Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a special leave appeal against a judgment of the Assam High Court that confirmed the appellant's conviction for abetment of bribery under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while acquitting the public servant alleged to have been bribed. The prosecution alleged that a paddy-checking Inspector named K demanded a Rs. 200 bribe from a complainant who was transporting paddy for sale, threatening seizure if payment was not made. At K's direction, the complainant handed the money to the appellant for counting, and the appellant then passed it to K. The Special Judge, Lower Assam Districts at Dhubri, convicted both K under Section 161 IPC and the appellant under Section 165A. On appeal, the High Court found the evidence insufficient to prove payment to K and acquitted him, but upheld the appellant's conviction on the reasoning that taking money for payment as illegal gratification itself constituted an offence under Section 165A, regardless of whether the money actually reached K. The Supreme Court considered the sole issue of whether an abetment conviction could stand when the principal offender had been acquitted because no offence under Section 161 was committed. The Court noted that on the facts, the appellant received the money in the presence of and on behalf of K. However, once the High Court held that no offence under Section 161 had been committed by K, there could be no question of the appellant intentionally aiding the commission of that offence. The Court distinguished Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, [1954] S.C.R. 145. It held that the conviction for abetment was not maintainable and accordingly allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment - Conviction for Abetment Under Section 165A After Acquittal of Principal Offender - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 107, 161, 165A - The appellant was convicted under Section 165A for abetting a public servant (Inspector K) to accept a bribe under Section 161. The High Court acquitted the public servant for lack of evidence of payment. The Supreme Court held that if the principal offender was acquitted on the ground that no offence under Section 161 was committed, then no question of intentionally aiding the commission of that offence arose, and the conviction for abetment was not maintainable. Held, the appellant’s conviction was set aside. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for abetment under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained after the acquittal of the principal offender under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction of appellant under Section 165A Indian Penal Code set aside. The conviction was held not maintainable because the principal offender had been acquitted on the ground that no offence under Section 161 was committed.
Law Points
- Conviction for abetment under Section 165A Indian Penal Code not maintainable after acquittal of principal offender under Section 161
- no question of intentionally aiding commission of offence arises if principal offence not committed
- Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab distinguished
