RANDHIRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Randhira has been convicted by the Special Judge of Gwalior appointed under Section 6, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 of an offence under Section 165-A, Penal Code and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment. The accused has appealed both against the conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE facts of this case are very brief. It was alleged by the prosecution that a miscellaneous case, to which Randhira was a party, was pending before Mr. Joshi Naib Tehsildar of Picchore; that on 16-11950 when Mr. Joshi came out of his house and was proceeding to the court, the appellant Randhira offered him two currency notes of ten rupees each and asked him to dispose of his case. Mr. Joshi at once made a report to the police against the appellant. The appellant admitted the recovery of two currency notes of Rs. 10/- each from his possession. He also admitted that he had offered the notes to Mr. Joshi. He, however, said that he intended to give the notes to Mr, Joshi as fees for a spot inspection in the case. The learned Special Judge rejected the plea of the accused and accepting the prosecution evidence convicted him under Section 165-A, Penal Code.

(3.) BEFORE me the main contention advanced by Mr. Misra, learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of the provisions of Article 20, Constitution of India, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 165-A, Penal Code, which was incorporated in the Penal Code on 28-7-1952, for a bribe said to have been offered on 16-1-1950, There is considerable force in this contention. Article 20 of the Constitution says that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. On 16-1-1950 the Indian Penal Code, as adapted by the Madhya Bharat Act No. 50 of 1649, was in force in Madhya Bharat. Under the adapted Penal Code, as under the Indian Penal Code itself, the person who offered a bribe to a public servant was punishable as an abettor under Section 161 read with Section 109. if the bribe was accepted by the public servant, and if the bribe was not accepted, the giver of the bribe was still punishable under Section 161 read with Section 116. The offering of a bribe was made a substantive offence by itself instead of a mere abetment by Section 165-A which was introduced in the Penal Code by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952 (46 of 1952), which same; into force on 28-7-1952. On 16-1-1950 the offering, of a bribe was thus punishable in Madhya Bharat only as an abetment under the adapted Penal Code. The appellant's conviction under Section 165-A, Indian Penal Code for an offer of bribe on 16-11950 is thus in violation of the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution and cannot be upheld.