Supreme Court of India (H.R. Khanna and A. Alagiriswami JJ.; judgment delivered by Khanna J.), Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1970, decided September 11, 1973 — appeal by special leave against the judgment dated February 4, 1970 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1967, which reversed the acquittal by the Special Judge, Bhopal and convicted the appellant under s.165A IPC (alleged offer on April 9, 1966 of Rs. 3,000 in hundred-rupee notes to PW 1 Shivnarain Wadhwa, Chief Engineer (Construction), Heavy Electricals Ltd., Bhopal, to secure acceptance of his tender). Dismissing the appeal, HELD: (i) there was no cogent ground to reject PW 1's evidence — he had no animus, had met the accused only once before, and unsubstantiated complaints against him did not warrant inferring doubtful integrity; (ii) Wadhwa's immediate conduct — pressing the buzzer and having PW 5 Shrivastava recover the envelope of thirty 100-rupee notes from the accused's pocket — corroborated the prosecution case and belied the defence version; (iii) even excluding the extra-judicial confession deposed to by Gupta and Tiwari PWs, the remaining material furnished ample ground for conviction; (iv) the plea that the money was brought for security deposit was untenable, security arising only upon acceptance of the tender; (v) the absence of a 24-ton steel condition in the tender did not negative motive, since the accused might have feared rejection of his lowest tender stipulating 18 tons. The trial court's rejection of PW 1's evidence was clearly unreasonable and the High Court had cogent grounds to interfere with the acquittal; Kanu Ambu Vish v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2256, referred to and distinguished. Reaffirmed that in appeal under s.417 CrPC the High Court has full power to review at large the evidence underlying an acquittal, subject to proper weight to the trial judge's credibility findings, the presumption of innocence, the accused's right to the benefit of doubt, and the slowness of appellate courts in disturbing findings of fact of a judge who saw the witnesses; the High Court's judgment suffered from no infirmity. Obiter: proof of the offer of a bribe must take its course irrespective of the social and administrative milieu.
