R. K. CHATURVEDI v. MAHARASHTRA

\ **A** #### c **D** E _**B.**_ _**c.**_ _**Go.swanii**_ ·V • _**. Del/ii Administration,**_ **followed.** SH RAJENDRA KUMAR CHATURVEDI _v._ THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA _April_ 4, 1974 IM. H. BEG AND R. S. SARKARIN, JJ .] _**Practice-:-Criminal**_ _**P1'octdllre-Dismissal**_ _**of**_ _**appeal**_ _**b)'**_ _**High**_ _**Court**_ _**sum-**_ _**r.1a. U_v-D11f)•**_ _**tn**_ _**Rh•e**_ _**a**_ r~tucned _**onler.**_ **lbc Soeciat** **JudJe,** **after a very** **thorough.** **and** **careful** **assessment** **of** **the** **whole** **evidence** **·in** **the** **cue.** **had** **come** **to** **the** **conclusion** **that** **the** **prosecution** **case** **apimt** **the** **appelluit was established beyond reasonable doubt** **and** **convicted** **him·** **under** **sections** **1208** **as** **well** **as** **161** **read** **with** **s.** **34** **l.P.C.** **and** **also under** se:tions S(l)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The **High** **Court** **dismisaed** **the** ~ppellant's **appeal** **summarily without** **giving** **any** reasons. **DismissinR** **the** **apeal** **to** **this** **Court,** **HELD** : ( **t)** **It** **is** **necessary** **for** **the** **High** **Courts,** **even** **when** **they** **dismiss** **criminal** **-3Rpeals** **summarily on facts found, to record** **the** **reason'i** **briefly.** **It** **is** **often** **difficult** **in a criminal case to say whether** **any** **material** **error** **was** **committed** **by** **the trial court in arriving** **at** **its** **findings** **of** **fact without atleast** **some e;xamination and consideration** **of** **the main features** **of** **the** **evidence- which** only a reasoned order would disclose. [85 I E-G] **(2)** **An examination** **of** **the** **evidence** **by** **this Court, because ·of such summary** **dismissal,** ho~ver, **sho\VS** **that** **the** **findings** **of** **the** **trial** **court must** **be** **up-held.** **it** **must** **be** **deemed that** **the** **High** **Court had affirmed the findings** **of** **the trial** . Co~rt **when** **it** **dismissed** **the** **appeal summarily, and therefore, there is no reason** **·to** **depart** **from the general rule** **that** **this Court will** **.not** **interfere** **with** **con-** **current** **findings** **of** **fact except under very exceptional circumstances.** **[851** **D-El** # ### **it** CRIMINAL APPEi.LATE JurusmcnoN _:_ Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 1970. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 13th October, 1970 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in CrimiF nal Appeal No. 1112 of 1970. _S._ _N._ _Misra_ and _M. V. Goswami,_ for the appellant. _M._ _C._ _Bhandare_ and _S._ _P. Nayer,_ for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **G** **H** BEG, J.-J"he Special Judge of Greater Bombay tried the appealiant, a Su6 lnsP"ctor in the Railway Production Force, togeth·~r with three other members of the Force, serving under him, on charges for, offences punishable under· Section 120B and 161 Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was ·alleged that the appellant [1 ] and tlle Rakshaks serving under him at Bhusaval Central Railway Station had conspired to extort mol)ey from Shivaji Ogale, P.W.2, a merchant owning property and goods estimated by him at Rs. 1,50,000/-, ?nd paying Income,tax and Sales t~x. The .appellant is alleged to h~ve stopped Shivaji from removing ' his goods from the goods yard ori the ground thai the .truck brought L84Sup.Cl/74 ##, 8~8 SUPREMil COURT REPORTS [1974] 3 S.C.R. b~ ~im was parked at tl\e wrong place. Tl!e ap!J!!llant, with the Jielp A ot his Rakshaks/ was said to ha.ve threatened Kalandar Khan, P. W. 3, the driver oi the truck, and to ha·1c actually handcuffed him and tied ##### · him With a rope and taken him to the appellant's office at some dis tance from the goods ~'Ord. Shivaji was himself said to be present at the scene at that time which wan about 4 p.m. on 17-1-1968. The appellant and his co-accus:d, Hari Rachu, were alleged to have demanded Rs. 20:J/- as bribe for releasing the truck driver without B whom the truck could not be driven away. The vexed Shivaji. is said to have fallen at the feet of the appellant and to have begged him to release his driver. The appellant then reduced his demanu to Rs. 100/-. Shivaji is said to have sent his son Sarjearao, P.W. 4, to his shop to get Rs. !OW- which were hroug.~t in Rs. _101-_ notes within half an hour and handed over to the extortionists. The appellant is said to hav~ released the driver and allowed ·the truck to go away after this C payment had been actually made. The Special Judge had e~amined the whole evidence in great detail. He observed about Shivaji, P.W. 2: "It saw his demeanour when he was in the witness box and it ne-1er appeared to me that he was gifted with krtile D imagination or that the present prosecution was the product of a deliberate conspiracy between him, Vishwanath, Vasant and Rambabu Kate as alleged by the Learned Advocates for the accused. Had they really intended to do so, their natural conduct would have b:en to approach railway police them· selves or local police or ACB. Police Bhusaval but neither Shivaji nor Vasant did so and they preferred to write out E a complaint in the complaint Book at Ex. 10 regarding the incident which took place on the 17th as it really occurred'" The complaint mentioned above was lodged at about 8 a.m. on 18-1-1 %8 after an imposition of Rs. 7. JO as wharfage charges as all the goods could not be removed on 17-1-1968 presumably .because of the interruption caused by the action of the appellant and his associates. Shivaji had also stated that he had related "everything" to the Chief Goods' Clerk of Bhusaval, P.W. 8, about 6 p.m. on 17-1-1968. The Goods' Clerk deposed that Shivaji came to his office at that time and \old him : F "x~x th~re was all darkn»ss in the State.. bribe was demanded from bim; hand-i:u!i's were being pu('on, we and our lllboun:rs were being harassed. After having told me this G he went aw~y. As my duty hours were over I made no further enquiry and Shivaji went away" The Goods' Clerk had taken down •he complaint of Shivnji next morning after fixing the wharfage charges. Apparently, Shivaji, P.W. 2: an old man cf seventv, was very agitated by what had taken place. fhe Goods' Clerk stated that Shivaji was in an exasperated state of mind 11 when he came to him on the evening of 17-1-1968. Under cross· cxainination. the witness stated that he.must have told the police during the investigation that Shivaji had said. that bribes were. bein& taken. ##### ( ' 11[ A B ##### c D E F G H R. K. CHATURVEDI _v._ ~AHARASHTRA _(Beg,!.)_ 849, \ This statement in Court was made on 14-8-1970, more than 2t years after the occurrence. Therefore, the mere fact that, in his e:Millinationin:chief, he did not state . that Shivaji had actually mentioned the passing of money on the evening of 16-1-1968 does not seem to be material. Sbivaji's complaint next morning contained a!l the detailed allegations. The accused could not give any. reason why this witness should dep!1SC at all falsely against him. His testimony corroborates Shivaji's **version.** Furthermore, there is corroboration of the statement of Shivaji from die statements of not only his son Sarjerao, P.W. 4, who brought money from the shop, bis nephew, Visbwanath, P.W. 5, who had gone to the scene of occurrence as there was delay in the arrival of goods, and, Vasant; P.W. 6, who bad given out Rs. 100/- to bis brother ###### Sarjerao, p,w. 4, at Shivaji's shop, 'but also from the statement of Abdul Jabar, P.W. 10, who was an Assistan.t Sub Inspector of the Railway .Protecti9n Force and a colleague of the appellant. Abdul la bar's evidence, characterised by the Trial Court as "independent", disclosed that Kalandar Khan was actually arrested by the appellant a fact denied and left unexplained .by the appellant. Another piece of corroborative evidence offered by the prosecution was the "pucca" entry of a disbursement of Rs. _1001-_ as bribe and Rs. 7.10 as wharfage shown on 17-1-1968 in the cash book of Shlvaji. But, as this account boolt was not produced at the time of the enquiry held by the Inspector .Hanotia of the Railway Protection Force iBto tile allegations and the entry was admitted to have been made on 19-1-1968 although the disbursement is shown on 17-1-1968 it cannot b relied upon. There is force in the conl.enlion that. it app,ars to have been made to support the prosecution case. The wharfage charge of Rs. 7-10 was not even fixed on 17-1-1968. However, as the entry was admitted by the prosecution to have been actually made on 18-1-1968, it can be ignored as a piece of corroborative evidence. The mere f&ct that it must have been made on 18-1-1968 to support the version of Shivaji and is admitied to have been SO\ made does not take away the value of the evidence of Shivaji which impresse~ the Trial Court and whic11 was corroborated by other pieces of unimpeachable evidence. CCmsK!cra~le s~ess is laid on the fact that Shivaji bad pointed out, at a test 1~entification parade, the aci;used No. 2, Hari Rachu, as the perso11 to whom the money was paid, but, ~t the trial, he stated that it was paid to the appellant accused No. 1 who handed it over to aecused No. 2. A 1ong period of time had elapsed between the occurretice and depositions at the trial by witnesses. Their memory could very w~ll have become ·blurred ·as to who actually got the money first if the money was passed by one accused person to another as _it_ seems lo baye ~n. 'I:heie could be an honest lapse of memory about. the ###### :"xact sequence, The infirmity is not so serious as to be attribut-~d . to nothing except ·mendaciousness. The Special Judge, after a very through and carelul assessment of the whole evidence in the case, "had come to the conclusion that the 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1974] 3 s.C.R •. prosecution case against the appellani was establisiied beyond reason~ able doubt. He had convicted the appellant under Section 120B as well as Section 161 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and also under Section 5(l)(d) and Sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, · on each one of the three counts, but the substantiYe sentences were made concurrent. The appellant as well as- the other convicts had appealed to the High .Court of Bombay. The appellant's appeal had been dismissed summarily. The appeal of the three convicted co-accused was admitted, but it was finally dismissed, except as regards ·one of the accused who was held to be merely present and to have carried out the orders of the appellant before us in writing up a document alid then destroying ·it. The reasons given in the judgment of the Bombay High Court, on that appeal, reponed as _Hari Rachu Kanadi_ v. _The State of_ _Maha-_ _rashtra('),_ are relied upon as arguments before us for accepting the **prosecution** **case.** We may here mention a fact which the Bombay High Court took into account in confirming the convictions of two of the ce>-accused in this case. It has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the State before_ us. It is that, under the provisions of the Railway Pr0tection Force, the members of that Force are not Police Officers at all in the ordinary sense, and that the appellant had apparently exceeded his powers of ar.rest. The powers of.arrest without a warrant under Section 12, vested in Superior Officers of the Force, are laid down in the following terms : **"Power** **to** **arrest** **without** **warrant.** (12). Any superior officer or member of the Force may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, **arrest-** **A** B #### c D E ( a) any person who has been concerned in an offence relating to railway property punishable with . imprisonment F for a term exceeding six months, or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been .so concerned, or (b) any person found taking . precautions to. conceal his presence within railway limits under circumstances which afford reason to believe. that he is taking such precautions **with a** **View** **to committing theft of. or damage** to, **railway** **G** property" It has not been shown to us what justifiable ground the appellant had to arrest or cause the arrest of Kalandar Khan. This indicates that th~ r·::ason for the arrest could be an attempt to extort a bribe as alleged by the prosecution. The appellant had, no doubt, denied the arrest. This denial was clearly false in view of the statements of witnessc5 H (1) 1973 Bombay Law Reporter (Vol. 71) p. 891. _f_ . I ##### ' ' R. K. CHATURVEDI _v._ MAHARASHTRA _(Beg,_ _!.)_ as 1 A who included Abdul Jabar, P.W.10, a fellow member of the protection Force to ·which the appellant belonged. The established fact of this arrest of Kalaodar together with the false denial of it by the appellant indicate the dishonesty of the appellant's stand. It also corroborates the prosecution version. It is true that the statement of Kalandar Khan, P.W.3, the driver B of the truck, contradict~ the prosecution case, as given out by Shivaji and his son, so far as the actual arrest of Kalandar Khan is concerned. But, even Kalandar Khan had deposed that the appellant had threatened him. He then went on to state that there was a quarrel as a consequence of it and nothing more. lie was declared hostile by the prosecution. He was cross-examined about the statements made by him during investigation showing that he was arrested and that he C actually saw the handing over of money as a bribe for his release. He denied making such statements to the police. As there is no reason whatsoever shown why the Investigating Officer should be prejudiced against the appellant and falsely record statements, the Trial Court was right in holding that Kalandar Khan was a thoroughly unreliable ###### ., **wi.ness.** D E F G The rcsu1t is that we see no reason to depart in this case from the general rule laid down by this Court in numerous cases, such as _B._ C. _Goswami_ v. _Delhi_ _Administration,_ that this Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact except under very exceptional circumstances. The High Court must be deemed to have aflirmeil the findings of fact of the Special Judge when it dismissed the appellant's appeal summarily even if it did not give its reasons. It is because of such a dismissal by it that we have examined the evidence in the case ourselves. We may here observe .th.at, although we uphold the fit\dings of the Trial Court which would be deemed to be affirmed by the High Court, we consider it very n-..-cessary for High ~ourts to at least record their reasons briefly even when they dismiss criminal appeal summarily on facts found. It is often difficult in criminal cases to say whether any material error was committed _by_ the Tritil Court ill arriving at its. findings of fact without at least some examina\ion and consideration of the main features of the evidence which only a: reasoned order could disclose. It was mainly because reasons for summary dismissal of the appellant's appeal were not given by the High Court that the appellant seems to have. obtained Special Leave to appeal to this Court. We hereby dismiss· thi~ appeal and co.nfirm the convictions and sentences passed against the appellant who is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith and serve out the remaining period of his con**current** **sentences.** . V.P.S. _Appeal_ _dim1/ssed._