1980 JTR(SC) 496
1981 AIR(SC) 1625 ; 1981 CriLR 49 ; 1981 CrLJ 1284 ; 1981 CrLJ 128401 ; 1981 2 SCC 23 ; 1981 SCC(Cri) 313 ; 1981 UJ 55 ; 1981 KHC 848
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A.D. KOSHAL, JJ.
Vijay Nath Awasthi, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1974, D/- 14-11-1980.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.161
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.5(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 161 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 5(2) – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Demanded Bribe - Accused of Taking Bribe - According to prosecution case, appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- from (P. W. 1) who paid it to former after a complaint was made to Additional District Magistrate and information was passed on to police who organised a trap - Fact that money was paid to appellant is beyond doubt and, in fact, appellant does not deny it - His stand was that money was surreptitiously put into his pocket and that as soon as he was accused of taking it by way of a bribe, he threw it away – Held, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for appellant, brought to Court notice certain discrepancies in evidence of witnesses, but after having gone through same, Court is unable to interfere with its appraisal by two courts below - There is no reason, factual or legal, such as may persuade Court to exercise special jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of Constitution – Court therefore find no merit in this appeal - Appeal dismissed.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 161 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 5(2) – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Demanded Bribe - Accused of Taking Bribe - According to prosecution case, appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- from (P. W. 1) who paid it to former after a complaint was made to Additional District Magistrate and information was passed on to police who organised a trap - Fact that money was paid to appellant is beyond doubt and, in fact, appellant does not deny it - His stand was that money was surreptitiously put into his pocket and that as soon as he was accused of taking it by way of a bribe, he threw it away – Held, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for appellant, brought to Court notice certain discrepancies in evidence of witnesses, but after having gone through same, Court is unable to interfere with its appraisal by two courts below - There is no reason, factual or legal, such as may persuade Court to exercise special jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of Constitution – Court therefore find no merit in this appeal - Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
FAZAL ALI, J.:- This appeal by special leave is direct against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also the sentence of two years awarded on each count to run concurrently.
2. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and have been taken through the evidence. According to the prosecution case, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- from Ram Kumar (P. W. 1) who paid it to the former after a complaint was made to Additional District Magistrate and information was passed on to the police who organised a trap. The fact that money was paid to the appellant is beyond doubt and, in fact, the appellant does not deny it. His stand was that money was surreptitiously put into his pocket and that as soon as he was accused of taking it by way of a bribe, he threw it away.
3. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, brought to our notice certain discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, but after having gone through the same, we are unable to interfere with its appraisal by the two courts below. There is no reason, factual or legal, such as may persuade us to exercise the special jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. We therefore find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1981 SC 1625