{"id":223783,"date":"1975-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975"},"modified":"2017-11-05T12:13:33","modified_gmt":"2017-11-05T06:43:33","slug":"trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975","title":{"rendered":"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 666, \t\t 1976 SCR (1) 348<\/div>\n
Author: R S Sarkaria<\/div>\n
Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTRILOK CHAND JAIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF DELHI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/08\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nBENCH:\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nCHANDRACHUD, Y.V.\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  666\t\t  1976 SCR  (1) 348\n 1975 SCC  (4) 761\n\n\nACT:\n     Prevention of  Corruption Act  (2 of 1947) ss. 4(1) and\n5(1) (2) and Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860) s. 161-Scope\nof presumption under s.4(1)\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     An inspector  of the  Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking\ndemanded  a   bribe  for  giving  the  complainant  a  power\nconnection for his factory. Information having been given to\nthe anti-corruption police a trap was set. The inspector did\nnot turn  up at the appointed time to receive the money, but\nthe appellant,\ta permanent labourer working under him, came\nto the complainant's factory, told him that he had been sent\nby the Inspector, and that the money should be given to him.\n'The complainant,  at first,  insisted\tthat  the  inspector\nhimself should\tcome but later gave him the money. The money\nwas recovered  from the\t appellant and the inspector and the\nappellant were charged with offences under the Prevention of\nCorruption Act.\t The trial court acquitted the inspector but\nconvicted the  appellant under\ts. S(2) read with s. 5(1)(d)\nof the\tAct, and  under s.  161 I.P.C.,\t with the aid of the\npresumption under  s. 4(1)  of the  Act. The  conviction was\nconfirmed by the High Court.\n     Allowing the appeal to this Court,\n^\n     HELD :  ( I ) The question whether a government servant\nreceiving money\t had the  requisite incriminatory  motive is\none of fact. [353H, 354A]\n     (2) one  of the  essential ingredients  of the  offence\nunder s.  161, I.P.C.,\tis that\t the gratification must have\nbeen received  by the  accused as  a motive  or\t reward\t for\ncommitting  an\tact  or\t omission  in  connection  with\t his\nofficial functions.  Even  if  the  government\tservant\t was\nincapable of  showing any favour or rendering any service in\nconnection with\t his official duties, he may be guilty; but,\nthe existence  of an  understanding that the bribe was given\nin consideration  of some  official act\t or  conduct  is  an\nimportant factor  bearing on  the question as to whether the\naccused had received the gratification as a motive or reward\nas mentioned in s. 161, I.P.C. [353GH]\n     (3 )  The appellant being a mere labourer was incapable\nof showing  any favour\tor  rendering  any  service  to\t the\ncomplainant in\tconnection with\t his official duties. It had\nnot been  shown by  the prosecution  that he  was in any way\nofficially concerned  with the\tinstallation of poles or the\ngiving of  electric connection;\t nor was  it shown  that the\nappellant made any representation, claim or promise, that he\nwould  either  himself\tor  through  his  inspector  get  an\nofficial act done for the complainant. Or that the appellant\nhad demanded bribe from the complainant. [353A-C, F]\n     In the absence of any such circumstances the conduct of\nthe appellant  was not\tincompatible with  the\trole  of  an\ninnocent carrier  of money  without the\t requisite mens rea.\n[353E]\n     (4) The  charge under  S. 5(1)(d) also is unsustainable\nbecause, it  could not be reasonably said that the appellant\nobtained the  money by\tusing corrupt  or illegal  means  or\notherwise abusing his official position, as a public servant\n     (5) Section  4(1) of  the Prevention  of Corruption Act\nProvides that in the trial of an offence punishable under s.\n161 or\t165, I.P.C., or under cls. (a) or (b) of 5 5(1) read\nwith sub-s.  5(2) of the Act, if the prosecution proves that\nthe accused  had accepted  or obtained a gratification other\nthan legal  remuneration the  court has\t to presume that the\ngratification was  accepted or\tobtained by the accused as a\nmotive or reward as mentioned in s. 161, I.P.C. [351-H, 52B]\n349\n     (6) (a)  The presumption,\thowever, is not absolute and\nis rebuttable.\tThe quantum  and nature of proof required to\ndisplace  the\tpresumption,   varies\taccording   to\t the\ncircumstances of  each case.  Such proof  may partake of the\nshape of  defence evidence adduced by the accused or, it may\nconsist\t of   circumstances  appearing\tin  the\t prosecution\nevidence  itself   as  a   result  of  cross-examination  or\notherwise. While  the mere  explanation given by the accused\nin his examination under s. 342, Cr. P.C., may not b- enough\nthe burden  on him  to\tnegate\tthe  presumption  may  stand\ndischarged, if the effect of the material brought on record,\nin its\ttotality renders  the existence\t of the\t fact to  be\npresumed improbable.  The accused  may, therefore, rebut the\npresumption by\tshowing a  more preponderance of probability\nin his\tfavour and  it is not necessary for him to establish\nhis case beyond reasonable doubt. [352-CF]]\n     Mahesh Prasad  Gupta v.  State of\tRajasthan, AIR<\/a>\t1974\nS.C. 773 followed.-\n     (b) Further,  the sole purpose of the presumption under\ns. 4(1)\t is to\trelieve the  prosecution of  the  burden  of\nproving a  fact which  is an  essential\t ingredient  of\t the\noffence under  s. 5(1) and (2) of the Act and s. 161, I.P.C.\nThe presumption,  therefore, can be used only in furtherance\nof the\tprosecution case and not in derogation of it. [352F-\nG]\n     (c) In  the present  case.\t the  statutory\t presumption\nbeing antithetical to the prosecution story, namely, that it\nwas the\t inspector who\tdemanded the  bribe  for  showing  a\nfavour and  that the payment was intended for him, could not\nbe availed  of by  the Prosecution  against  the  appellant.\n[354-CD]\n     (7) Nor  can the  appellant be  held guilty of abetting\nthe alleged  attempt made by the inspector to obtain illegal\ngratification. Intention  to aid  the conn  mission  of\t the\ncrime is  the gist  of the  offence of\tabetment,  and\tsuch\nintention on  the part\tof the\tappellant is lacking in this\ncase. It  has not  been shown that the appellant was present\nany occasion  when the inspector demanded the bribe. [354-D-\nG]\n     (8) Moreover, the principal accused had been acquitted.\nThe prosecution\t  having  failed to prove that the money had\nbeen paid  to the  appellant pursuant  to the  demand for  a\nbribe by  the inspector,  the court  cannot make  out a\t new\ncause for the prosecution and hold that the amount had been.\nreceived by  the appellant  on his  own or  for some  person\nother than the inspector. [355 B, D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n116 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgement and order
\ndated the  27th November,  1970 of  the Delhi  High Court in
\nCrl. Appeal No. 35 of 197().\n<\/p>\n
     Uma Datta, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Govind Das and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SARKARIA, J.  This appeal\tby special leave is directed
\nagainst a  judgment of the High Court of Delhi upholding the
\nconviction of  the appellant under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)\n<\/p>\n
(d) of\tthe Prevention\tof Corruption  Act and s. 161, Penal
\nCode, recorded by the Special Judge, Delhi. The facts of the
\nprosecution case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     The complainant,  S. K. Jain, manufactures rubber motor
\nparts in  his factory  at Shahdara.  On his application, the
\nDelhi Electric\tSupply Undertaking at Gandhinagar sanctioned
\na power\t connection  for  his  factory.\t ‘l`’he\t complainant
\ndeposited the estimate of expenses under the
\n 9-L839 Sup. CI\/75
\n350<\/span>
\nterms of  the sanction. In spite of it, for a period of four
\nmonths, no  A steps  were taken\t by  the  employees  of\t the
\nUndertaking to\tinstal the poles and give the connection. S.
\nP. Gupta,  an Inspector\t of the\t Undertaking approached\t the
\ncomplainant  and   solicited  a\t  bribe\t of   Rs.  125\/-  in
\nconsideration of  giving the connection. lt was settled that
\nRs. 25\/-  would be paid on June 2(), 1968 and the balance of
\nRs. 100\/- after the electric connection. The complainant had
\nno intention to pay the bribe. Consequently, he contacted S.
\nK. Katoch,  Deputy  Superintendent  of\tthe  Anti-Corruption
\nPolice on  June 20,  1968 at  about 1  p.m. and apprised the
\nlatter about the demand of the bribe by Inspector Gupta. The
\nDeputy Superintendent  recorded the complainant’s statement,
\nEx. P.W.  l\/A. He  then co-opted  Daya Nand  Dua  (PW2)\t and
\nBharat Prakash Khurana (PW 3), two clerks from the office of
\nthe  Deputy   Commissioner,  and  formulated  a\t scheme\t for
\nentrapping Gupta.  ‘the Police\tparty reached the factory of
\nthe complainant\t at about  3.05 p.m. The complainant and the
\nPanch witnesses went inside while the Police officers waited
\noutside. The  complainant  received  a\tmessage\t from  Gupta
\nthrough a  Lineman that\t instead(l of  the 20th, he would be
\ncoming on the following, day, that the installation of poles
\nat the\tsite had  commenced and\t the  complainant  would  be
\nrequired to  pay more  amount. The complainant conveyed this
\ninformation to D.S.P. Katoch.\n<\/p>\n
     On June  21, 1968,\t at about  10.15 a.m., Gupta came to
\nthe factory,  along with  his gang  of labourers and started
\nthe installation  work. Gupta  informed the complainant that
\nhe would  return to  the factory  either personally  or send
\nsomebody else  to collect the amount of Rs. 100\/- at about 2
\np.m. The complainant passed on this information also, to the
\nD.S.P.\tThereafter  the\t D.S.P.\t along\twith  the  aforesaid
\nwitnesses and  others came to the complainant at about 11.30
\na.m. and  settled the  details of  the trap. The complainant
\nproduced one currency note of the denomination of Rs. 100\/-.
\nThe D.S.P.  noted its No. and.returned it to the complainant
\nwith the  direction that  he should  pay it  to Gupta. Gupta
\nhowever did  not turn up at 2 p.m. Instead, the appellant, a
\npermanent labourer  working under Gupta, came to the factory
\nand told  the complainant that he had been sent by Inspector
\nGupta and  that the  money be  given to him. The complainant
\nsaid that  the appellant  should send  Gupta to\t receive the
\nmoney. The  appellant reiterated that he had been deputed by
\nGupta to  collect the  money and  the same  be given to him.
\nThereupon the  complainant handed  over the currency Note of
\nRs. 100\/-  (Ex. P-l)  to  the  appellant  in  the  immediate
\npresence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. The appellant put the note in the
\npocket of  his pants.  On receiving  the agreed\t signal, the
\nD.S.P. and  his\t companions  rushed  in\t and  recovered\t the
\ncurrency note  (Ex. P-l)  from the  person of the appellant.
\nThe D.S.P.  then sent  a report to the Police Station on the
\nbasis of  which a  case was  registered. The  appellant\t was
\narrested.  Subsequently,   on  22-6-1968,   Gupta  was\talso
\narrested.  After   obtaining  the  necessary  sanction,\t the
\nappellant and  Gupta both  were sent up for trial before the
\nSpecial Judge,\tDelhi who  acquitted Gupta but convicted the
\nappellant  and\t sentenced  him\t  to  one   year’s  rigorous
\nimprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
     Examined under  s. 342,  Cr.P.C. the appellant admitted
\nthat at\t the material  time  he\t was  a\t permanent  labourer
\n(Mazdoor) of the D.E.S.U.\n<\/p>\n
351<\/span><\/p>\n
working in  Shahdara Zone.  He\tgave  this  account  of\t the
\ncircumstances in  which he  had received  the currency\tnote
\n(Ex. Pl) from the complainant:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “At about  12-30, I  had come\t down from the first
\n     floor of my office and was going to my house to take my
\n     meal in  the Hotel.  I was\t called\t by  Gupta.  He\t was
\n     standing near the boundary wall. He inquired from mc as
\n     to where  I was  going. l\ttold him that l was going to
\n     take my  food. He directed me that after taking my food
\n     I should  visit the  complainant s\t factory  where\t the
\n     labour was\t working and  told me to ask Jain to pay the
\n     money which  Guptaji had  demanded. I did not know what
\n     sort of  money it was and for what purpose it was to be
\n     paid by  S. K.  Jain and to be taken by Gupta. accused.
\n     One Mitter Sell was also present at that time when this
\n     talk  took\t place\tbetween\t me  and  Gupta\t accused.  I
\n     accordingly,  after   taking  my\tfood  went   to\t the
\n     complainant s  factory and\t checked  the  work  of\t the
\n     labour and\t then went  to the complainant and asked him
\n     to pay me the money which had been demanded by Guptaji.
\n     . Complainant  told me  to send  Guptaji but I told him
\n     that he  had asked\t me to bring the money. He therefore
\n     paid  me\ta,  currency   note  of\t Rs.  100\/-  without
\n     disclosing anything  that this  was bribe\tmoney to  be
\n     paid to Gupta co-accused.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     He further\t admitted that\tsoon after the collection of
\nthis amount from the complainant, the D.S.P. came there with
\nhis party  and recovered  the same  currency note  from\t his
\npossession. He added that he was only a labourer and was not
\nin  a\tposition  to  show  any\t favour,  whatever,  to\t the
\ncomplainant. He\t did not know that the note was bribe money.
\nHe claimed to be all innocent carrier.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t defence,   he\texamined   Mitter  Sen\t(DW  1)\t who
\ncorroborated the  appellant’s version  as to  how Gupta\t had
\ninstructed the appellant to collect and bring the money from
\nthe complainant.\n<\/p>\n
     Two charges, one under s. 5(1) (d) read with s. 5(2) of
\nthe Prevention of Corruption Act and the other under s. 161,
\nPenal Code  were framed\t against the  appellant. The charges
\nwere in\t the alternative  and it was stated therein that the
\nmoney was  obtained by him either for him self or for Gupta,
\nor for both.\n<\/p>\n
     The courts below have convicted the appellant mainly on
\nthe ground  that proof\tof receipt  of Rs.  100\/-  (currency
\nnote)  by  the\tappellant  from\t the  complainant  raises  a
\npresumption under  s. 4(1)  of the  Prevention of Corruption
\nAct against him and the appellant has not been able to rebut
\nthat presumption.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads:
\n     “Wherein any  trial  of  an  offence  punishable  under
\nsection 161  or section\t 165 of the Indian PenaI Code (or of
\nan offence  referred to\t in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-
\nsection (1) of section 5 of this Act punishable under sub-s.
\n(2) thereof,  it  is  proved  that  an\taccused\t person\t has
\naccepted or obtained, or
\n352<\/span>
\n     has agreed\t to accept or attempt to obtain, for himself
\n     or for  A any  other person,  any gratification  (other
\n     than legal\t remuneration or any valuable thing from any
\n     person, it\t shall be  presumed unless  the contrary  is
\n     proved that  he accepted  or  obtained,  or  agreed  to
\n     accept or\tattempted to  obtain, that  gratification or
\n     that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or
\n     reward such as is mentioned in the said section 161 or,
\n     as the  case may  be, without  consideration or  for  a
\n     consideration which he knows to be inadequate.”
\n     From a  reading of the above provision it is clear that
\nits operation,\tin terms,  is confined\tto any\ttrial of  an
\noffence punishable  under s.  161 or  s. 165,  Penal Code or
\nunder clause (a) or (b) of s. 5(1) read with sub-section (2)
\nof that\t section of  the  Act.\tIf  at\tsuch  a\t trial,\t the
\nprosecution proves that the accused has accepted or obtained
\ngratification other  than legal\t remuneration, the court has
\nto presume  the existence  of the further fact in support of
\nthe prosecution\t case,\tviz.,  that  the  gratification\t was
\naccepted or  obtained by  the accused  as a motive or reward
\nsuch as\t mentioned in  s. 161,\tPenal Code.  The presumption
\nhowever, is  not absolute. It is rebuttable. The accused can
\nprove the  contrary. The  quantum and  the nature  of  proof
\nrequired to  displace this presumption may vary according to
\nthe circumstances  of each  case. Such proof may partake the
\nshape of  defence evidence  led by  the accused,  or it\t may
\nconsist\t of   circumstances  appearing\tin  the\t prosecution
\nevidence  itself,   as\ta  result  of  cross-examination  or
\notherwise. But the degree and the character of the burden of
\nproof which  s. 4(1) casts on an accused person to rebut the
\npresumption raised  thereunder, cannot\tbe equated  with the
\ndegree and  character of  proof which under s. 101, Evidence
\nAct rests  on the  prosecution.. While the mere plausibility
\nof an  explanation given  by the  accused in his examination
\nunder s.  342, Cr.P.C.\tmay not be enough, the burden on him
\nto negate  the presumption  may\t stand\tdischarged,  if\t the
\neffect of  the\tmaterial  brought  on  the  record,  in\t its
\ntotality,  renders  the\t existence  of\tthe  fact  presumed,
\nimprobable. In\tother  words,  the  accused  may  rebut\t the
\npresumption by\tshowing a  mere preponderence of probability
\nin his\tfavour; it is not necessary for him lo establish his
\ncase beyond  a reasonable  doubt-see Mahesh  Prasad Gupta v.
\nState of Rajasthan<\/a>(1).\n<\/p>\n
     Another aspect  of the  matter which has to be borne in
\nmind is\t that the  sole purpose\t of the presumption under s.
\n4(1) is\t to relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving
\na fact\twhich is  an essential\tingredient of  the  offences
\nunder s.  S (1)\t (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
\ns. 161, Penal Code. The presumption therefore can be used in
\nfurtherance of the prosecution case and not in derogation of
\nit. If\tthe story  set\tup  by\tthe  prosecution  inherently
\nmilitates against or is inconsistent with the fact presumed,
\nthe presumption\t will be  rendered  sterile  from  its\tvery
\ninception, if out of judicial courtesy it cannot be rejected
\nout of hand as still born.\n<\/p>\n
     Let us  now consider  the facts  of the present case in
\nthe light  of the principles enunciated above. The testimony
\nof its star witness, S. K.\n<\/p>\n
     (1) A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 773.\n<\/p>\n
353<\/span><\/p>\n
Jain (P.W.  1) is  that\t it  was  Inspector  Gupta  who\t had
\ndemanded that  – money\tas a motive or reward tor expediting
\nthe installation  of the power connection and that the money
\nwas handed  over to  the appellant  only for transmission to
\nGupta in pursuance of the latter’s instructions given to the
\ncomplainant earlier  in the  morning. It  is not the case of
\nthe complainant\t that the  appellant had  ever demanded\t any
\nbribe from  the\t complainant,  or  that\t the  appellant\t was
\npresent on  any occasion  on which  Gupta had  demanded\t the
\nbribe. Nor  has it  been shown\tby the\tprosecution that the
\nappellant was  in any  way  officially\tconcerned  with\t the
\ninstallation of\t the poles  or the  giving of  the  electric
\nconnection. At\tthe material time according to the appellant
\nhe was\tworking as  a mere  labourer or Mazdoor in the first
\nfloor of  the D.E.S.U.\tOffice at Shahdara. This fact is not
\ncontroverted  by  the  prosecution.  Of\t course,  it  is  in
\nevidence that on coming to the factory of the complainant at
\nabout 2\t P.M., the  appellant first  went to  see the labour
\nworking at  the installation  site  and\t then  went  to\t the
\ncomplainant to\treceive the  money saving  that he  has been
\nsent by Gupta to fetch it.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Gobind\t Das, the  learned  Counsel  for  the  State
\ncontends that  this conduct of the appellant in checking the
\nlabour, showed\tthat he\t was not  an innocent carrier of the
\nmoney for  Gupta but  knew that\t it was\t being obtained as a
\nbribe in  connection with  the\tinstallation  of  the  power
\nconnection. In any case, maintains the Counsel the appellant
\nwas guilty  of abetment\t of an\toffence under sec, 161 Penal
\nCode and s. 5 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  unable to\taccede to  this contention.  In\t our
\nopinion,  this\t Act  of   the\tappellant   was\t a   neutral
\ncircumstance. It  was not  indicative of  a guilty mind. The
\nappellant explained  that he  had checked the labour working
\nat site\t because he  had been  asked to\t do so\tby Inspector
\nGupta. This  conduct of\t the appellant,\t therefore,  was  no
\nground to  hold that  he had  received the  G.C. Note of Rs.
\n100\/- with  the requisite  mens rea. Evidently in collecting
\nthis currency  note from  the complainant he was Acting only
\nas an  innocent tool  of Gupta. He was a mere labourer. Even
\nin that\t humble position,  he was  not a  member of the gang
\nworking at  the installation  site in  the  factory  of\t the
\ncomplainant. He\t was not concerned ill his official capacity
\nwith  the   installation  work\t or  the   giving  of  power
\nconnection. Being an unconcerned menial, he was incapable of
\nshowing\t any   favour  or   rendering  any  service  to\t the
\ncomplainant in\tconnection with\t his official duties. One of
\nthe essential  ingredients of  the  offence  under  s.\t161,
\nI.P.C. with  which the appellant stands charged is, that the
\ngratification must  have been  received by the accused as “a
\nmotive or  reward” for\tcommitting an  act  or\tomission  in
\nconnection with\t his official  functions. lt  must be  shown
\nthat there  was an understanding that the bribe was given in
\nconsideration to  some official\t act or\t conduct. It is true
\nthat in law the incapacity of the government servant to show
\nany favour  or render  any service  in connection  with\t his
\nofficial duties\t does not  necessarily take  the case out of
\nthe mischief  of these penal provisions. Nevertheless, it is
\nan important  factor bearing  on the  question as to whether
\nthe accused  had received  the gratification  as a motive or
\nreward for  doing or  for hearing  to do any official act or
\nfor showing  any favour\t or disfavour in the exercise of his
\nofficial  functions.   This  question\tas  to\twhether\t the
\ngovernment servant receiving the money
\n354<\/span>
\nhad the requisite incriminatory motive is one of fact. Could
\nit be  reasonably said\tin the\tcircumstances of the instant
\ncase that  the money  was handed  over to  the appellant  or
\nreceived by  him as  a motive or reward such as mentioned in
\ns. 161,\t Penal\tCode  ?\t It  is\t nobody’s  case\t that  while
\ncollecting the\tsum of\tRs, 100\/-,  the appellant  made\t any
\nrepresentation, claim  or promise,  whatever, that  he would
\neither himself or through Gupta get an official act done for
\nthe complainant.  Indeed, a  prudent businessman  like\tJain
\nwould never  pay such  a substantial  amount as a bribe to a
\nmere Class  IV servant\tin consideration  of any  promise of
\nfavour or  service held out by the latter. Such a tall claim
\nor promise  to do  favour or  service by  a menial  would be
\nmanifestly quixotic.  It would\tnot pass  muster. Indeed the
\ncomplainant did\t not hand  over\t the  money  till  he  after
\nrepeated enquiry,  was\tconvinced  that\t the  appellant\t was
\nasking for  money not for himself but for Gupta and had been
\nsent by\t the latter  to\t collect  an(l\tfetch  it  from\t the
\ncomplainant.  The  conduct  attributed\tby  P.W.  1  to\t the
\nappellant was  not incompatible with the role of an innocent
\ncarrier. Thus,\tparadoxical as\tit may\tseem, the very story
\npropounded  by\t the  complainant   (P.W.  1)\tnegates\t the
\npresumption, nipping it-as it were-in the bud.\n<\/p>\n
     Be that  as it  may this  statutory  presumption  being
\nantithetical to\t the prosecution story, could not be availed
\nof  by\t the  prosecution.  This  being\t the  position,\t the
\nappellant could\t not be\t held guilty  of the charge with the
\naid of s. 4(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Nor can  the appellant  be held  guilty of abetting the
\nalleged\t attempt   made\t by  Gupta  to\tobtain\tthe  illegal
\ngratification. Intention to aid The commission of the crime,
\nis the\tgist  of  the  offence\tof  abetment  by  aid.\tSuch
\nintention, on  the part of the appellant was lacking in this
\ncase. Moreover, Gupta, the principal, has been acquitted and
\nexonerated of  committing the  offending act, the commission
\nof which is alleged to have been aided by the small fry, the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The charge under s. S (1) (d) of the Act also cannot be
\nsustained for  the reason that in the peculiar circumstances
\nor the\tcase, it  could not  be\t reasonably  said  that\t the
\nappellant had  obtained\t the  currency-note  by\t using\tsome
\ncorrupt or  illegal means  or otherwise abusing his official
\nposition as  a public  servant. This  point was canvassed on
\nbehalf of  the appellant  before  the  High  Court  but\t was
\nnegatived by it in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In  this   case  the\t  appellant  had   told\t the
\n     complainant that  he had  been sent  by Inspector Gupta
\n     and that  he should  pay the money. It has been held by
\n     the Special Judge while acquitting Inspector Gupta that
\n     he was  not the  person who  had sent  the appellant to
\n     collect  any   money  from\t  the  complainant.   Before
\n     contacting the  complainant the  appellant had  checked
\n     the  labour  which\t was  working  in  the\tfactory\t for
\n     installation of  the lines\t for electricity.  All\tthis
\n     showed that  he represented  himself to the complainant
\n     as a person connected with the Department concerned. He
\n     also used\tcorrupt means  to ask the money on behalf of
\n     Inspector\tGupta\tand   thus   this   ingredient\t was
\n     satisfied.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We find  ourselves unable to agree with this reasoning.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We have\t already noticed above that this was not the case of
\nthe prosecution? as
\n355<\/span>
\nput in\tevidence, that\tthe appellant had demanded the money
\non his\town account by any express or implied representation
\nto get\tany favour  or\tservice\t done  to  the\tcomplainant.
\nRather, the  positive case  set up  by\tthe  prosecution  in
\nevidence was  that the\tmoney was  demanded by Gupta and was
\nreceived by  the appellant  on his  behalf pursuant  to\t the
\ninstructions of\t Gupta given  to  the  complainant  earlier.
\nTherefore, if  the prosecution\thas failed to prove that the
\nmoney had  not been  paid to  the appellant  pursuant to any
\ndemand of  bribe made  by Gupta, the court cannot make out a
\nnew case  for the  prosecution to  hold that  the amount had
\nbeen received by the appellant on his own or for some person
\nother. than  Gupta. We\thave already held that the appellant
\nwas  a\t mere  labourer\t who  was  not\tconcerned  with\t the
\ninstallation work  at the  site or  with the  giving of\t the
\npower  connection   to\tthe  complainant.  In  view  of\t the
\ncategorical position  taken by\tthe prosecution in evidence,
\nit does not now lie in their month to may that the appellant
\nmust have  received the\t money for himself or for some other
\nperson; much  less can\tit be  said that  the appellant\t has
\nabused his  official position  or has used any illegal means
\nin acting  as an  innocent  carrier  for  Gupta.  Thus,\t the
\nessential ingredient  of the  offence under  s. 5(1) (d) was
\nlacking in this case.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  therefore of  the opinion\tthat on the facts of
\nthis case,  the prosecution  had failed\t to bring  home\t the
\ncharges\t to   the  appellant   beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.
\nAccordingly we\tallow this  appeal, set aside the conviction
\nof the\tappellant and  acquit him  of the  charges  levelled
\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n356<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 666, 1976 SCR (1) 348 Author: R S Sarkaria Bench: Sarkaria, Ranjit Singh PETITIONER: TRILOK CHAND JAIN Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF DELHI DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/08\/1975 BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BHAGWATI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nTrilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-05T06:43:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-05T06:43:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975\"},\"wordCount\":3337,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975\",\"name\":\"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-05T06:43:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-05T06:43:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975","datePublished":"1975-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-05T06:43:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975"},"wordCount":3337,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975","name":"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-05T06:43:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/trilok-chand-jain-vs-state-of-delhi-on-19-august-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223783\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}