http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/07/1995

BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1995 AIR 2121            1995 SCC  (5) 320  JT 1995 (6)    88        1995 SCALE  (4)389

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 1995 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M.Punchhi           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Jayachandra Reddy Mr.S.K.Gambhir, Adv. for the Appellant Mr.U.N.Bachawat, Sr. Adv., Mr.Niraj Sharma Mr. Uma Nath Singh, Advs. with him for the Respondent.           J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 571 OF 1991 Ramesh Kumar Gupta V. State of Madhya Pradesh                     JUDGMENT K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY,J.      The sole appellant at the relevant time was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police and was functioning as Officer-in- charge at  Pulgaon police  Station at Durg. He was tried for offences punishable  under Sections  5(1) (d) read with 5(2) of the  Prevention of  Corruption Act  (’Act for  short) and also  under   Section  161   I.P.C.  for  obtaining  illegal gratification of  Rs.500/- from  one  Anandram,  P.W.I.  The trial court  acquitted him  of the  charge under Section 161 I.P.C. and  sentenced him  to undergo one year’s R.I. with a fine of  Rs. 1,000/-  and in  default of  payment of fine to further undergo  three months’  R.I. The appeal filed by the accused was  dismissed by  the High Court. Hence the present appeal.      The prosecution  case is  that P.W.I,  the  complainant went to  the pulgaon  police station on 12.11.1979 alongwith one Tejram,  the Village  Kotwar to  lodge  a  report  about disappearance of  his wife.  P.W.I narrated his complaint to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the appellant  who blamed  him for  beating  his  wife,  who because of  that beating  must have  run away.  So saying he took P.W.I  into custody  and detained  him  in  the  police station. He  however requested  the  appellant  through  the Kotwar to  release him but the appellant demanded an illegal gratification of  Rs. 1,000/-  but later on agreed to accept Rs. 500/-.  The complainant  agreed to pay Rs. 500/- and was allowed to  go on  a promise  that he  would pay the amount. P.W.I borrowed  the amount from his brother Johan, P.W.3 and Amirdas, P.W.4 for making the payment as promised. P.W.I was however,  not  willing  to  pay  the  amount  and  therefore complained  to   collector,  Durg   through   Mohanlal   and Kalyansingh. The  Collector informed  the police  Inspector, Raipur to take necessary action against the appellant. P.W.I met the  D.S.P., P.W.9  in the presence of Shri K.L.Agarwal, P.W.8, the  Deputy Collector  and one  D.P.Gupta.  In  their presence, P.W.I  gave a  written complain.  Phenolepatheline powder test  was conducted in respect of five currency notes of Rs.  100/- denomination.  A panchnama was prepared noting the numbers  and the  result of the test etc. After that the five currency  notes were  given to P.W.I instructing him to go to  the house  of the  accused and  hand him over all the notes on  his demand  and after that to give a signal. P.W.I accordingly left  for the  house of the appellant. A raiding party consisting  of P.Ws.  8  and  9  and  Shri  D.P.Gupta, S.K.Upadhayaya, Inspector  and a  constable proceeded  in  a jeep alongwith Anandram. They stopped the jeep at a distance and Anandram  got down and proceeded on foot to the house of the accused.  P.W.I knocked  the door  of the  house of  the accused and  he was  called in.  The accused asked him if he had brought  the  amount  and  P.W.I  took  out  the  pocket containing five  currency notes  and tried  to hand over the same to the accused. The accused, however, asked him to keep the money  between the  tape (niwar) and mattress of the cot on which  he was  sitting. Accordingly  P.W.I kept the notes and gave a signal. Immediately the members of the trap party entered and  disclosed their  identity to  the accused. They searched his  person but  not finding anything on his person they searched  the room  and recovered  the five notes which were kept  between the  tape and  the mattress of the cot. A seizure memo  was prepared and the hands of the accused were washed with  solution of  sodium corborate  and the same was collected in  a bottle  and sealed.  The hands of P.W.I also were washed  in that  solution which  was kept in a separate bottle and sealed. The same test was conducted in respect of the five  currency notes.  The necessary panchnama of search and  seizure   was  made   and  after   completion  of   the investigation and  after obtaining  the necessary  sanction, the charge-sheet was laid.      The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and other witnesses who participated in the trap. When examined under  Section 313  Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded not guilty. He  stated that  the case was foisted against him by two political  leaders  whom  he  did  not  allow  into  the investigation of  a criminal  case.  Therefore  they  had  a grudge against  him and  got  him  falsely  implicated.  The learned trial Judge relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2,7,8 and 9  convicted the  accused under  Section 161  I.P.C., as stated above. The trial court, however, acquitted him of the other charge  holding that  Section 4  of  the  Act  is  not attracted and  therefore an  offence under Sections 5(1) (d) read with  5(2) is not made out. The said conviction and the sentence were confirmed by the High Court.      In this  appeal, Shri  S.K.Gambhir, learned counsel for the appellant,  contended that  the tainted  money  was  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

recovered from  the person  of the accused and P.W.1 did not say in  his evidence that he informed the raiding party that he kept  the money under the mattress at the instance of the accused and  therefore seizure  of the  money by the raiding party is  suspicious and  there is  every likelihood  of the tainted money  being planted  under the  mattress  when  the accused was not actually on the spot. His further submission is that  there is  no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.I regarding the  demand and  acceptance and  since P.W.I is in the nature  of an  accomplice, his  evidence cannot be acted upon   to    convict   the   accused   without   independent corroboration on material particulars.      P.W.I  in  his  deposition  has  given  all  the  above mentioned details. He further deposed that after putting the money under  the mattress,  as asked by the accused, he came out of  the room  and gave the necessary signal. The raiding party came  to him  and asked  him wether  he had  given the money and  he told  them that he had given the money and the accused made  him to  put the money below the cot. He denied the suggestion  that he  demanded the  accused to give water and when  the accused went inside for bringing the water, he kept the  money below  the cot. P.W.7, Rajkamal deposed that on that day he came to Nazul office, Durg and coming to know from P.W.I  that he  was being  harrassed by the accused and that he  was demanding  bribe, he took him to the collector. P.W.8, the Deputy collector, Durg who was present during the trap proceedings  has given  all the  details and also about the contents  of the  panchnama before  the trap and also of the one  after the  trap. He further deposed that when P.W.I came out  lof the house of the accused, they went inside the house of  the accused.  They disclosed  their  identity  and asked the  accused as to where the notes were kept. When the accused denied  they searched  his person but could not find the notes.  Then they  searched the  room. At  that juncture they  asked   P.W.I  where   the  notes   were  kept.  P.W.I immediately told them that the notes were kept below the cot between the  tape and the mattress and pointed out the spot. He also  deposed that the hands of the accused were also got washed with Sodium Corborate solution and same was filled in a bottle which became light pink colour.      The evidence of these witnesses including that of P.Ws. 8 and  9 have  been believed  by both  the courts below. The learned counsel,  however, submitted before us that the fact that the  notes were  found not on the person of the accused but somewhere  else would  show  that  the  accused  had  no knowledge of  the accused.  P.W.I categorically  stated that the accused asked him to keep the notes between the tape and the mattress  of the cot and after that he left the room and gave the  signal. It  must also be remembered that the notes were wrapped in a paper. Unless the accused has touched them after P.W.I  left the  room his  hands would  not  have  got tained and  the phenolepatheline  powder test  regarding the washing of  the hands  of the  accused gave  positive result itself shows that the accused must have handled them at some stage and therefore his bare denial that he had no knowledge whatsoever is  without any  substance. The  fact that  P.W.I went and  collected Rs.  500/- for  payment is proved by his brother P.W.3  as well  as by P.W.4. If it was a question of false implication, P.W.I could not have gone about borrowing the money  in that  manner. It is only after the harrassment and demand  by the  accused P.W.I  was compelled  to somehow borrow the  amount and the rest of the story is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 7,8 and 9.      Learned counsel,  however,  strenously  contended  that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.I regarding

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

the  demand   and  acceptance.  We  see  no  force  in  this submission. The  demand and  acceptance. We  see no force in this submission.  The corroboration  need not  be direct. It can be  by way  of circumstantial evidence also. Taking into account  all   the  surrounding   circumstances,   we   find sufficient corroboration  to the evidence of P.W.I regarding the demand  and payment  of the  bribe. In  a  recent  case, M.O.Shamshudhin and  ors. v.  State of  Kerala, 1995  (3) JT 367, this Court held as under:      "Now coming  to the  nature of  corroborating  evidence      that  is   required,  it   is  well-settled   that  the      corroborating  evidence   can  be   even  by   way   of      circumstantial evidence.  No general  rule can  be laid      down with  respect to quantum of evidence corroborating      the testimony  of a  trap  witness  which  again  would      depend upon  its own  facts and  circumstances like the      nature of the crime, the character of trap witness etc.      and other general requirements necessary to sustain the      conviction in  that case.  The court  should weigh  the      evidence  and   then  see   whether  corroboration   is      necessary. Therefore as a rule of law it cannot be laid      down that  the  evidence  of  every  complainant  in  a      bribery case  should be  corroborated in  all  material      particulars and  otherwise it  cannot  be  acted  upon.      Whether corroboration  is necessary  and if  so to what      extent and  what should  be its nature depends upon the      facts and circumstances of each case." Applying the  above ratio  to the facts of this case we hold that both  the courts have rightly held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.      Now coming  to the  question of  sentence, it is a very old case  and the  occurrence itself  is said  to have taken place in  the year  1979. All  these years  the accused  has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings. He has lost his job and  we are  told that he has a large family to support. In  similar   circumstances,   in   B.G.Goswami   v.   Delhi Administration,  (1974)   3  SCC   85,   the   sentence   of imprisonment was  reduced to  the period  already undergone. From the  records, it appears that the appellant was in jail for some  time. Accordingly  while confirming the conviction we reduce  the sentence  of    imprisonment  to  the  period already undergone.  The sentence of fine with default clause is however, maintained. Subject to the above modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.