Allowed

Suresh Chandra Gupta v. State

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2022CRLA/100/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging conviction for cheque-related corruption offences, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance as no money was demanded. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted, with a direction to furnish a bond pending possible Supreme Court review.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted of charges; impugned judgment set aside; appellant directed to furnish a bond of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety.

Suresh Chandra Gupta Vs State — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 100/1987

¶3

Suresh Chandra Gupta S/o Prabhu Dayal Gupta, Aged 33 years, Resident of Village Guda Katla, District Jaipur.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶10

Order

¶11

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 30.11.2022 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 14.12.2022

¶12

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 20.02.1987 passed by the learned Special Judge, A. C. D. Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.09/1983, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the P.C. Act, 1947. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant reads as under:-

¶13

U/s 161 IPC-	One year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
	Rs.200/-, in default payment of fine to
	undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.
U/s 5(1)(d) r/w	One year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Sec. 5(2) of the	Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to
P.C. Act, 1947-	undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLA-100/1987]

¶16

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶17

As per story of the prosecution, Udai Singh was working as a conductor in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). He was charged in respect of 18 passengers amount of Rs.607/-. Udai Singh wanted to adjust Rs. 500/- deposit as a security. He moved an application for this purpose before the Assistant Regional Manager. The accountant demanded Rs.100/as bribe. So, he lodged a written complaint Ex.P-2 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department. After trap proceedings and investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant Suresh Chandra Gupta and co-accused Banwari Lal Gupta.

¶18

Co-accused Banwari Lal Gupta was acquitted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.02.1987 and appellant was convicted. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellant.

¶19

After hearing the arguments, charges were framed against the appellant-Suresh Chandra Gupta under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the P.C. Act, 1947.

¶20

Accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and preferred the trial.

¶21

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant examined 5 witnesses in his defence.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant under Sections 161 IPC and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CRLA-100/1987]

¶25

learned trial Court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective because name of the appellant was not mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned trial Court acquitted co-accused Banwari Lal Gupta, who had demanded the bribe from Udai Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that there is no evidence that appellant had demanded bribe and accepted the bribe from Udai Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant could not have been convicted on account of recovery because essential ingredients of demand was absent in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that Udai Singh in his statement clearly stated that the appellant had not demanded any bribe from him. So, appellant be acquitted.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector Of Police, State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned trial Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶28

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

It is an admitted position that the appellant had not demanded any money from Udai Singh. As per contention of the prosecution, Banwari Lal Gupta had demanded the bribe of Rs.100/- from Udai Singh for adjusting security money as a

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CRLA-100/1987]

¶32

penalty. Only money was recovered from the appellant. In my considered opinion, prosecution had miserably failed to prove demand and acceptance by the appellant. So, learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the P.C. Act, 1947. Hence, the order of the learned trial Court deserves to be setaside.

¶33

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court dated 20.02.1987 is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

¶34

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Suresh Chandra Gupta S/o Prabhu Dayal Gupta is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

¶35

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶36

Gourav/52

Suresh Chandra Gupta v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandra Gupta v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakti Singh S/O Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nandkishore Son of Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilawar Son of Kanchan Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pramod Kumar S/O Sh. Rambharosi Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanraj @ Dinesh @ Shooter S/O Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Soni @ Munna Son of Late Shri Ashok Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan