TMI Blog1960 (2) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 1,000, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. 3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant attempted to bribe Mr. Kaliyappan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, by offering him a sum of money contained in an envelope at his bungalow in the morning of June 14, 1954. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the bribe was offered, reference to certain events which led to the incident on June 14 at the bungalow of the Deputy Superintendent of Police becomes necessary. In village Irwadi there are two factions one headed by the appellant and his brother and the other headed by the village munsif. On June 3, 1954, two complaints reached the Keelakarai Police Station, one by the appellant against the village munsif and the other by the village munsif against the appellant. According to the appellant on June 3, 1954 after prayers in the mosque the village munsif had abused him and had attempted to murder him with a knife. Some persons intervened but he managed to escape but was chased by the village munsif to his house. The version of the village munsif was that he was busy that day preparing the receipt for the release of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see him. The appellant accordingly entered his office room when he again complained to the Deputy Superintendent of Police against the village munsif. At the same time he presented to this Police Officer a closed envelope. Mr. Kaliyappan thought that the envelope contained a petition but on opening it he found that it contained currency notes. He was annoyed at the conduct of the appellant. He threw the envelope at the appellant's face, but the envelope fell down on the floor and the appellant picked it up. The Deputy Superintendent of Police called his office orderly but as there was no response he went out of the office room and told his milk-maid to get the camp clerk. By that time the orderly turned up. The appellant had in the meantime remained in the office room and on the appearance of the orderly Mr. Kaliyappan asked the appellant to produce the envelope which he had thrown down and which the appellant had picked up. The appellant after taking out of his pocket some currency notes placed them on the table without the envelope. Subsequently, during the police investigation, torn bits of paper were collected from near the office window and it is alleged that those torn bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and that he should remove it. The orderly accordingly removed the money from the appellant's pocket and gave it to Mr. Kaliyappan. The money in his pocket was ₹ 500. Mr. Kaliyappan then directed his orderly to put his seal on the notes. 6. The Special Judge gave various reasons for not accepting the uncorroborated testimony of Mr. Kaliyappan and held that the presumption of the innocence of the accused had not been displaced by his solitary testimony. The High Court did not consider the grounds given by the Special Judge for discarding the testimony of Mr. Kaliyappan as at all justified and was of the opinion that the Special Judge had taken a perverse view of his evidence and of the other evidence in the case. 7. In the main three points were urged in support of the plea that the conviction of the appellant should be set aside. The first point urged was that the provisions of s. 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with. Accordingly the High Court judgment setting aside the acquittal of the appellant was vitiated. The second point urged was that there had been violation of the provisions of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution which vitiated the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s placed on certain decisions of this Court and some of the High Courts in support of the argument that the provisions of s. 422 of the Code were mandatory and non-compliance thereof vitiated the judgment of the High Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1952, Hanumat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (unreported) decided on the 13th of November, 1952, this Court set aside the order of the High Court converting the acquittal of the accused into one of conviction without serving a notice on him as provided by s. 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court held that although a notice had been issued it was not served on the accused. The accused must be accorded an opportunity to contest an appeal preferred by the State Government in the High Court. The procedure adopted in the High Court was bad. The case was accordingly remanded to the High Court for rehearing of the appeal in accordance with law. This decision is of little assistance because the accused had not been given in that case any opportunity to contest the appeal filed by the State Government in the High Court. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Dwarka Prasad v. The State (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red on behalf of the appellant and two advocates of the High Court were representing him, one of them an eminent advocate of the Court. Indeed, the High Court was requested not to issue any summons to the appellant because appearance had already been entered on his behalf. In spite of that the High Court issued notice under s. 422 to Mr. Ethiraj and Mr. Cassim. Even thereafter, the High Court took the precaution to intimate the Special Judge of Tiruchirappalli to inform the accused about the appeal filed against him. In these circumstances it can hardly be said that notice of the appeal had not been given to the appellant. Section 422 does not speak of the notice being served on the appellant. It states that notice is to be given to the accused. If, as in the circumstances of the present case, the High Court is intimated that the accused has entered appearance and has notice of the appeal filed against him and the Court is requested not to issue any summons to him, it can hardly be said that notice of the appeal had not been given to the accused. The High Court found on the facts that the appellant was fully apprised of the time and place at which the appeal would be heard. It was, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... videntiary acts of the person, as opposed to the negative attitude of silence or submission on his part. Nor is there any reason to think that the protection in respect of the evidence so procured is confined to what transpires at the trial in the court-room. The phrase used in Art. 20(3) is to be a witness and not to appear as a witness . It follows that the protection afforded to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase to be a witness is not merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal course may result in prosecution. Whether it is available to other persons in other situations does not call for decision in this case. Considered in this light, the guarantee under Art. 20(3) would be available in the present cases these petitioners against whom a First Information Report has been recorded as accused therein. It would extend to any compulsory process for production of evidentiary documents which are reasonably likely to suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so. He could have quite easily told the appellant to leave his bungalow without concocting a false case against him. If he was siding with the village munsif he could have as easily got his subordinate Police Officers to report that the village munsif's story was true and that the appellant should be prosecuted. There seems to be no occasion for him to have made an elaborate story of an attempt on the part of the appellant to bribe him when, in fact, the appellant had done nothing of the kind. A great deal of emphasis was laid on the fact that in the information which Mr. Kaliyappan sent to the Magistrate he had made no mention of money being offered to him in an envelope and that the torn bits of paper found outside the window of Mr. Kaliyappan's office were not proved to be part of the envelope in which the bribe had been offered and that it was also not at all clear that the ₹ 500 found on the person of the appellant were actually the currency notes offered to Mr. Kaliyappan as bribe. It seems to us, however, that too much emphasis has been laid on all this. Mr. Kaliyappan had certainly alleged in his information to the Magistrate that the appellant had offered hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
