IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.                 OF 2008  (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1728 of 2004)

Raj Rajendra Singh Seth @ R.R.S. Seth ...Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand and Anr.   ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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

appeals  were  filed  by  the  present  appellant  and  one  Nag

Narain 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

appellants guilty of offence punishable under Sections 120B

and 161 of the Indian Penal Code,  1860 (in short the ‘IPC’)

and also 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:

A written complaint was made to S.P. CBI, Dhanbad on

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  was  admitted  in  Bed  No.16  ENT

Department of Central Hospital on 29.8.1985.  Raju Hadi had

been to the hospital on 31.8.1985 to see his ailing father and

2

his ailing father complained of lack of proper treatment and he

requested  him  to  meet  the  concerned  doctor,  Raju  Hadi

ascertained  that  his  father  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 also told Raju Hadi

that in case he was not available in the hospital, 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

necessary action.

On the basis of complaint, verification was made and on

getting  confirmation  report,  Sri  R.C.  Choudhary,  Inspector,

registered  the  complaint  on  1.9.1985  and  took  up  the

investigation.  The  I.O.  obtained  the  services  of  the  two

3

independent witnesses 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  of  assembly  was  explained  and

practical  demonstration  regarding  the  purpose  and  use  of

phenolphthalein  powder  and chemical  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 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 tainted with phenolphthalein powder and

handed over to Raju Hadi. The informant was directed to pay

the  amount  to  the  accused  only  on  demand.   Instructions

were  also  issued  to  the  witnesses  and the  members  of  the

raiding  party to  play their  respective  parts  before  and after

trap.  All these practical demonstrations were noted down and

4

demonstration chart was prepared on which all the members

of the raiding party made their respective signatures.

After  pre-trap formalities,  PW3 and others  members  of

the team including independent witnesses proceeded towards

Central Hospital and PW2 was directed to shadow PW3 and to

hear  conversation  in  between  the  PW3 and  the  appellants.

When they reached Central Hospital and went to the chamber

of  appellant  Dr.  Seth,  chamber  was  found  locked  but

informant met other appellant Nag Narain and PW3 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 the residence of Dr. Seth as he will give

money  in  his  presence  and  PW3  appellant  Nag  Narain

proceeded from Central Hospital 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. 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

5

him. In the meantime, PW2 who saw this came out of the gate

and gave signal and thereafter members of the team pounced

upon them introducing themselves as CBI officials and they

caught  Dr.  Seth  and recovered  money  from his  possession,

Nag Narain was also caught. Thereafter right hand of Dr. 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 also dipped in another solution which also turned

pink and this solution was also Kept in a separate bottle and

sealed. At the same time, right hand of 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

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 formalities were carried out at the premises of Dr.

Seth,  upon  which  all  the  members  of  the  team  put  their

6

respective  signatures.  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 evidence  of  witnesses  of  both sides

and marked exhibits of documents produced on behalf of both

sides and ultimately  came to a conclusion and held both the

appellants  guilty  and  accordingly,  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 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 was the brain behind the so-called trap.

7

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.

6. In  support  of  the  appeal  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant submitted that both the Trial Court as well as the

High Court lost sight of the following features:

(1) No demand was established;

(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 to who had 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

have  analyzed  the  evidence  in  great  detail  and  there  is  no

infirmity in the impugned judgment.

8

8. Much  has  been  made  of  the  fact  that  most  of  the

witnesses were in the same office. The evidence is to the effect

that  the  appellant  had  asked  PW-3  to  pay  money  to  co-

accused 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 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  appellant  asked  PW-3  to  make  payment  to  Nag

Narain.  PW-3 corroborated this part of the statement of PW-

10 who is a constable. 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 others reached at the hospital,  the chamber was

found locked.  PW-3 met Nag Narain and paid money to him

9

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 money to him.  PW-2 who saw passing

of  money  to  the  appellant,  gave  a  signal  and  immediately

thereafter  Nag  Narain  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  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 Nag Narain who in turn handed over

the money to the appellant.                      

9. In  B. Noha v.  State of Kerala and Anr. (2006 (12) SCC

277) it was, inter alia, observed by this Court as follows:

10

“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  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.  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 or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise 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  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  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

11

context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction  to  the  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  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.”

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.  

...............................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

............................... J.

12

(S.H. KAPADIA) New Delhi, July 22, 2008

13