Case Note & Summary
The case arose from criminal appeals before the Supreme Court against the conviction of Bhagat Ram, a police circle inspector, and against the acquittal of Ram Swaroop, a co-accused, in a bribery and conspiracy case. Bhagat Ram, while posted as circle inspector at Ganganagar in 1962, investigated a case under Sections 408 and 420 IPC against Ramesh, an employee of a sugar mill. During investigation, he learned that Ramesh had sent misappropriated money to his brother Puran Chand, who had a cancelled truck purchase transaction with Niranjan Dass of Moga involving Rs. 7,000. Bhagat Ram summoned Niranjan Dass, who went with his brother Manohar Lal to Ganganagar. Bhagat Ram allegedly behaved harshly and kept Niranjan Dass at the police station. Manohar Lal brought Ram Swaroop and others; on July 29, 1962, they went to Hindumalkot Dak bungalow where Bhagat Ram was staying. Ram Swaroop went inside and later assured Niranjan Dass and Manohar Lal. Bhagat Ram recorded Niranjan Dass's statement and allowed him to leave. Later, Bhagat Ram visited Moga and told Niranjan Dass and Manohar Lal to follow Ram Swaroop's instructions. Ram Swaroop then demanded Rs. 2,000 as bribe from Niranjan Dass, showing a letter and telegram from Bhagat Ram. Niranjan Dass refused and sent a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Special Police Establishment, leading to investigation and trial. The Special Judge, Ganganagar, acquitted both Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop of all charges. The State of Rajasthan appealed to the High Court. A Division Bench of Tyagi and Lodha JJ dismissed the appeal against Ram Swaroop and also dismissed the State appeal against Bhagat Ram for offences under Sections 347, 218, 389 and 120B IPC. However, there was a difference of opinion regarding Bhagat Ram's acquittal for offences under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; Tyagi J. favoured acquittal, while Lodha J. held Bhagat Ram guilty. The matter was referred under Section 429 CrPC to a third judge, Jagat Narayan J., who convicted Bhagat Ram for offences under Sections 120B, 161, 218 and 347 IPC, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine under Section 161 IPC, and one year rigorous imprisonment for each of Sections 218 and 347 IPC, with concurrent sentences. Bhagat Ram appealed against his conviction, and the State appealed against Ram Swaroop's acquittal. The Supreme Court identified the core legal issues: whether the third judge could reopen the acquittal for offences not referred to him, whether the conviction under Section 161 IPC could stand when the demand was alleged to be made through an intermediary who was acquitted, and whether the State's appeal against Ram Swaroop's acquittal should succeed. Bhagat Ram argued that the third judge exceeded jurisdiction and that the acquittal on other counts was final and binding. The State contended that the evidence of demand through Ram Swaroop justified conviction under Section 161 IPC and sought conviction of Ram Swaroop. The Court held that the third judge's jurisdiction was limited to the two offences on which the Division Bench differed. The Division Bench's dismissal of the State appeal regarding Sections 120B, 347 and 389 IPC was binding as res judicata, which applies to criminal proceedings. Since Ram Swaroop was acquitted of conspiracy under Section 120B, the basis of the conspiracy charge against Bhagat Ram disappeared, and the prosecution did not allege conspiracy with any unknown person. Further, because the prosecution case was that the bribe demand was made through Ram Swaroop, his acquittal made the conviction under Section 161 IPC unsustainable in the absence of a direct demand for illegal gratification. The State's appeal against Ram Swaroop's acquittal was found to have no merit. The Supreme Court set aside Bhagat Ram's conviction and sentence for all offences and acquitted him. The State's appeal against the acquittal of Ram Swaroop was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Reference to Third Judge - Scope of Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 429 - The third judge to whom a case is referred under Section 429 due to difference of opinion between two judges can only decide the point(s) of difference and cannot reopen matters already decided by the Division Bench. Where the Division Bench upheld acquittal for Sections 120B, 347, 389 IPC and the difference was confined to Sections 161 IPC and 5(1)(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, the third judge exceeded jurisdiction by convicting for Sections 120B, 218, 347 IPC. Held that the third judge's decision on those additional offences was impermissible. B) Res Judicata - Applicability to Criminal Proceedings - Binding Nature of Acquittal - General Principles of Criminal Law - An order of acquittal, unless set aside in appeal, is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties. The principle of res judicata is applicable to criminal proceedings, and it is not permissible in the subsequent stage of the same proceedings or in some other subsequent proceedings to convict a person for an offence in respect of which an order for his acquittal has already been recorded. Held that the Division Bench's dismissal of the State appeal against acquittal for Sections 120B, 347, 389 IPC was final and barred reconsideration by the third judge. C) Criminal Conspiracy - Acquittal of Co-Accused - Effect on Conspiracy Charge - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B - When the co-accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 120B IPC, the basis of the charge against the other accused for conspiracy disappeared, and the prosecution did not allege conspiracy with any other unidentified person. Held that acquittal of Ram Swaroop defeated the conspiracy charge against Bhagat Ram. D) Prevention of Corruption - Illegal Gratification - Proof of Demand through Intermediary - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 161; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 5(1)(a) - The prosecution case was that the demand for bribe was made through Ram Swaroop, not directly by Bhagat Ram. In view of the acquittal of Ram Swaroop, it was not possible to maintain the conviction of Bhagat Ram under Section 161 IPC since there was no direct demand for payment of illegal gratification. Held that the conviction under Section 161 IPC was set aside. E) Appeal Against Acquittal - State Appeal Against Co-Accused - Interference with Acquittal - Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - The State filed an appeal against the acquittal of Ram Swaroop, but the Supreme Court found nothing to justify interference with his acquittal. Held that the State's appeal against Ram Swaroop's acquittal was dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the third judge, on reference under Section 429 CrPC, could reopen the acquittal of Bhagat Ram for offences under Sections 120B, 218 and 347 IPC when the difference of opinion was confined to Sections 161 IPC and 5(1)(a) Prevention of Corruption Act; whether conviction under Section 161 IPC could be maintained when the alleged demand of illegal gratification was made through an intermediary who was acquitted; whether the State's appeal against the acquittal of Ram Swaroop deserved interference.
Final Decision
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1969 filed by Bhagat Ram was allowed; his conviction and sentence for offences under Sections 120B, 161, 218 and 347 IPC were set aside, and he was acquitted. Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 1970 filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of Ram Swaroop was dismissed.
Law Points
- Under Section 429 CrPC
- a third judge's jurisdiction is limited to points of difference between the two judges
- res judicata applies to criminal proceedings and an acquittal order is binding unless set aside
- acquittal of co-accused on conspiracy charge destroys the basis of conspiracy for the other accused
- conviction under Section 161 IPC requires direct demand or proof of demand through an intermediary whose role is established
- State appeal against acquittal of co-accused dismissed for lack of merit.
