Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Dalpat Singh, a Havaldar, and another, a Subedar in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, against their conviction by the trial court for demanding and accepting money from a person. The allegations were that the appellants accused the victim of blackmarketing and visiting Pakistan, and threatened him with beating and prosecution unless he paid them. A police trap was laid, and the money was paid. The trial court convicted both under Sections 161 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution case was that the appellants, being public servants, demanded illegal gratification. The appellants appealed, contending that the money was given not as a bribe but to avoid harassment, and no official favour was intended or given. The Court examined the essentials of the charges. It found from the evidence that neither the appellants intended to show any official favour nor did the person from whom money was extorted expect any official favour; the amounts were paid solely to avoid ill-treatment and harassment. Therefore, the acts could not be held to constitute an offence under Section 161 IPC, as that provision requires that the payment be a motive or reward for doing or forbearing an official act. The Court also noted that since the second appellant was the main person responsible and the first appellant was aiding him, there was no need for a charge under Section 120B IPC. Regarding the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court held that for an offence under Section 5(1)(a), the requirements of Section 161 IPC must be met; as the acts did not fall under Section 161 IPC, the conviction under Section 5(1)(a) could not stand. However, Section 5(1)(d) stands on a different footing and does not require proof of intent to show official favour. The Court sustained the second appellant's conviction under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) and altered the first appellant's conviction from the main offence to one under Section 5(2) read with Section 114 IPC (aiding). The Court relied on the decisions in State of Ajmer v. Shivji Lal and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kuljas Rai. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, convictions under Sections 161, 120B IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(a) were set aside, conviction under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) sustained for the second appellant, and conviction of first appellant altered to Section 5(2) read with Section 114 IPC.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bribery - Ingredients of Section 161 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 161 - The Supreme Court held that to constitute an offence under Section 161 IPC, the payment must be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, and both parties must intend official favour; where money was demanded only to avoid ill-treatment and harassment, and neither party intended official favour, the conviction under Section 161 could not be sustained, and was set aside (Paras not mentioned). B) Criminal Law - Conspiracy - Section 120B IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B - The Court observed that since evidence clearly showed the second appellant was primarily responsible for the extortions and the first appellant was merely aiding him, there was no need to charge them under Section 120B IPC; the conviction under that section was set aside (Paras not mentioned). C) Prevention of Corruption - Offence under Section 5(1)(a) - Scope - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(1)(a), 5(2) - The Court held that for an offence under Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the requirements of Section 161 IPC must be satisfied; since the acts did not amount to an offence under Section 161 IPC, they could not constitute an offence under Section 5(1)(a), and the conviction thereunder was set aside (Paras not mentioned). D) Prevention of Corruption - Offence under Section 5(1)(d) - Abuse of position - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(1)(d), 5(2) - The Court held that Section 5(1)(d) stands on a different footing from Section 5(1)(a); it does not require proof of showing or intent of official favour; it applies when a public servant obtains any pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position; the second appellant's conviction under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) was sustained, and the first appellant's conviction was altered to one under Section 5(2) read with Section 114 IPC (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demand and acceptance of money by public servants to avoid ill-treatment and harassment, without any intent to show official favour, constitutes an offence under Sections 161 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d), and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. Convictions under Sections 161 and 120B IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act set aside. Second appellant's conviction under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) sustained. First appellant's conviction altered to one under Section 5(2) read with Section 114 IPC.
Law Points
- Ingredients of bribery under Section 161 IPC require showing of official favour
- Section 5(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act mirrors Section 161 IPC
- Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act covers abuse of position without need for official favour
- conspiracy under Section 120B IPC not necessary when clear aiding is proven
- conviction altered to aiding under Section 114 IPC
