# BHAGAT RAM v. STATE OF RAJASIBAN

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 303
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-01-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 36 of 1969
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bhagat-ram-v-state-of-rajasiban-5536
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

303
Crin1irwl Law-Practice and Procedure-Two accused charged with
o11ences for conspiracy and other ofjences_..:..Acquitted by trial couttAppelll heard by two Judges-Acquittal of one accused and the <Hher of
ofiences of conspiracy etc. upheld-Difference of opinion with respect to
offence under s. 161 I.P.C.-Reference to third Judge-Jurisdiction of
ihird !11d.fle to reopen entire matter.
An Inspector of Police was charged with
offences under ss. I 20B,
161, '.!18, 347 and 389 I.P.C. and also under s. 5(1)(a) read withs. 5(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Another accused was charged along
wiib him for offences under ss. I20B and J 65A, I.P.C. The trial dmrt
acquitted both the accused. Jn appe:il to the High Court a Bench of two
judges confirmed the acquittal of tho second accused and the acquittal
of the Inspector with respect to offences under ss. 120B, 218, 349 and
:\89, J.P.C., but with respec,t to offences under s. 161, l.P.C. ands. 5(1) (a)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the two Judges differed and the
matter was referred to a third Judge.
The third Judge held that the
Jnspcctor ~s guilty of the offences under s. 161 and also under ss. 120B,
218 and 347 J.P.C.
In appeal to this Court by the Inspector and by the State against the
acquittal of the second accused,
HELD : ( J) As regards the second accused there was nothing to
justify an interference with his acquitta1. [310 HJ
(2) It was not permissible for the third Judge to reopen the molter
and convict the Inspector for offences under ss. 120B, 347 and 389 l.P.C.,
bec'/iuse it was not a case where the entire matter had been left open for
the opinion of the third Judge.
The difference of opinion between the
two Judges was only with l'espec~ to the offences under s. 161 I.P.C. and
s. 5(1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the third Judge could
only go into that aspect of the matter . .[309 B-D]
The Division Bench had upheld the ocquittal of the Inspector of
Police f0r offences under ss. 120B, 347 and 389 and the State appeal in
that respect had been dismissed by the Division Bench.
That order.
unless set aside in appeal to this Court, was binding and conclusive in all
suboequent proceedings between the parties. The principle of res judicata
is also appltcable to ctiminal proceedings and it is not pennissible 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
crder fo'r his acquittal bas already been reoorded. [309 F-HJ
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1956 S.C. A.l.R. 415, followed.
Further when the second accused was acquitted of the charge under
' I 20B I.P.C. the ba~is of the charge against the Inspector for conspimcy
7-L!S7S1p. Cl/72
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
between him and the second accused disappeared.
It was not the ca.se
A
of the prosecution that he had conspired with some other person whose
identity had not been e•l'ablished. [310 E-F]
In view of the acquittal of the second accused it is also not pclaiblo
to maintain the conviction of the Inspector under s. 161 I.P.C. sinoe it
was not the r.rosecution case that he had made any demand directly for
payment ot 1llegal gratification.
On the contrary, the prosecution case
was that the Inspector had attempted to obtain such gratification through
B
iustrumentality of the second accused. (311 B-C)

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BHAGAT RAM
v.
STATE OF RAJASIBAN
January 31, 1972
[J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
303
Crin1irwl Law-Practice and Procedure-Two accused charged with
o11ences for conspiracy and other ofjences_..:..Acquitted by trial couttAppelll heard by two Judges-Acquittal of one accused and the <Hher of
ofiences of conspiracy etc. upheld-Difference of opinion with respect to
offence under s. 161 I.P.C.-Reference to third Judge-Jurisdiction of
ihird !11d.fle to reopen entire matter.
An Inspector of Police was charged with
offences under ss. I 20B,
161, '.!18, 347 and 389 I.P.C. and also under s. 5(1)(a) read withs. 5(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Another accused was charged along
wiib him for offences under ss. I20B and J 65A, I.P.C. The trial dmrt
acquitted both the accused. Jn appe:il to the High Court a Bench of two
judges confirmed the acquittal of tho second accused and the acquittal
of the Inspector with respect to offences under ss. 120B, 218, 349 and
:\89, J.P.C., but with respec,t to offences under s. 161, l.P.C. ands. 5(1) (a)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the two Judges differed and the
matter was referred to a third Judge.
The third Judge held that the
Jnspcctor ~s guilty of the offences under s. 161 and also under ss. 120B,
218 and 347 J.P.C.
In appeal to this Court by the Inspector and by the State against the
acquittal of the second accused,
HELD : ( J) As regards the second accused there was nothing to
justify an interference with his acquitta1. [310 HJ
(2) It was not permissible for the third Judge to reopen the molter
and convict the Inspector for offences under ss. 120B, 347 and 389 l.P.C.,
bec'/iuse it was not a case where the entire matter had been left open for
the opinion of the third Judge.
The difference of opinion between the
two Judges was only with l'espec~ to the offences under s. 161 I.P.C. and
s. 5(1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the third Judge could
only go into that aspect of the matter . .[309 B-D]
The Division Bench had upheld the ocquittal of the Inspector of
Police f0r offences under ss. 120B, 347 and 389 and the State appeal in
that respect had been dismissed by the Division Bench.
That order.
unless set aside in appeal to this Court, was binding and conclusive in all
suboequent proceedings between the parties. The principle of res judicata
is also appltcable to ctiminal proceedings and it is not pennissible 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
crder fo'r his acquittal bas already been reoorded. [309 F-HJ
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1956 S.C. A.l.R. 415, followed.
Further when the second accused was acquitted of the charge under
' I 20B I.P.C. the ba~is of the charge against the Inspector for conspimcy
7-L!S7S1p. Cl/72
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
between him and the second accused disappeared.
It was not the ca.se
A
of the prosecution that he had conspired with some other person whose
identity had not been e•l'ablished. [310 E-F]
In view of the acquittal of the second accused it is also not pclaiblo
to maintain the conviction of the Inspector under s. 161 I.P.C. sinoe it
was not the r.rosecution case that he had made any demand directly for
payment ot 1llegal gratification.
On the contrary, the prosecution case
was that the Inspector had attempted to obtain such gratification through
B
iustrumentality of the second accused. (311 B-C)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.
36 of 1969 and 202 of 1970.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 17, 1969
of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 376
C
of 1965.
A, S. R. Chari and Sobhagmal Jain, for the appellant (in Cr.
A. No. 36 of 1969),
K. B. Mehta, for the respondent (in Cr. A. No. 36 of 1969)
(in Cr. A. No. 202 of 1970).
I>
S. C. Gupta, Ramesh Chand, S. Bhandare and P. H. Parekh,
for the respondent (in Cr. A. No. 202 of 1970).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Khanna, J. This
judgment would dispose of criminal
E
appeal No. 36 of 1969 Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan and
criminal appeal No. 262 of 1970 State of Rajasthan v. Ram.
Swaroop.
Both the appeals have been filed on certificate granted
by the Rajasthan High Court.
Bhagat Ram during the year 1962 was posted as circle ins·
F
pector of police at Ganganagar.
Ancestral village of Bhagat
Ram is Mehna in Tehsil Moga, District Ferozepur. Ram
Swaroop also belongs to that viii.age.
Both Bhagat Ram and
Ram Swaroop were tried in the court of special judge, Ganga·
nagar for offences under section 120B IPC for conspiring to
extort bribe of Rs. 2,000 from PW 1 Niranjan Dass of Moga.
G
Charges were also framed against Bhagat Ram for offences under
sections 161, 218, 347 and 389 Indian Penal Code as also
section 5 ( 1 )(a) read with section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corrup~
tion Act.
Additional charge under section 165A Indian Penal
Code was framed against Ram Swaroop.
Both Bhagat Ram and
Ram Swaroop were acquitted by the special judge, Ganganagar H
in respect of all the charges.
The State of Rajasthan filed an
appeal against the acquittal of the two accused.
The appeal WilS
heard by a Division Bench consisting of Tyagi and Lodha, JJ.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BHAGAT RAM v. RAJASTHAN (Khanna, J.)
305
The Division Bench dismissed the said appeal against the
acquittal of Ram Swaroop.
The appeal of the State against
Bhagat Ram in so far as it related to his acquittal for ollcnces
under sections 347, 218, 389 and 120B IPC was also dismis9ed.
There was, however, a difference of opinion between the two
learned judges on the point as to whether the acquittal of Bhagat
Ram for offences under secti9n 161 IPC and 5(1)(a) of Prevention of Corru_ption Act should be maintained.
According to
Tyagi,_J., the case against Bhagat Ram for the above mentioned
two offences had not been proved and the State appeal in that respect also was liable to be dismissed.
As against that Lodha, J.
took the view that Bhagat Ram was guilty of offences under section 161 Indian Penal Code and section 5 ( 1 )(a) of Prevention
of Corruption Act.
He accordingly p.assed an order for the conviction of Bhagat Ram for the above mentioned two offences.
In view of the difference between the two judges regarding
the acquittal of Bhagat Ram for offences under section 161 IPC
and S(l)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the case was
placed under section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
before Jagat Narayan, J. Jagat Narayan, J. came to the conclusion that the material on record showed that Ram Swaroop and
Bha1?;at Ram had entered into an agreement to extort bribe from
Niranjan Dass and, as such, were guilty of an offence under section 120A punishable under section 120B of Indian Penal Code.
The learned judge, however, felt that in view of the decision of
the Division Bench, he could not set aside the acquittal of Ram
Swaroop.
As regards Bhagat Ram, the learned judge came to
the conclusion that he could set aside the acquittal of Bhagat Ram
for. offences under sections 120B, 218 and 34 7 IPC.
Bhagat
Ram was found 1?;Ui!tv by Ja~at Narayan, J. of the offences under
sections 120B, 161, 218 and 347 IPC.
For the offence under
section 161 IPC, Bhagat Ram was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs. 500/· or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
further period of three months.
For the offences under sections
218 and 34 7 IPC, Bhagat Ram was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each .count.
These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the sen·
tence imposed under section 161 IPC.
No sentence was award·
ed for the offence under section 120B IPC. Bhagat Ram has
filed criminal appeal No. 36 of 1969 against his conviction and
senten~e. while the State of Rajasthan has filed appeal No. 202
of 1970. against the acquittal of Rain Swaroop.
The prosecution case is that a case under sections 408 and
420. IPC was registered on June 14, 1962 at police station Ganganagar on a report made by the general manager of Ganganagar
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972) 3 S.C.R.
Sugar Mills against Ramesh, an employee of the sugar mills.
Bhagat Ram, who was circle inspector of Ganganagar, took over
A
the investigation of the above case.
Bhagat Ram during investigation came to know that Ramesh had sent the misappropriated
amount to his brother Puran Chand at Ludhiana. Bhagat Ram
also came to know that Puran Chand had entered into a transaction for the purchase of a truck from PW Niranjan Dass of Moga B
for a price of Rs. 22,000.
Niranjan Dass received Rs. 7,000
from Puran Chand in that connection.
As Puran Chand could
not pay the balance of the purchase price, the bargain regarding
the purchase of the truck was cancelled and the amount received
by Niranjan Dass was stated to have been returned to Puran
Chand. It seems that Bhagat Ram took the stand that pa~t of
Rs. 7,000 had been kept by Niranjan Dass with himself. Bhagat C
Ram, therefore. summoned Niranjan Dass to police station
Ganganagar. In obedience to the summons, Niranjan Dass went
with his brother Manohar Lal PW to Ganganagar police station
on July 27, 1962.
Niranjan Dass and Manohar Lal could not
meet Bhagat Ram on that day but met him on the following day.
Bhagat Ram then behaved in an unduly rnde and harsh manner
D
to Ni ran jan Dass and kept him at the police station.
Manohar
Lal apprehending trouble, returned to Moga and took with him
Ram Swaroop accused and some other persons.
Manohar Lal
and his companions reached Gariganagar on July 29, 1962. In
the meanwhile, Bhagat Ram had gone to Hindumalkot. Accompanied by Niranjan Dass, Ram Swaroop and others. Manohar
E
Lal went to Hindumalkot Dak bungalow where Bhagat Ram was
staying. It is stated that Rani Swaroop went inside the room in
which Bhagat Ram was present. while others stayed outside.
After some time Ram Swaroop came out of the room and told
Niranjan Dass and Manohar Lal not to feel worried.
Niranjan
Dass was asked to give a statement which was thereafter recorded
by Bhagat Ram.
Bhagl\t Ram then produced three documents
relating to the agreement for the sale of truck and the receipt
which Niranjan Dass had obtained from Puran Chand for the
refund of Rs. 7 ,000.
Bha~at Ram then told Niranjan Dass to go
back to Moga.
It was also mentioned by Bhagat Ram that if
F
the presence of Niranjan Dass was required for further investigation, he would be summoned again.
About 10 or 15 days after that, it is stated, Bhagat Rani went
G
to Moga in a jeep and stayed at the house of Niranjan Dass and
Manohar Lal for the night. . While leaving Moga early next
morning, Bhagat Ram told Niranjan Dass and Manohar Lal that
tbey should have a talk with Ram Swaroop and act according to
H
Ram Swaroop's instructions.
After Bhagat Ram had left Moga.
Ram Swaroop met Niranjan Dass and informed him that Bhagat
Ram wanted Rs. 2.000 ns bribe for having helped Niranjan Dass
BHAGAT RAM v. RAJASTHAN (Khanna, J.)
307
A to get ~ut of the tro~bl<l and that otherwise, Niranjan Dass would
be agam entangled m the case.
Niranjan Dass then told Ram
Swaroop that h~ would consult a lawyer and give a reply.
B
c
. Ram Swaro?p, according to the prosecution case, came to
N1ranian Dass m the first week of October 1962 and · showed
letter P. 2 which had been sent by Bhagat Ram to Ram Swaroop
from Alwar.
In the course of that letter it was stated "Kindly
send that thing to Alwar.
This is very important and please do
not be careless and slack in the matter." Ram Swaroop told
Niranjan Dass that the words "that thing" in the letter referred to
Rs. 2,000 and demanded that amount from Niranjan Dass, so
that it could be passed on to Bhagat Ram. Niranjan Dass
expressed his inability to accede to this demand.
The Jetter was,
however, retained by Niranjan Dass.
A few days thereafter Ram
Swaroop again came to Niranjan Dass and showed him telegram
P.3A dated October 19, 1962.
The telegram had been addressed
by Bhagat Ram to Ram Swaroop and it was stated therein that
Ram Swaroop should ask Niranjan Dass to see Bhagat Ram and
D that otherwise, warrants of :UTest would be issued against him.
This telegram too was kept by Niranjan Dass, with himself.
On December 26, 1962, it is stated, Niranjan Dass came to
know that warrants for his arrest had been received by the Moga
police in the above mentioned case registered at Ganganagar.
Niranjan Dass then consulted a lawyer aud sent complaint dated
E December 26, 1962 to the Inspector General of Police, Special
Police Establishment. A case was thereafter registered on the
basis of the above complaint by DSP Umaid Singh of Anti·
Corruption Department.
After necessary investigation, Bhagat
Ram and Ram Swaroop were sent up for trial.
F
Jn his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, Ram Swaroop admitted that he knew Bhagat Ram and
that he had gone to him on July 29, 1962 with Manohar Lal and
Nlranjan Dass at Hindumalkot.
Ram
Swaroop denied
that
Bhagat Ram had made any demand through him for illegal gratification.
According to Ram Swaroop, Bhagat Ram had asked
G him to realise the embezzled amount from Niranjan Dass.
The
other allegations made against him were denied by Ram Swaroop.
he. however, admitted having received letter P. 2 and telegram
p. 3A from Bhagat Ram and having handed over those documents to Niranjan Dass. Ram Swaroop added that he had asked
Niranjan Dass to pay the embezzled amount which was with him.
B
Bhagat Ram admitted that he had been entrusted with the
investigation of the case against Ramesh and that he had called
Niranjan Dass to Ganganagar in that connection. Bhagat Ram
308
SUPRBMB COURT RBPORTS
[1972] 3 s.c.R.
denied having maltreated Niranjan Dass or having kept him A
under unlawful detention. Bhagat Ram admitted that Niranjan
Dass and Ram Swaroop had met him on July 29, 1962 at Hindumalkot but he denied having made any demand through Ram
Swaroop fqr the payment of Rs. 2,000 as bribe.
It was admitted
by Bhagat Ram that he. had gone to Moga but the demand for
any illegal gratification from Niranjan Dass ·at Moga was denied
B
by Bhagat Ram.
Bhagat Ram admitted having sent letter P. 2
and telegram P. 3A to Ram Swaroop.
As regards the words
"that thing", Bhagat Ram stated that they referred to the embezzl·
ed amount which had been retained by Niranjan Dass.
The trial court, as stated earlier, acquitted both the accused,
C'
while the High Court maintained the acquittal of Ram Swaroop.
As regards Bhagat Ram, there was a difference between the two
judges.
On the matter being referred to the third judge, Bhagat
Ram was convicted and sentenced as above.
Arguments have been addressed in the two appeals by Mr.
Melita on. behalf of the State of Rajasthan, Mr. Chari on behalf D·
of Bhagat Ram and Mr. Gupta on behalf of Ram Swaroop. After
hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the appeal
filed by the State of Rajasthan merits dismissal, while that filed
by Bhagat Ram should be allowed.
It would appear from the- resume of facts given above that
both Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop were acquitted by the spe·
E.
cial judge.
On appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the
acquittal of the two accused, Tyagi and Lodha, JJ. maintained
the order relating to the acquittal of Ram Swaroop.
As regards
Bhagat Ram, though there was a difference between the two judges
regarding the correctness of his acquittal for offences under section S(l)(a) of Preve.ntion of Corruption Act and section 161
F
of Indian Penal Code, they concurred with regard to the acquittal
of Bhagat Ram in respect of the charges under sections 120B,
218, 347 and 389 IPC. The State appeal against the acquittal
of Bhagat Ram was dismissed to that extent. The order which
was made by. the learned judges of the Division Bench reads as
under:
"BY THE COURT
The result is that the appeal of the State against the
order of acquittal of respondent Ram Swaroop Is dis·
missed.
The appeal of the State so far as it relates to
the acquittal of respondent Bhagat Ram under sections
347 218, 389 and 120B Indian Penal Code is also
disniissed. In view of the difference of opinion about
the acquittal of Bhagat Ram under section 161 Indian
G
H
A
BHAGAT RAM v. RAJASTHAN (Khanna, J.)
309
Penal CQde and section 5 (1 )(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, the matter may be laid before Hon'ble
the Chief Justice for referring it to the third judge."
B
In view of the fact that the State appeal against the acquittal
of Bhagat Ram for offences under sections 120B, 218, 347 and
389 IPC had been dismissed by the Division Bench, it was, in
our opinion, not permissible for the third judge to reopen the
matter and convict Bhagat Ram for offence.~ under sections 347,
389 and 1208 IPC. The matter had been referred under section
429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to J agat Narayan, J.
C because· there was a difference of opinion between Tyagi, J. and
Lodha, J. regarding the correctness of the acquittai of . Bhagat
Ram for offences under section 161 IPC and section S(l)(a) of
Prevention of Corruption Act.
Jagat Narayan, J. could go only
into this aspect of the matter and arrive at his conclusion. The
present was not a case wherein the entire matter relating to the
D
acquittal or conviction of Bhagat Ram had been left open because
of a difference of opinion between the two judges. Had that
been the position, the whole case relating to Bhagat Ram could
legitimately be considered by Jagat Narayan, J. and he could
have formed his own view of the matter regarding the correctness
of. the order of acquittal made by the trial judge in respect of
Bhagat Ram.
On the contrary, as mentioned earlier, an express
E order had been made by the Division Bench upholding the
acquittal of Bhagat Ram for offences under sections 120B, 218,
347 and 389 IPC and the State appeal in that respect had been
dismissed. The above decision of the Division Bench was
binding upon Jagat Narayan, J. and he was in error in convicting
Bha~at Ram for offences under sections 120B, 218 and 347 IPC
f
despite the order of the Division Bench. It was, in our opinion,
not within the competence of the learned judge to reopen the
matter and pass the above order of conviction in the face of the
earlier order of the Division Bench whereby the order of acquittal
of Bhagat Ram made by the trial judge in respect of the said
three charge1 had been affirmed. The order of the Division Bench
c;
unless set aside in appeal to this Court, was binding and conclu·
slve in all subsequent proceedings between the parties. The
principle of .res fudlcata is also applicable to criminal proceed·
1ngs 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
H acquittal has already been recorded. The plea of autrefois
acquit as a bar to prosecution embodied in section 403 of the
Code of Criminal Procedm·e is based upon the above wholesome
principle.
. 3 J 0
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R .
In the case of Sambasivam v. Public Prosecutor, Federal of A
Malaya('), Lord MacDermott observed :
"The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by
a competent Court on a lawful charge and after a lawful
trial is not completely stated by saying that the person
acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence.
B
To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and
conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the
parties to the adjudication.
The maxim 'res judicata pro veritate accipitur' is no
less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings.
Here, the appellant having been acquitted at the first
C
trial on the charge of having ammunition in his possession, the prosecution was bound to accept the correct·
ness of that verdict and was precluded from taking any
steps to challenge it at the second trial."
The above observations were quoted with approval by this Court
0
in the case of Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab('). We are. there·
fore, of the opinion that the judgment of Jagat Narayan, J. in so
far as he has convicted Bhagat Ram for offences under sections
120B, 218 and 347 IPC cannot be sustained.
The matter can also be looked at from another angle. The
charge under section 120B IPC related to conspiracy between
E
Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop for extorting Rs. 2,000 as illegal
gratification from Niranjan Dass.
When Ram Swaroop was
acquitted of the charge under section 120B IPC, the basis of the
charge against Bhagat Ram for conspiracy between him and Ram
Swaroop disappeared.
It is not the case of the prosecution that
Bhagat Ram had conspired with another person and even though.
F
the identity of the other person has not been established, Bhagat
Ram would still be guilty for the olfcnce under section 120B
IPC.
On the contrary, the case of .the prosecution was that
Bhagat Ram had conspired with Ram Swaroop to extort Rs. 2,000
as illegal gratification from Niranjan Dass.
Once Ram Swaroop
was acquitted in respect of. the charge relating to conspiracy, the G
charge against Bhagat Ram for conspiracy must necessarily fall
t9 the ground.
So far as the State appeal against the acquittal of Ram Swa·
roop is concerned, we find that there are concurrent findings of
the trial court and the High Court that the evidence on record had
failed to prove that he was guilty of offences under sections 120B ff
and 165A IPC.
Nothing hai; been brought to our notice at the
rn r10..-oi A C:. 458.
(2) [1956] S.C.R. 41S,
BHAGAT RAM v. RAJASTHAN (Kha11na, J.)
311
A hearing of the appeal as may justify interference with those concurrent findings by a fresh appraisement of that evidence. We
are, therefore, of the view that the State appeal against the
acquittal of Ram Swaroop is liable to be dismissed.
As regards the conviction of Bhagat Ram for the offence
B under section 161 IPC, we find that it is not the prosecution case
that. Bhagat Ram had made any demand directly to Niranjan Dass
for payment of illegal gratification.
On the contrary, the High
Court found that Bhagat Ram had not demanded bribe directly
from Niranjan Dass. The case set up by the prosecution is that
Bhagat Ram attempted to
obtain
illegal gratification from
Niranjan Dass through the instrumentality of Ram Swaroop. In
C view of the acquittal of Ram Swaroop, it is not possible to maintain the conviction of Bhagat Ram. The acquittal of Ram Swaroop would necessarily lead to the conclusion that the prosecution allegation about Ram Swaroop having made a demand of
illegal gratification from Niranjan Dass for Bhagat Ram has not
been proved. 'The case,. in the circumstances, against Bhagat
D
Ram .for asking for bribe through Ram Swaroop must consequently fail.
It would indeed be incongruous and inconsistent to
acquit Ram Swaroop, for offences under sections 165A and 120B
IPC and, at the same time, to convict Bhagat Ram for the offence
under section 161 IPC for asking for bribe from Niranjan Dass
through the instrumentality of Ram Swaroop.
E
We, therefore, accept the appeal of Bhagat :Ram and set aside
his conviction and acquit him.
The appeal of the State of
Rajasthan against the acquittal of Ram Swaroop is dismissed.
V.P.S.
Appeal allowed.