Supreme Court of India: Sat Paul Vs Delhi Administration On 30 September, 1975

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert
Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India

Sat Paul vs Delhi Administration on 30 September, 1975
Equivalent citations: AIR 1976 SC 294, 1976 CriLJ 295, (1976) 78 PLR 194, (1976) 1
SCC 727, 1976 2 SCR 11
Author: R Sarkaria
Bench: P Bhagwati, R Sarkaria
JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi
upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 5(2) read
with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, Penal Code.
The facts are these:
2. On 16-1-1970, Ramesh alias Kaka (PW 1), Mst. Maya (PW 2) and Jayna (PW 8) went
to the Railway Station to receive one Mst. Mumtaz, who was expected from Bombay by
1.45 p. m. train. Finding them loitering there, a constable of the Railway police took them
to the appellant at the Railway Police Post where he was posted as an Assistant Sub-
Inspector. The appellant gave a beating to Ramesh and demanded an explanation as to
why they had come to the Railway Station. Ramesh said that they had come to receive
6ne Mst. Mumtaz, who was expected from Bombay by train at about 1.45 P. M, The
appellant questioned if Mumtaz was being brought to Delhi for prostitution. Ramesh and
his companions refuted the insinuation and informed the appellant that Mumtaz was a
dancing girl and not a prostitute. The appellant then demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- from
Ramesh and party, warning that in the event of non-payment, they would be implicated in
some case. Ramesh paid Rs. 30/- there and then to the appellant. The latter insisted that
they would not be released unless they paid the balance of Rs. 70/-. On the suggestion of
the women, the appellant detained Ramesh but let off the women with the direction to
send the balance of Rs. 70/-. Mst. Maya and Mst. Jayna returned to their residence on G.
B. Road and informed Dal Chand (FW 7) all about the incident. Mst. Maya then handed
over Rs 70/- to Dal Chand for securing the release of Ramesh. Dal Chand, instead, went
to the office of the Anti-Corruption Police where Inspector Paras Nath recorded his
statement, Ex. PW 3/A. The Inspector organized a raiding party. He summoned Surinder
Nath (PW 3) and Sohan Pal Singh (PW 4), two clerks from the Sales-tax Office. The
recorded statement of Dal Chand was then read out to Dal Chand, and was admitted to be
correct by him in the presence and hearing of the Panch witnesses. Dal Chand then
produced seven currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each. The Inspector
treated those notes with phenolphthalein powder. He demonstrated to the witnesses how
the fingers of a person touching a note treated with such powder would turn violet when
dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate. The treated notes were then returned to Dal
Chand with the direction that he should hand over the same to the appellant, on demand.
The Panch witnesses were instructed to keep close to Dal Chand to witness the passing of
the tainted notes. The raiding party headed by Inspector Paras Nath including Dal Chand
and the panch witnesses, then reached New Delhi Railway Station at about 5.25 p.m. Dal
Chand and Sohan Pal Singh were directed to go ahead, while the rest of the party took up
positions nearby. Dal Chand and his companions found the appellant talking to some
person just outside the Police Post. After a couple of minutes when the appellant was free
from that talk, and was alone, Dal Chand approached him and said that he was the brother
of Ramesh (PW 1) and had been sent by the women to pay him Rupees 70/- for getting
Ramesh released. The appellant first demanded Rupees 100/- but later received Rs. 70/-
from Dal Chand and put the currency notes in the left-side pocket of his pants which he
was then wearing. The appellant then told Dal Chand to go away, and assured the latter
that Ramesh would be released. The appellant then went into his room in the Police Post.
Inspector Paras Nath and party followed the appellant into the room. Inside, they found
him sitting on a cot and Ramesh, PW, squatting on the floor. The Inspector disclosed his
identity and accused the appellant of having received a bribe. The appellant kept mum.
The Inspector then recovered the currency notes, Exs. P1 to P7, from the pocket of the
pants which the appellant was then wearing. He compared the numbers of the notes with
those noted in the memorandum PW 3/P. They tallied. Pointing towards Ramesh, the
Inspector asked the appellant as to who he was. The appellant replied that he (Ramesh)
had been found loitering outside in suspicious circumstances and was brought for
interrogation. The left-hand fingers of the appellant were then dipped in a solution of
sodium carbonate which turned pink. After preparing the seizure memo and the raid
report (PW 9/A), the Inspector sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the
formal First Information Report.
3. After completing the investigation and securing the necessary sanction for prosecution
of the appellant, he laid a charge-sheet against him in the court of the Special Judge,
Delhi.
4. Examined under Section 342, Cr. P.C., the appellant denied the 1 prosecution case, and
gave this version of the occurrence:
I left the Police Post at 4.15 p. m. in uniform for patrol duty at the New Delhi Railway
Station platforms because there is a heavy rush of trains at that time. I was sent for by the
Incharge Police Post through Dev Raj Constable. I came to the Police Post through an
entrance towards the platform. At that time in-charge, Police Post was busy in a
conversation on telephone. I was carrying a baton in my hand. I entered my room and
placed the baton on the table. My room is hardly 8' x 4 1/2'. Just at that time Inspector
Paras Nath came there and secured me near the door of my room. On a few occasions I
did not oblige Inspector Paras Nath for getting seats reserved at the Railway Station for
his friends and relatives. He had strained relations with me. I know Dal Chand and
Ramesh. They are pimps. They often used to come to the Railway Station to solicit
customers who were visitors to Delhi. On a number of occasions I saw them accompanied
by prostitutes of G. B. Road. I reprimanded them several times not to frequent the
Railway platforms in that manner. They were out to harm me. The recovered pants was
hanging on a peg in my room and it was removed from there by the Inspector. I was
wearing my uniform. No proceedings of the type mentioned above took place in my room.
I got confused on seeing the Anti-Corruption Staff. I was afraid that they might create
trouble for my bail and therefore I did not resist or protest. I have served in the Police
Department for the last 19 years and there is not a single adverse entry, major or minor in
my service book. I am innocent.
5. In defence, the appellant examined five witnesses all members of the Police force.
6. Head Constable Jabar Singh (DW 1) testified on the basis of the service record, that
there was not a single adverse entry in the Character Roll of the appellant and that no less
than 80 recommendation certificates some of them accompanied by cash rewards were
awarded to him since his joining the Police force on 7-6-1951. Constable Sardar Singh,
DW2, proved with reference to the official records brought by him that Ramesh (DW 1)
was convicted and fined on 14-1-1966 by a Delhi Magistrate under Section 12 of the
Gambling Act Constable Dev Raj, DW 3, of the Railway Police Post was examined to
show that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was in police uniform and was not
wearing the civilian clothes, including the pants from which the tainted currency notes are
alleged to have been recovered. He testified that on 16-1-1970 at about 5.45 P. M., the In-
charge, Police Post directed the witness to convey a message to the appellant that he was
wanted on the telephone to receive a call from his sister from Kirti Nagar. Accordingly,
the witness went and conveyed the message to the appellant who was then in uniform,
patrolling the Railway platform. Constable Muharrar Sujan Singh, DW 4, produced the
Daily Diary of the Police Post, containing entry No. 40, showing that on 16-1-1970, the
appellant had departed from the Police Post for patrol dirty at 4.15 P.M. He stated that
there was a Standing Order according to which, all Police Officers going on patrol were
peremptorily required to go in uniform.

Supreme Court of India: Sat Paul Vs Delhi Administration On 30 September, 1975

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court of India: Sat Paul Vs Delhi Administration On 30 September, 1975

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT R.S. Sarkaria, J.

You might also like