BADRI RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the concurrent judgments and orders of the courts below, convicting the two appellants under S. 120-B read with S. 165-A, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. A separate conviction under S. 165-A has been recorded in respect of the first appellant, Badri. Under this head, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence under the common charge.

(2.) The facts as found by the courts below, which could not be successfully challenged before us, are as follows:The second appellant, Ramji Sonar, is a gold-smith by profession, and runs a shop on the main road in the village Naogachia. In the village, there is a police station, and the shop in question is situated in between the police station building and the residential quarters of the Inspector of police, who was the First Informant in the case, resulting in the conviction and sentences of the appellants, as stated above. The first appellant, Badri, runs a school for small boys in the same village, about 50 yards away from the shop aforesaid, of the second appellant. On August 22, 1953, the First Informant, who, holding the position of an Inspector of Police, was in charge of the police station, made a seizure of certain ornaments and molten silver from a vacant building in front of the house of the second appellant, Ramaji. Those ornaments were being melted by six strangers coming from distant places, with implements for melting, said to have been supplied by Ramji. The seizure was made on the suspicion that the ornaments and the molten silver were stolen property, which were to be sold to Ramji in a shape which could not be identified with any stolen property. After making the seizure-list of the properties, thus seized, the police officer arrested Ramji, as also the other six strangers. Ramji was released on bail that very day. Police investigations into the case, thus started, followed. During that period, on August 24, 1953, at about 7-30 p.m., the Inspector was on his way from his residential quarters to the police station, when both the appellants accosted him on the road, and Ramji asked him to hush up the case for a valuable consideration. The Inspector told them that he could not talk to them on the road, and that they should come to the police station. Thereafter, the Inspector reported the matter to his superior officer, the D. S. P. (P. W. 8) and to the Sub-Inspector. P. W. 9, attached to the same police station. On August 31, the same year, the first appellant, Badri, came to the police station, saw the Inspector in the central room of the thana, and offered to him a packet wrapped in a piece of old newspaper, containing Rs. 500 in currency notes. He told the Inspector, (P. W. 1) that the second appellant, Ramji, had sent the money through him in pursuance of the talk that they had with him, in the evening of August 24, as a consideration for hushing up the case that was pending against Ramji. At the time the offer was made, a number of police officers, besides a local merchant (P. W. 7), were present there. The Inspector at once drew up the first information report of the offer of the bribe on his own statement, and prepared a seizure-list of the money, thus offered, and at once arrested Badri, and put him in the thana lock-up. After the usual investigation, the appellants were placed on their trial, with the result indicated above.

(3.) Both the courts below have found that the prosecution case, a summary of which has been given above, has been proved by good and reliable evidence, and that the defence case that the prosecution was started by the Inspector out of spite and in order to defend himself against the consequences of wrongfully arresting Ramji, was unfounded. We are not impressed with the halting criticism of the evidence adduced in this case on behalf of the prosecution, and accepted by the courts below. Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with concurrent findings of fact.