curious view of the evi,dencc
c and acquitted the accused. The High Court narrated several cifcum- ~·
stances, one after an other, why the prosecution case should iiot be,...-~
accepted. We have considered every one of the circumstances and
we find that there is not a single satisfactory circumstance resosnably
justifying the acquittal. On the other hand we find that everyone of
D the circumstances is overstated and fanciful.

The most important circumstance which seems to have
weighed heavily with the High Court, almost to the point of
obsession, was that Parikh and Panchal were not independent wit-
nesses as·they were both governmont servants and as they had some
E
previous acquaintmce with Inspector Sharma who was as~isting
Judeja in the investigation. The High Court was of the vie.Y that
some other respectable residents of Bhavnagar should have, been
called as Panch-witnesses to be associated with the raid. We are
afraid the High Court has entirely misdirected itsolf in appreciating
the evidence. In their approach to the evidence, the High Court
J.1
has done injustice to the witnesses and this has resulted in a· grave
~iscarriage o~ justice', In appreciating _oral evidence, the qtjestioii~
m each case JS whetner the witness is a truthful witness and (
whether, there is anything to doubt his veracity in any pariicular
matter about which he deposes. Where the witness
is found to be untruthful on m1terial facts that is an
G end of the matter. Where the witness is found to be partly
truthful or to spring from tainted sources, the Court may take
the precaution of seeking some corroboration, adequate and
reasonable to meet the demands of the .situation, but a
court is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely
because they are government servants, who, in the course of their
H duties or even otherwise, might have come into contact with inves-

-
GUJARAT v. R. VAMAN RAO (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 739

ligating officers and who might have been requested to assist the A
investigating agencies. If their association 'with the investigating
agencies is unusual, frequent or designed, there may. be occasion to
view their evidence with suspicion. But merely because they are
called in to associate themseleves with the investigation as they
happened to be avilable or it is convenient to call them, it is no
ground to view their evidence with suspicion. Even in cases ll
where officers who, in the course of their duties, generally assist
the investigating agencies, there is no need to view their evidence
with suspicion as an invariable rule. For example, in rural areas,
investigating offic;rs would ordinarily think of calling in the village
officers, such as, the Headman,· the Patel or Patwari to act as punch c
witnesses, as they are expected to be respectable persons of the
locality. It does not mean that their evidence should be viewed
with suspicion because they are government servants or because
they are generally associated with investigating agencies whenever
there is a crime in the village. · For that matter. it would be wrong
to reject the evidence of police Officers either. on the mere gronnd D
that they are interested in the success of the prosecution. The
court may be justified in looking with suspicion upon the evidence
of officers who have been tdemonstrated to have displayed excess
of zeal in the conduct and success of the prosecution. But to reject
the evidence of all official witnesses as the High Court has done
in the present case, is going far too far. We think tha.t it is E
extremely unfair to a witness to reject his evidence by merely giving
him a label.

There were two panch witnesses Parikh and Panchal of
whom Parikh has been examined as PW .3 while Panchal has not
been examined. We have been taken through the Whole of the F
-'f'~ deposition of Parikh and . we find nothing whatever to doubt
\ his veracity. Nothing was ·suggested to him as .to why he sh~uld
give false evidence to implicate the accused. All that was elicited
from him was that he had worked as departmeotal inquiry officer
and also to defend delinquents in such inquiries in his department.
He had become acquainted with Inspector Sharma fifte,en days
before March 14, 1972 as he was defending a delinquent at
Bhavnagar in a case in which ·Shri Sha.rtna was the prosecuting
officer. Shri ·Panchal, who was Assistant Superintendent of Post
Offices, Bhavnagar was the Inquiry Officer in that case. This is
stated to be the "close association" of the two panch witnesses H
'140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (!985) 3 S.C.R.
.A

A with the investigating· agency in this case. It is impossible to
subscribe to this view. When Judeja, Deputy Superintendent ·of
Police asked Inspector Sharma \o get two independent pan~h
witnesses, Parikh was readily available in the guest house and
he had known Panchal as the Inquiry Officer in a departmental
inquiry in the Postal Department. Both of them being Govern-
B ment Servants belonging to a different department, if Inspector
Sharma thought that they could be called as independent
punch witnesses, we are unable to impute any motives to the
investigating agency or to cast aspersions on the witnesses Parikh
and Panchal. We do not have any doubt in accepting the evi-
dence of Parikh as that of an independent witness. Having exa-
c mined his evidence in detail, we find his evidence to he truthful. • ,..,..(_
Hi• evidence 1ubstantiates the evidenc• of P\11-2 about the
acceptance of the bribe by the accused and his keeping the money
in a folded newspaper. If we accept the evidence of PWs 2 a.nd
4, the prosecution case that the. money was given as a bribe must
D be accepted and the defence version that the money was planted
must be rejected.

The other circumstances upon which the High Court relied
are very trivial and it is unnecessary to burden this judgment with
a seriatim discussion of those ciscumstances. For example, one
E
of the circumstances was that if the accused bad arranged that
PW-2 should come to him on the evening .of 14th with the bribe,
he would have been waiting in his house to receive him with the
doors of the house open iO that the bribe-giver may walk in
straight and he was not likely to have kept the doors closed and
wait for the bribe-giver to knock at the door. We consider it
F needless even to comment upon this circumstance. Another
circumstance npon which the High Court relied was that ihe
accused was not likely to have talked with PWs 2 and 3 for
as long as 40 minutes if he was accepting a bribe. He would
have merely received the money and sent them away. The very
fact that he was talking to them for nearly 40 minutes indicated
G
that no bribe was given or taken. On the other hand, we cbn-
sider that this is a strong circumstance against the accused. The
accused knew that PW-2 was an assessee who had a ·pending <;ase
before him. If the assessee paid him a visit after 8.00 PM at·his
residence, one would expect the accused to immediately suspect
H the reason for the visit and to turn him away at once or at least
GUJARATV. R. VAMAN RAO (Chinliappa fl.eddy,!,) 74J

within a few minutes after his coming to his house. Instead of that, A
he takes them inside the house, talks to them for nearly 40 minutes.
This conduct of the accused is clearly against his innocence.
Some question was raised that the solution which according to
the investigating officer and tile panch witness turned pink when
the accused was asked to dip his fingers in it, bad become
ll
yellowish when the chemical examiner examined the solution.
Nothing really turns on this in view of the evidence of PWs 2, 4
and that of the investigating officer PW-9.

A point was sought to be made in this court of the failure
of the prosecution to examine Inspector Sliarma as a witness. c
......._~ All that Inspector Sharma did in the case was to assist Judeja,
Deputy Superintendent of Police and to fetch the two panch wit-
nesses when he was asked to do so. He could not by any means
be called a material witness .. As some comment was made during
the course of the trial about the failure _of the prosecution
to examine Inspector Sharma, the prosecution offered him for D
cross-examination and kept Inspector Sharma ready in court.
The counsel for the accused stated that since the witness
had already been dropped by the prosecution, he did not want
to examine him unless the court directed him to do so. After
the failure of the counsel of the accused to take advantage
of the offer made by the prosecution, we do not think that it is
open to the accused to comment upon the so-called failure' of the
prosecution to examine Inspector Sharma as a witness. Nor can
we draw any adverse inference against the prosecution. On this
question, the High Court took the same view as we do.

From the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 9, we do not have the
slightest doubt that a sum of Rs, 12,500 was paid to and received
· by the accused as a bribe. The \e,1rned Sessions Judge was clearly
right in convicting the accused and the High Court was wrong in
acquitting the accused. We do not think that this is a case where
G
two views were resonably possible. The only possible view was
that the accused was guilty and we hold him guilty of both the
offences under section 161 !PC and section S (2) read with section
S (!) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, !947. The learned
counsel for the accused argued that in view of the long time
that has elapsed since the commission of the offence and in view
of the circumstance that the accused has also retired from service, H

•
:>.
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] j S.(1.1\..

A we may take a lenient view and .not sentence the accused to ~ny
term of imprisonment. But under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention' of
Corruption Act, 1947, the minimum sentence tlut can be impos:ed
is imprisonment for one year and the nnximum sentence is seven
years. However, the court, for any special reasons to be recorded
in writing, may impose a s·entence of imprisonment of less than
B
one year. We are unable to find any special circumstance in
this case justifying our taking a lenient view. Corruption tias
become so rampant in the country and the offence in this patti·
ular case cannot be considered trivial at all. This is not a dse
of a petty clerk or a peon accepting a small amount as a bribe for
c doing some little favour. We cannot possibly take a lenient vi~w
of the conduct of an income tax officer, who accepts a large _ _-
amount as a bribe for causing loss to public revenue. We think that
the sentences imposed by the learned Session Judge were the right
sentences to be imposed on the accused .. The judgment of the High
Court is se.t aside and that of the learned Special Judge is restored.
D The accused will surrender to his bail.

E S.R. t1 pp ea I 1!1/0 well
'