Skip to content


Vijay Nath Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 200 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC1625; (1981)2SCC23; 1981(13)LC54(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 136; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5(2); Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 161
AppellantVijay Nath Awasthi
RespondentState of U.P.
Excerpt:
criminal - conviction - article 136 of constitution of india, section 5 (2) of prevention of corruption act, 1947 and section 161 of indian penal code, 1860 - appeal challenging conviction of appellant for offence punishable under sections 161 and 5 (2) - appellant demanded bribe and fact that money paid to him is beyond doubt - appellant does not deny it - no reason factual or legal to exercise jurisdiction of this court under article 136 - appeal dismissed. - indian evidence act, 1872 sections 113-a & 113-b ;[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] presumption as to abetment of suicide and dowry death held, section 113-b which is relatable to dowry death places heavier onus on accused than onus placed under section 113-a. .....additional district magistrate and information was passed on the police who organised a trap. the fact that money was paid to the appellant is beyond doubt and, in fact, the appellant does not deny it. his stand was tha money was surreptitiously put into is pocket and that as soon as he was accused of taking it by wasy of a bribe, he throw it away. 3. mr. gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, brought to our notice certain discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, but after having gone through the same, we are unable to interfere with its appraisal by the two courts below. there is no reason, factual or leal, such as may persuade us to exercise the special jurisdiction of this court under article 136 of the constitution.4. we therefore find no merit in this appeal which is.....
Judgment:

Fazal Ali, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also the sentence of two years awarded on each count to run concurrently.

2. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court & have been taken through the evidence. According to the prosecution case, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- from Ram kumar (PW 1 who paid it to the former after a complaint was made to additional District Magistrate and information was passed on the police who organised a trap. The fact that money was paid to the appellant is beyond doubt and, in fact, the appellant does not deny it. His stand was tha money was surreptitiously put into is pocket and that as soon as he was accused of taking it by wasy of a bribe, he throw it away.

3. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, brought to our notice certain discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, but after having gone through the same, we are unable to interfere with its appraisal by the two courts below. There is no reason, factual or leal, such as may persuade us to exercise the special jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the constitution.

4. We therefore find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //