http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: BHANUPRASAD HARIPRASAD DAVE RAJUJI GAMBHIRJI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF GUJARAT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/1968

BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. MITTER, G.K. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1968 AIR 1323            1969 SCR  (1)  22  CITATOR INFO :  R          1976 SC1497  (22)  R          1979 SC 400  (5)

ACT: Code of Criminal Procedure (5 of 1898) ss. 161 and 162-First investigation  by a police officer held  illegal--Subsequent investigation ordered--whether first investigation non est. Indian  Evidence  Act  (1  of  1872)--Evidence  of  partisan witnesses--Corroboration, if necessary. Bombay    Police   Act   (Bom.   22   of   1951)   s.    161 (1)--Investigation after six months--When can be done.

HEADNOTE: A  postcard written by R to a lady M requesting her  to  ask another  lady  to  meet  him, was made  over  to  the  first appellant-a Police SubInspector.  The first appellant  asked the  second appellant--his writer constable-to fetch  R.  On his arrival, R was asked to pay money otherwise he would  be harassed.  R approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department, as a result of which a trap  was laid and the currency notes treated with anthracene given to R for the payment  R and one D went to the first  appellant, who directed R to pay it to the second appellant.  The first appellant took Out the postcard, tore it and burnt it, while R   paid  the  money.   Another  police  Sub-Inspector   and constable  both belonging to the Anti-Corruption  Department were  keeping  a  watch from nearby  compound.   The  second appellant went to two shot)s and changed some currency notes there.   The  Dy.   S.P. searched the  first  appellant  but nothing incriminating was found. he seized the burnt  pieces of postcard, sonic of the unburnt pieces were recognised  by R.  The Dy.  S.P. seized the currency notes from  the  shops and their number tallied.  The second appellant was arrested and considerable anthracene powder was found on his  person. The  appellants were tried tinder ss. 161 ind 165A  IPC  and ss. 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act  by Special  Judge,  Ahmedabad.  An objection was taken  to  the trial  that in view of Bombay State Commissioner  of  Police Act,  1959,  the investigation should have been  made  by  a Superintendent of Police is there was a Police  Commissioner in  that city, which was upheld and it  fresh  investigation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

ordered by a Superintendent of Police.  Because of the fresh investigation,  in  respect of most  witnesses,  the  police diary contained two statements one recorded by the Dv.  S.P. and the other by the S.P. While deposing in the trial Court, M  asserted that she had destroyed the postcard as  soon  as she  read it, and she was cross-examined by the  prosecution in reference to her earlier statement to the Dy, S.P, to the effect  that  he  had  Liven  the  postcard  to  the   first appellant.   The Trial Court accepted the  prosecution  case and  convicted the appellants, which was upheld by the  High Court.    In  appeal  before  this  Court,  the   appellants contended that (i) in view of the order of  reinvestigation, the  record of the investigation made by the  Dy.  S.P.stood wiped out, and therefore M could not have been crossexamined with reference thereof; (ii) the conviction could not solely be,based on the evidence of R and Police witnesses, who were all  interested  witnesses; (iii) no offence. was  made  out under  s. 161 IPC, as the prosecution had to establish  that they   were  public  servants  and  had   obtained   illegal gratification for showing or forbearing to show in  exercise of their official ’functions, favour, or disfavour to R; and (iv) the Prosecution was barred 23 by limitation by s. 161(1)of the Bombay Police Act, 1951  as it was instituted more than six months of the offence. HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. (i)Though the first investigation was not in accordance law, but yet it was in no sense non-est.  Investigation  includes laying of trap.  That part of the investigation was done  by the  Dy.  S.P. The Statements recorded by the Dy.   S.P.  in the course of his investigation, though the investigation in question  was illegal, were still statements recorded  by  a police officer in the course of investigation under  Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently  they fell within the scope of ss. 161 and 162 of the Code.[27C-F] S.N. Bose v. State of Bihar, Cr.  A. 109 of 1967 decided  on March 26, 1968;H. N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi. [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1150; and The State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, [1959] SCR. 195, followed. (ii)  While  in  the case of evidence of  an  accomplice  no conviction  can  be  based  on his  evidence  unless  it  is corroborated  in  material particulars but ,is  regards  the evidence  of  a partisan witness it is open to  a  court  to convict  an  accused  solely  on that  evidence,  if  it  is satisfied  that  that evidence is reliable.  But it  may  in appropriate  case look for coroboration.  In this  case,  R. and   the  police  witnesses  could  not  be  said   to   be accomplices,  and both the courts below have fully  accepted their  evidence.   So  it was open to them  to  convict  the appellants on the basis of their evidence.  That apart their evidence was substaintially coroborated by the evidence of D and the shopkeepers. [29B-D] The  State  of Bihar v. Basawan Singh,  [1959]  S.C.R.  195; followed. Rao  Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh,  [1954] S.C.R. 1098, overruled. Major  E.G. Barsay v. The State of Bombay; [1962]  2  S.C.R. 195, distinguished. (iii)  Offence under s. 161 IPC was made out,  The  question whether  there  was any offence which  the  first  appellant could  have investigated or not was irrelevant.  If  he  had used his official position to extract illegal gratification, the requirement of law was satisfied. [29F] Mahesh  Prasad  v. The State of U.P. [1955]  1  S.C.R.  965; Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v. The Delhi Administration  [1962]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

3 S.C.R. 259, followed. (iv)  Section  161(1) of the Bombay Police,  Act,  1951  was inapplicable to this case.  The appellants could not be said to  have  received  bribe under the colour  of  their  duty. There  was no connection between the duties to he  performed by  them and the receipt of the bribe in question. All  that could  be,  said  was  that the  first  appellant  a  police officer,  taking  advantage  of his  position  as  a  police officer and availing himself of the opportunity -afforded by the  letter  M handed over to him coerced R to  pay  illegal gratification to him.  This could not be said 4to have  been done " under colour of duty".  The charge against the second appellant  was  that  he aided the first  appellant  in  his illegal activity. [30G-31A] The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugopal, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 742, referred to. Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur v. The State of Mysore, [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 6, held inapplicable. 24

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.155  of 1965. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated September  8,  9,  10, 1965 of the  Gujarat  High  Court  in Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 1964. M. R. Barot and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellants. P. K. Chatterjee, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayyar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde,J.  The  appellants  in this  appeal  are  two  police officers.   The first appellant Bhanuprasad Hariprasad  Dave was  the  police  Sub-Inspector and  the  second  appellant, Rajuji Gambhirji, was his writer constable in February 1963. At  that time both of them were attached to the  Navrangpura police station, Ahmedabad.  They were tried and convicted by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad, for offences under s. 161 read with S. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (1) (d) read with s. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (No. 2 of 1947), and for those offences each of them was sentenced  to suffer  rigorous imprisonment for two and half years  and  a fine  of  Rs. 1,000, in default to suffer  further  rigorous imprisonment for year.  The judgment of the learned  Special Judge  was  affirmed by the High Court ,of Gujarat.   It  is against  that  judgment, this appeal has been  filed,  after obtaining special leave from this Court. To  state  briefly,  the prosecution case is  as  follows  : Ramanlal, the complainant in this case, wrote a postcard  on February  11,  1963  to  one  Madhukanta,  a  lady  teacher, requesting  her  to ask Chandrakanta, another  lady  teacher working  with  her, to meet him in connection  with  certain work.   Therein  he  also wrote that he  would  be  glad  if Madhukanta could accompany Chandrakanta.  The headmaster  of the  school where Madhukanta and Chandrakanta were  working, happened to read that postcard.  She took Madhukanta to task for  allowing  strangers  to write to her  in  that  manner. Piqued by the conduct of Ramanlal, Madhukanta made over  the postcard in question to the first appellant, probably with a request  that Ramanlal might be pulled up for  his  conduct. On  February 16, 1963, the first appellant sent  the  second appellant  to fetch Ramanlal to the police station.  On  his arrival  at  the  police station, Ramanlal  was  abused  and slapped  by  the  first appellant.  He  threatened  to  take

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

action  against  him and after some time he  told  him  that unless  he paid him a sum of Rs. 100 he would  be  harassed. With a view to got out of the situation.  Ramanlal agreed to pay the sum demanded.  But when he went to draw the required amount from his bank, as that day was a 25 Saturday,  the  bank  had been closed by the  time  he  went there.   He  therefore asked the first  appellant  time  for payment  till the 18th.  The first appellant agreed  to  the same.   On  the  morning of 18th, Ramanlal  met  the  Deputy Superintendent  of  Police, AntiCorruption  Department,  and complained  to him about the incident in question.   He  was asked  to give a written complaint in that regard  which  he did.   Thereafter  he  produced  before  the  Dy.  S.P.  ten currency-notes  of Rs. 10 each.  The numbers of those  notes were noted and then those notes were treated with anthracene powder.  Ramanlal was asked to give those notes to the first appellant   if  he  made  any  further  demand  for   bribe. Thereafter he was sent to the police station with the  panch witness,  Dahyabhai.   But  when they  went  to  the  police station  they found that the first appellant was not  there. They  were  told that he had gone to  attend  court.   Hence Raman lal and Dahyabhai returned to the office of the  Anti- Corruption  Department and reported to the Dy.   S.P.  about the  same.  Under instructions from the Dy.  S.P.  he  again went to the office of the Anti-Corruption Department on  the evening  of that day with currency-notes.  Those notes  were again  treated  with  anthracene powder  and  their  numbers noted.   Ramanlal was again sent to the Police station  with Dahyabhai on that evening at about 5-3o p.m. When they  went there,  the  first appellant was not there, but  the  second appellant was there.  He told them that the first  appellant was  expected in the station at any moment.  Thereafter  the second  appellant, Ramanlal and Dahyabhai went to  a  nearby tea-shop  and  took tea.  By the time they returned  to  the police  ,station  the first appellant was  there.   Ramanlal told  the  first appellant that he had  brought  the  money. Then  he asked him to pay the same to the  second  appellant who  was  in one of the rooms of the police  station.   When Ramanlal went to pay the money to the second appellant,  the first appellant took out the postcard written by Ramanlal to Madhukanta, showed it to Dahyabhai and thereafter tore it to pieces  and burnt it.  Meanwhile Ramanlal went and paid  the currency-notes  in question to the second appellant.   While Ramanlal  and Dahyabhai were in the police  station,  police Sub-Inspector   Erulker   and  constable   Santramji,   both belonging to the Anti-Corruption Department, were  observing from a nearby compound the happenings in the police station. The  second appellant immediately on receiving the notes  in question  left the police station.  But he was  followed  by constable  Santramji.   From the police station  the  second appellant first went to the shop of one Sanghvi and  changed one  of  the currencynotes.  From there he went to  the  pan shop  of  Sendhalal and there changed three  more  currency- notes.  Thereafter constable Santramji was not able to  keep track of him.  Meanwhile when things did not go according to plan,  Ramanlal was somewhat confused.  He after paying  the amount to the second appellant L1OSup.Cl/68-3 26 straight  rused back to the Dy.  S.P. and told him what  had happened at the police station.  Immediately, the Dy.   S.P. rushed  to  the  police station and there  he  searched  the person of the first appellant, but nothing incriminating was found.  He seized the burnt pieces of the postcard.  Some of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the  unburnt pieces were recognised by Ramanlal as  portions of  the postcard written by him to Madhukanta.   From  there the Dy.  S.P. proceeded to the shop of Sanghvi and Sendhalal and seized the currency-notes changed in their shops by  the second appellant.  Their numbers tallied with the numbers of the  notes  earlier  handed over  to  Ramanlal  after  being treated  with anthracene powder.  Those notes were  full  of anthracene powder.  The same night the second appellant  was arrested   and  at  that  time  it  was  found  there   ,was considerable  anthracene  powder on his person.   After  in- vestigation the appellants were prosecuted for the  offences mentioned earlier. Both  the trial court and the High Court have  accepted  the prosecution  case.   This  Court being a  court  of  special jurisdiction  does  not examine the evidence  afresh  except under exceptional circumstances.  No good reasons were shown to  us  for  departing from the  ordinary  rule.   Hence  we proceed  on the basis that the findings of fact  reached  by the High Court are ,.correct. Before  proceeding  to examine the various  contentions  ad- vanced  on  behalf  of the appellants  it  is  necessary  to mention that in this case there were two investigations.  As seen  earlier  the  trap in this case was laid  by  the  Dy. S.P.,  Anti-Corruption  Department.  He was the  person  who investigated  the case and laid the charge-sheet.  But  when the case came up for trial before the learned Special  Judge objection  was taken to the trial of the case on the  ground that  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  the  Bombay   State Commissioner of Police Act, 1959, the investigation in  this case should have been made by a Superintendent of Police  as there  was a Police Commissioner for the city of  Ahmedabad. The  learned  Special  Judge accepted  that  contention  and directed a fresh investigation to the extent possible by one of the Superintendents of Police.  A fresh investigation was accordingly made; but naturally nothing afresh could be done so  far  as the trap was concerned.  Because  of  the  fresh investigation,  in  respect  of  most  of  the   prosecution witnesses,  the police diary contained, two  statements  one recorded by the Dy.  S.P. and the other by the S.P. in the course of the trial of the case, several  prosecution witnesses  were alleged to have gone back on the  statements given by them during investigation.  With the permission  of the court some of them were cross-examined with reference to their  statements recorded during the investigation.   While deposing in court 27 Madhukanta  asserted  that she had  destroyed  the  postcard written  by  Ramanlal as soon as she read the  same  whereas both  Ramanlal  as well as the panch witness  Dahyabhai  had deposed that the first appellant had shown them the postcard in  question.  With the permission of the court the  learned Public Prosecutor crossexamined Madhukanta with reference to her statement given before the Dy.  S.P. wherein she appears to  have stated that she had given the postcard in  question to the first appellant.  Mr. Barot, learned counsel for  the appellants, strenuously contended that in view of the  order of  the Special Judge, directing re-investigation,  in  law, the record of the investigation made by the Dy.  S.P.  stood wiped  out,  and therefore Madhukanta should not  have  been cross-examined  with reference to the statement  alleged  to have  been made by her during the first  investigation.   We are unable to accept this contention as correct.  It is true that the first investigation was not in accordance with law, but it is no sense non-est.  Investigation, as held by  this Court  in  S.  N. Bose v. State of  Bihar(1),  includes  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

laying  of  trap.   That  part  of  the  investigation  was, admittedly  done by the Dy.  S . P. The statements  recorded by the Dy.  S.P. in the course of his investigation’  though the  investigation  in question was illegal, (see,  H  .  N. Rishbud  v.  the  State of Delhi(2),  are  still  statements recorded by a police officer in the course of  investigation under  Chapter  XIV of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure  and consequently  they fall within the scope of ss. 161 and  162 of the said Code.  Neither in Rishbud’s case(2) nor in S. N. Bose’s  case(), where investigations had been carried on  in contravention  of s. 5-A of the Prevention  Corruption  Act, this Court considered those investigations as non-est.  Both the  trial  court  and  the High  Court  have  accepted  the evidence of Ramanlal and Dahyabhai in preference to that  of Madhukanta that the first appellant was in possession of the postcard  in  question  on  February  18,  1963.   This   is essentially a finding of fact.  In our judgment in coming to that  conclusion  those  courts did  not  ignore  any  legal principle. It  was  next  contended  by the  learned  counsel  for  the appellants that the appellants were convicted solely on  the basis  of the testimony of Ramanlal, the Dy.   S.P.  Erulker and  Santramji,  who, according to him, are  all  interested witnesses and their evidence not having been corroborated by any independent evidence, the same was insufficient to  base the  conviction  of the appellants.  Before  examining  this contention it may be mentioned that so far as Dahyabhai  was concerned,  he  appeared  to  have  turned  hostile  to  the prosecution  at  the trial.  He supported  the  evidence  of Ramanlal in some respects; but in most important respects he did not support the prosecution case.  He admitted (1)  Cr.A.109/1967,decided on March26,1968. (2)  11955] 1 S.C.R. 1150. 28 to have accompanied Ramanlal both in the morning and on  the evening of the 18th.  He also admitted that he and  Ramanlal met a police Sub-Inspector in the police station who  showed them  the  postcard written by Ramanlal to  Madhukanta.   He also corroborated Ramanlal about the talk that Ramanlal  had with -that Sub-Inspector, in connection with the payment  of bribe.  But when it came to the question of identifying that Sub-Inspector,  he denied that it was the  first  appellant. He  also  did  not identify the second  appellant.   It  was obvious that the had been gained over.  So far as Sanghvi is concerned,  he admitted that a police constable  in  uniform came  to his shop on the evening of the 18th and  changed  a ten-rupee corrency-note.  But he stated that he was not able to  say  whether that constable was  the  second  appellant. Sendhalal  deposed that a person came to him on the  evening of the 18th and changed three ’ten-rupee currency notes.  He also  stated  that he was unable to say whether it  was  the second  appellant  who changed those notes; he went  a  step further and stated that the person who came to his shop  was not  in  uniform.  But the fact remains that  the  currency- notes seized from the shops of Sanghvi and Sendhalal are the very  notes whose numbers had been earlier noted by the  Dy. S.P.  and  further treated with anthracene.   There  is  the evidence of constable Santramji to establish that the  notes in  question  were  changed  at the  shops  of  Sanghvi  and Sendhalal by the second appellant.  The trial court as  well as  the  High  Court accepted  the  evidence  of  Dahyabhai, Sanghvi  and  Sendhalal  to  the  extent  it  supported  the prosecution  case  and rejected the rest.  It was  open  for those courts to do so. Now coming back to the contention that the appellants  could

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

not have been convicted solely on the basis of the  evidence of Ramanlal and the police witnesses, we are of opinion that it is an untenable contention.  The utmost that can be  said against  Ramanlal, the Dy.  S.P., Erulker and  Santramji  is that they are partisan witnesses as they were interested  in the success of the trap laid by them.  It cannot be said-and it was not said that they were accomplices.  Therefore,  the law   does  not  require  that  their  evidence  should   be corroborated before being accepted as sufficient to found  a conviction.   This position is placed beyond controversy  by the decision of this Court in the State of Bihar v.  Basawan Singh(1),  wherein  this  Court laid  down,  overruling  the decision in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya  Pra- desh  (2) that where the witnesses are not  accomplices  but are  merely  partisan  or  interested  witnesses,  who   are concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested  in the same way as any other interested evidence  is tested,  and  in  a  proper case, the  court  may  look  for independent corroboration before convict- (1) [1959] S.C.R. 195. (2) [1954] S.C.R. 1098. 29 ing  the  accused person.  We are unable to agree  that  any different  rule was laid down in Major E. G. Barsay  v.  The State of Bombay(1).  It must be remembered that the decision in  Basawan  Singh’s case(1) was given by a  Bench  of  Five Judges  and  that  decision was binding on  the  Bench  that decided  Major Barasay’s case(1).  Some of the  observations in  Major Barasay’s case(1) no doubt support the  contention of the appellants.  But those observations must be  confined to the peculiar facts of that case.  It is now well  settled by  a  series of decisions of this Court that while  in  the case  of  evidence of an accomplice, no  conviction  can  be based on his evidence unless it is corroborated in  material particulars  but  as  regards -the evidence  of  a  partisan witness  it is open to a court to convict an accused  person solely  on  the basis of that evidence, if it  is  satisfied that  that evidence is reliable.  But it may in  appropriate case look for corroboration.  In the instant case, the trial court and the High Court have fully accepted the evidence of Ramanlal, the Dy.  S.P., Erulker and Santramji.  That  being so, it was open to them to convict the appellants solely  on the basis of their evidence.  That apart, their evidence  is substantially  corroborated  by the evidence  of  Dahyabhai, Sanghvi  and Sendhalal. in the case of  partisan  witnesses, the corroboration that may be looked for is corroboration in a general way and not material corroboration as in the  case of the evidence of accomplices. It was next contended that even if we accept the prosecution case in full, no -offence can be said to have been made  out under  s.  161 of the Indian Penal Code.  We are  unable  to accept  that contention.  To establish the offence under  s. 161  of  the Indian Penal Code all that prosecution  had  to establish  was that the appellants were public servants  and that they had obtained illegal gratification for showing  or forbearing  to  show,  in the  exercise  of  their  official functions,  favour or disfavour to Ramanlal.   The  question whether  there  was any offence which  the  first  appellant could  have  investigated  or not  is  irrelevant  for  that purpose.   If he had used his official position  to  extract illegal  gratification  the  requirements  of  the  law   is satisfied.   This position is made clear by the decision  of this  Court  in Mahesh Prasad v. The State of U.P.  (3)  and Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v. The Delhi Administration (4). Lastly  we come to the question whether the prosecution  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

barred by s. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951  (Bombay Act  22  of  1951), which, to the extent  material  for  our present  purpose, says that in any case of alleged  offences by a police officer or of a wrong alleged to have been  done by such officer by any (1) [1962] 2 S.C.R.195.        (2) [1959] S.C.R. 195. (3) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 965.       (4) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 259. 30 act  done  under  colour or in excess of any  such  duty  or authority  as mentioned in that Act, the  prosecution  shall not be entertained or shall be dismissed if instituted, more than  six months of the act complained of.  Admittedly,  the prosecution in this case was instituted more than six months after   February  18,  1963,  the  day  on   which   illegal gratification  was obtained.  In support of  the  contention that  the prosecution is barred by limitation, reliance  was placed on the decision of this Court in Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur  v.  The  State  of  Mysore(1).   Therein  a   head constable was charged under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The  prosecution  case  was that on  February  23,  1954  on receipt of some information that some persons were smuggling ganja,  the  headconstable arrested a person with  a  bundle containing  13 packets of ganja and seized them, and in  the panchnama he incorrectly showed the seizure of nine  packets of ganja, and that on the next day he however prepared a new report in which it was falsely recited that the person  with the bundle ran away on seeing the police after throwing away the bundle containing nine packets of ganja.  The allegation against  the  head-constable was that the prepared  a  false report  with  the dishonest intention of saving  the  person concerned  from whom the ganja was seized and who  had  been actually  caught  with ganja, from legal  punishment.   This Court held that under s. 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the  words "under colour of duty" have been used to  include acts done under the cloak of duty, even though not by virtue of  the duty; that when the head-constable prepared a  false report  he  was using the existence of his legal duty  as  a cloak  for his corrupt action and that, therefore,  the  act thus  done in dereliction of his duty must be held  to  have been  done  "under colour of duty".  The rule laid  down  in that  decision is inapplicable to the facts of  the  present case.  In Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur’s(1) case, the head- constable  in question had a duty to prepare  the  panchnama and  the report.  He by taking advantage of_that  duty  pre- pared  a false panchnama and false report and  therefore  it was held that what he did was under the colour of duty.   In the  present  case  the appellants cannot be  said  to  have received  the bribe under the colour of their  duty.   There was no connection between the duties to be performed by them and the receipt of the bribe in question.  The facts of  the present case bear some similarity to the facts in the  State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugapol(2) and the rule laid  down therein  bears on the question under discussion.   All  that can be said in the present case is that the first  appellant a  police  officer, taking advantage of his  position  as  a police  officer  and  availing himself  of  the  opportunity afforded  by  the  letter Madhukanta  handed  over  to  him, coerced Ramanlal to pay illegal gratification to him.   This cannot be said to have been done under (1) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 6. (2) [1964] 3 S.C.R. 742. 31 colour of duty.  The charge against the second appellant  is that he aided the first appellant in his illegal activity. For  the reasons mentioned above, this appeal fails and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

same  is  dismissed.  The appellants who are on  bail  shall surrender  forthwith to serve the remaining portion  of  the sentences imposed on them. Y.P.                    Appeal dismissed. 32