Supreme Court of India
STATE OF U.PversusBHAIYA LAL VERMA
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 764
- Decided
- 7 July 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court's acquittal was indefensible; the conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 IPC stands, with a reduced sentence of one year.
Summary
Bhaiya Lal Verma, an accountant in the District Agriculture Office, was caught accepting a bribe of Rs.150 after a trap was laid by the District Magistrate. Marked currency notes were recovered from him and he was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the IPC, receiving two years' rigorous imprisonment for each offence. The Allahabad High Court acquitted him, holding that a recovery order had already been issued and that the prosecution witnesses had not clearly heard a demand for bribe. The Supreme Court held that the High Court overlooked the fact that the recovery order itself bore the accused's signature, and that the testimony of the complainant (PW‑3) and the recovered marked notes clearly established the illegal gratification. Consequently, the High Court's acquittal was set aside and the trial court’s conviction was restored, with the sentence reduced to the minimum of one year.
Issues considered
- The validity of the High Court's reasoning that a prior recovery order precluded the accused's involvement in the alleged bribe.
- Whether the evidence of PW‑3 and the marked currency notes sufficiently proved acceptance of illegal gratification under s.5(2) PC Act.
- Whether contradictions in the recovery memo findings affect the conviction under s.5(2) PC Act and s.161 IPC.
Legislation cited
Subjects
corruptionillegal gratificationgovernment servantbriberecovery memoconvictionappealPrevention of Corruption Actevidence
Judgment
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 123
STATE OF U.P. A
II.
BHAIYA LAL VERMA
(Cr1minal Appeal No. 285 of 2001)
JULY 7, 2008
B
lDR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB
ALAM, JJ] ,
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
.•
s.5(2) and s.161 /PC - Government servant - Caught C
~ while accepting illegal-gratification - Conviction by trial court
- Acquittal by High Court - Held: High Court recorded contra-
dictory finpings - It noted that. marked currency notes were
recovered from accused -· There was no reason to discard
· evidence of prosecution witness - Order of High Court set . D
aside -:- Conviction and sentence awarded by trial court re-_
stored -Penal Code, 1860- s.161.
-
The respondent-accus~d was prosecuted u/s 5(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and s.161 IPC. PW-
3, an Ag~icultural Inspector, made a confidential complaint E
to the DistricfMagistrate that th~31ccused, who was work-
in~f in the office of the District Agri~ulture Project Officer,
was harassing him by giving threats of recovery on the
. basis of fictitious bills and demanded Rs.150/- from him.
A trap yvas laid and the accused was caught with two F
marked currency notes of Rs.100/-· and Rs.50/-. The trial .
court convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigor-
. ous imprisonment for two years under each count, and .
directed him to pay a firie of Rs. 5,000/-. On appeal by the
accused, the High Court acquitted him holding that re- G
covery order against PW.3 had already been issued and
thereafter the accused could not have frustrated the re-
covery on any ground. Aggrieved, the State filed the in-
stant appeal.
123 H
124 SUPREME COUR.T REPO_fnS [2908] 10 S.C.R.
l--.
A Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The High Court overlooked the fact that
the recovery order against P.W.3 itself contained the sig-
nature of the accused. There was thus no question of his
being not.involve-d·in the ·recovery. [para 6] [130-~ & B]
8
.1.2. The High Court attached unnecessary impor-
tance to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 to hold that they did
not clearly hear the demand for bribe. It is contrary to the
evidence on record. PW 2 stated that the appellant en-
c quired from police party the reason fo.r his arrest. This is
a ·very mateFia.I piece of evidence which hints at an ele-
ment of surprise· ·m-th_~ conduct of the appellant instead
of an exhibition of shocl<:--rrus_clearly supports prosecu-
tion. case. of demand of bribe by appellant for stalling the
recovery. There was no reason indicated to discard the
0
evidence of P.W 3. [para 7] [130-C,E & F] ·
2.1. The· recovery-of the marked currency notes from
the -accused has not been disputed. The evidence of PW
3 clearly establishes the demand and acceptance of bribe
E and the recovery. The High Court noted that in the per-
sonal search the marked currency notes were recovered
from the accused. The High Court recorded contradic-
tory findings. At one place it has noted that the recovery
~ · memo co·ntained tlie signature of th_e accused but at ·an-
F other place it says that the copy of the recovery memo
was neither handed over to the accused nor his signa•
ture was obtained on that. With this erroneous conclu-
sion the High Court came to hold that the recovery memo
was prepared behind the back of the accused. Accord-
G ing to High Court's own conclusion it was not really so.
[paras 6 and 8] [130-B & C; 131-A,B & C]
2.2. The order of the High Court 'is clearly indefen-
sible and is set aside. The order of conviction recorded
by the trial court is restored. [para 9] [131-0 & E]
H
STATE OF U.P. v. BHAIYA LAL VERMA 125
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~ CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDIC1:"10N: Criminal Appeal A
No. 285 of 2.001
Fr.om the final Judgment and-Order. dated 20.7.2000 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal
No. 2633 of 1987
B
S.G. Hasnianan, Mohd. ·Fuzail Khan, Archana Singh and
An ii Kumar Jha for the Appellant.
Anis Ahmed Khan and Shoaib Ahmad Khan for the Re- -
spondent.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad
High Court allowing _the crimin;:t! appeal filed by the respondent
(hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). The accused was con- - D~
victed by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act) Banda in Special
Case No. 3of1985 for offence punishable under Section.5(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act').
He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default E _
stipulation. H~ was also convicted for offence punishable un-
der Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
_'IPC') and sentenced to rigorous imprrsonment for Mo years.
Both the sentences were directed to run concuffently.
• p • ('"
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: F
Sri Rajendra Singh Kushwaha; Ass~ant Agriculture In-
spector of Rajkiya Krishi Sadhan Purti Bhandar Badokhar
Buzurg, Banda moved an application before the District Mag-
istrate, Banda confidentially on 2.4.1984 stating that Sri Bhaiya G
Lal Verma, the accused who was the Accountant in the office of
District Agriculture Officer and Project Officer in collusion with
the Project Officer (Agriculture) Sri. _Lal Mani Ram was harass~
ing him by giving threats of recovery on the basis of fictitious
bills. Sri Bhaiya Lal Verma the Accountant had promised him H
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A that if he pays Rs.150/- to him no action will be taken against
him. Sri Bhaiya Lal Verma had called him in, the office on 2-4-
1984 and has agreed to accept Rs.150/- as bribe. Hence re-
quest was made that the Accountant Sri Bhaiya Lal Verma may ·
be caught red handed while accepting Rs.150/- as illegal grati-
s fication s.o that the applicant may discharge his duties impar-
tially. The then District Magistrate, Banda marked the said ap-
plication to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Rev,.
enue) and ordered him to lay the trap. Thereafter; the then Addi-
tional District Magistrate (F), Banda Sri J.N. Vishwakarma di-
e rected SrL R.L. Gupta, the then Executive Magistrate and Addi-
tionaJ S.D.M./S.D.O.'Naraini Banda to record the statement of
the complainant and to prepare the fard of currency notes which
to
. were be given in the bribe and thereafter the papers were to
be handed over to C.0. Sadar for laying trap. In compliance
with the order of A.D.M. (F) Banda, Sri R.L. Gupta, Additional
0
S.D.M. Banda recorded the statement of the complainant Sri.
Rajendra Singh on 2-4-1984 at5.45 P.M. Sri Rajendra Singh
confirmed the facts mentioned in the application moved before
the District Magistrate, Banda. He further stated that he has
brought one currency note of Rs.100/a denomination, and one
E currency note. of Rs.50/- denomination, numbers of whic.h are
AA/35 377745.and 3 DH 355826 respectively. Sri R.L Gupta
prepared the fard of the said currency notes on 24-19a4 at 6
P.M.,He marked to currency noteswith his initial which were to
be given in the bribe to Sri Bhaiya Lal Verma. Thereafter•. the
F aforesaid currency notes were handed over to the complainant
Shri Rajendra Singh Kushwaha. The fard was read over to him
and his signatures were also obtained. Thereafter SriRL. Gupta
the Additional S.D.M. Banda called S~~· O.P. Kakkar the theri
C.O. Sadar in the office of A.D.M.(F), Banda on 2-4-1984 at
G _about6 PM., and.handed over the.application dated _2-4-1984
·of Sri Rajendra Singh Kushwaha containing orders of the Dis-.
trici Magistrate and Additional District·Magistrate (F) for laying
trap. He also handed over the statement of Sri. Rajendra Singh
and the fard of currency notes, as referred to above, to him. Sri
H O.P. Kakkar took-Rajendra Singh with him and proceeded to:.
STATE OF U.P. v. BHAIYA LAL VERMA 127
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~ wards the spot. He also took the then S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali Sri. A
Shiva Nandan and constables Rajendra Kumar Tiwari, Dinesh
Kumar and Guiab Singh from Kutchery Chauraha with him and
proceeded by jeep towards the office of District Agriculture Of-
ficer and Project Officer. They left the jeep near the Telephone
.:....
Exchange. From t!'lere they proceeded towards the place of B
occurrence on foot. Sri Shiv Prasad Yadav and Sri Mithlesh
KumarDwivedi met him near the Telephone Exchange. He took
them with him and gave information about his purpose. They
reached near the office and sent Rajendra Singh for giving ille-
gal gratification. They remained standing in the Verandah by c
the side of the eastern window affixed in the northern wall of the
big room lying in the· middle of the office. At that time light was
. on in the office and it was about 6.45 P.M. Sri Bhaiya Lal Verma
-was sitting on the table and was talking with one person. The
police party and the public witnesses heard and saw from the
D
l window that Rejendra Singh informed-Bhaiya Lal Verma that
he has brought Rs.150/- which he had demanded for notmak-
ing recovery from him and he should accept the said amount.
Thereafter Rajendra- Singh offered. Rs.150/- to Bhaiya LaJ
Verma, who accepted the currency notes of Rs.150/-. He took
~ out purse from his pocket and kept the said currency notes in E
the purse. Thereafter, he kept the purse in the left pocket of his
bush-shirt. ori being satisfied that Bhaiya Lal has accepted
bribe, the office was raided immediately and Bhaiya Lal was
apprehended inside the room. His personal search was made
--r in accordance with rules. One currency note of the dendmina- F
tion of Rs.100/- having No.AA/35 377745 and one currency note
of the denomination of Rs.50/- having No.3 DH 355826 with
marked initials of $ri. R.L. Gupta were recovered from the purse
kept in the left pocket of his bush shirt. Besides it, twq currency
notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each and two currency G
notes of the denomination of Rs.50/- each were also recovered
~ from the said purse. In the purse, photograph of the accused
was there; During search, the person with whom the accused
was talking before taking bribe esc.aped quietly from there. On
interrogation, he disclosed his name ·as Bhaiya Lal Verma son H
128 ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A of Korey Lal Verma and stated his full address. The afores_aid
currency notes along with purse and the photo of the accused
and the.bush shirt which the accused was wearing were taken.
Into possession by'the police at thespot and the aforesaid ar-
ticles were.sealed at the spot.~The-recovery memo Ex. Ka. 1
B was prepared at the spot _Qy Sri Shiv Nandan Singh at the dic-
tation of Sri O.P. Kakkar. The recovery memo was read over to
the police personnel and the public witnesses and their signa-
tures .were obtained. Thereafter, the accused Bhaiya Lal was
brought to P.S. Kotwali and was lodged there. The recovery
c .memo and the other papers were also filed at P.S. Kotwali. On
the basis ofthe recovery m~mo the~se was registered. against
the accused Bhaiya Lal Verma for offences punishable under
S_ection 161 l.P.C. and unqerSection 5 (2) of Act. The case was
- investigated by Sri Akshay Kumar Singh, the then Deputy $,.P,.
Babenu. During investigation, he recorded the statements of
0
the witnesses and prepared the site plan. The sanction to pros-
ecute the accused was granted by Sri Rishi Ram Sharma, Di-
rector Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh on 14th January, 1985. After
completion of the in~estigation, the charge sheet was filed
against the accused for commission. of offences puhishable
E under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Act .
~ .
The accused pleaded innocence.·He admitted t~at he was
posted as Accountant in the office of District Agriculture and I-
Project Officer Banda in April, 1984. In his statement recorded
F - un9er Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,· 1-973 (in
-~ '
sho_rt the 'Cc)de'), it was his stand that Sri Ram Aahar Awasthi
was dealing with files relating to recovery.' He had no concern
with the files of recovery. He took the stand that there was en-
mity between the then Plant Protection Officer, Banda whoIn
G collusion with Rajendra Kumar Kushwaha registered the false
case against him. He examined two ·witnesses to substantiate
his defence.
~--1
The prosecution examined Sri Mithlesh Kumar Dwivedi
'(PW.1), Shiv Prasad (PW2), Rajendra Singh (PW3), Aksha~
H Kumar Singh (PW4), Rishi Ram Sharma (PW5), Om Prakash_·
STATE OF U.P. v. BHAIYA LAL VERMA 129
_,.,,¥ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Kakkar (Pvv6), Munna Lal Katiyar (PW 7) and Ram Lakhan A
Gupta (PW8) in support of its case. Sri Mithlesh Kumar Dwivedi
(PW1) proved the recovery Memo Ex. Ka.1. Sri Raj~ndra Singh
(PW3) proved the application dated 2.4.1984 Ex.Ka.2. $ri
AkshayJ<umarSingh (PW 4) proved the site plan·Ex.Ka.3 and
the charge sheet Exj(a.4. Sri Ri$hi Ram Sharma (PW5) proved B
the sanction order Ex.-Ka."5. Sri Om Prakash Kakkar (PW6) also
proved the recovery memo Ex . Ka.1. Sri Munna Lal Katiyar
(PW7) proved the FIR Ex.Ka. 6 and the copy of G.D.Ex.Ka. 7.
Sri Ram Lakhan Gupta (PW8) proved the order of A.0.M;(F)
dated 2.4.1984 Ex.Ka.8, order dated 2.4.1984 of Distrjct Mag~ c
istrate Ex.Ka.9, the statement of Rajendra Singh Ex.Ka. 10 and
the Fard of currency notes Ex.Ka.11. Sri Ram Adhar Awasthi
(DW1) proved the initial of accused Bhaiya Lal Ex.Ka. 12 on
the Photostat copy of orde.r Ex.Ka.1. The currency notes Ka.1
l to Ex.6, a purse Ex. 7, bush shirt Ex.8, specimen of seal Ex:9
D
and the photo of the accused Ex.10 were produced in the evi-
dence.
-11
Placing reliance on the evidence of prosecu!ion witnesses
more particularly PWs. 1, 2 & 3, the trial court found the ac-
cused guilty arid. convicted and sentenced him ·as aforestated. ' E·
'
However, in appeal, the High Court directed acquittal.
. 4. In support of the appeal, learned .counsel for the State
-( submitted that the approach of the High Court was clearly erro-
neous. Recovery of the money has been clearly established. No
.
reason has been indicated to discard the evidence of PW 3. _
'
F
5. Learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand,
submitted that the High Court on analysis of the evidence came
to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the accusc;i-
tions. G·
6. One of the reasons which has weighed with the Higt:i
Court to direct acquittal is the statement of PW 1. Accordin~fto
High Court his evidence clearly proved that recov~ry order was
issued against the complainant on 29.3.1984 and it contained
signatures of the superior officer as well as the accused. The· H
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A High Court came to hold that once the recovery order has been
issued, the accused could not have frustrated the recovery on
anygrou'nd. The recovery can be frustrated only before the i~
suance of the recovery order. The reasoning of the High. Court
is clearly fallacious in as much as it overlooked the fact that the
B recovery order itself contained the signature of the accused. If
that is so, there was no question of his being not involved in
recovery. The High Court noted that in the per$onal search one
currency note of Rs.100/- having No.AA/35 377745 and the other
currency Note of Rs.50/- having No.3 DH 3555826 were recov-
C ered from him.
7. The High Court attached unnecessary importance to
the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 to hold that they did not clearly hear
the "demand for bribe. It is contrary to the evidence on record.
The High Court's conclusion is t~at after exS!mining the state-
D ment of these two witnesses it is apparent that none of these
witnesses had heard any-conversation belween the appellant
and the- complainant. Apart from it, it is-further clear from their
statements that it was not possibl€~for anyone to hear the con-
}
versation from that place where they were stl:3nding. Shiv t
E Prasad (PW 2) stated that appellant enquired from police party
the reason for his arrest. This is a very material piece of evi-
dence which hints at an element of surprise in the conduct of
the appellant instead of an exhibition of shock. This clearly strikes
at the root of prosecution case of demand of a bribe by appel-
F lant for stalling the recovery. There was no reason indicated to
discard.the evidence of PW 3.
8. It is not to understand how the root of the prosecution
.case of demand of bribe was rendered vulnerable. Merely be-
cause the accused enquired from the police the reason for his
-G arrest, that does not establish the innocence. The quest!on as
to why _he was being arrested and then telling the complainant
that he had not done a good thing to him and he had deceived
him rather goes to show that the accused was blaming the com-
- plainant for having betrayed him. It was not_a_statement.of inno-
H cence and on the contrary it was a statement showing anguish
STATE OF U.P. v. BHAIYA LAL VERMA 131
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
that the complainant had got him caught. As noted above, the A
recovery of the money has not been disputed. The evidence of
PW 3 clearly establishes the demand and acceptance of-bribe
and the recovery. The High Court had recorded contradictory
-"·
findings. On one hand it has noted tha' the recovery order con-
tained the signature of the accused but at another place it says , B
that the copy of the recovery memo was neither handed over to
the accused nor his signature was obtained on that. With this
. erroneous conclusion the High Court came to hold that the re-
covery memo was prepared behind the back bf the accused.
According to the High Court's own conclusion it was not really c
so. Interestingly, the suggestion made by the accused during
the cross-examination of PW 3 was that he had handed over
the money to the accused stating that the amount is the price of .
ghee for the Project Officer. This is an indirect way of accepting
that money has been received by him. In fact there was practi-
0
cally no denial of this aspect and the recovery has also not been
denied.
c,:
9. Above being the position, the order of the High Court is
clearly indefensible and is set aside. Th~ order of conviction
recorded by the trial court is restored. The custodial sentence E
shall be one year which is the minimum sentence prescribed.
10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "corruption"Sign in to search