Raghubir Singh vs State of Haryana
AIR 1974 SC 1516
Case Summary
[Police Entrapment]
Facts
In May 1967, P.W. 3, a member of the Armed Forces, was traveling from Udaipur to his village by train, carrying his wife, child, and luggage under a railway concession pass. Upon arrival at Ateli Railway Station, he was confronted by the Assistant Station Master (the accused), who informed him that he needed to pay an additional charge of Rs. 45 for his family and excess luggage. P.W. 3 could not pay the full amount and was told by the accused to pay a bribe of Rs. 10. The accused agreed to release his luggage the next day once the bribe was paid.
After reaching his village, P.W. 3 complained to the Deputy Commissioner of Narnaul about the extortion. The Deputy Commissioner directed the Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter. Subsequently, a trap was set by P.W. 5 (the Sub Divisional Magistrate), and P.W. 7 (the Deputy Superintendent of Police), along with P.W. 3, at Ateli Railway Station.
A marked Rs. 10 note was handed over to P.W. 3, who gave the money to the accused, and the accused was caught red-handed with the marked note in his hand. The note was recovered from the accused, and an FIR was registered. After the investigation, the accused was charged under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for criminal misconduct by accepting the bribe.
The Special Judge convicted the accused, and the High Court confirmed the conviction. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
1. Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid, considering the powers of P.W. 2, the Divisional Officer, who granted the sanction.
2. Whether the investigation violated Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which restricts officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police from investigating such offenses.
3. Whether the accused’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Relevant Laws and Sections
Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Deals with criminal misconduct by public servants who accept illegal gratification.
Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Restricts the investigation of corruption offenses to police officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or higher.
Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947: Provides for the presumption in favor of the accused regarding illicit gratification.
Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rule 134: Delegates powers to certain officers, including Divisional Officers, to appoint or dismiss railway employees.
Court's Reasoning
1. The Court upheld the validity of the sanction granted by P.W. 2, a Divisional Officer (Senior Scale), as he had the authority to appoint and remove employees in the relevant category under Rule 134 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The defense's argument regarding the lack of delegated authority was dismissed.
2. The Court ruled that there was no violation of Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation was conducted by P.W. 7, a competent police officer. P.W. 5, an Executive Magistrate, was legally involved in organizing the trap, which did not constitute an investigation.
3. The Court found the evidence, including the recovery of the marked Rs. 10 note from the accused, compelling. The accused’s defence was found to be fabricated, and the prosecution's case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the accused were upheld.
Comments