The Hindu : National : Scapegoat plea will not hold in bribe case: Supreme Court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Aug 30, 2007
ePaper

National

National

Scapegoat plea will not hold in bribe case: Supreme Court

Special Correspondent

Woman pursues appeal against deceased husband
Argument of sympathy does not impress us: judges

NEW DELHI: A person accepting a bribe cannot escape criminal liability on specious ground that he was made a “scapegoat”, or was merely an “innocent carrier” on behalf of “someone else,” the Supreme Court has held.

It was of no consequence whether the accused had accepted the amount for and on behalf of another person, said a Bench consisting of Justices C.K. Thakker and Tarun Chatterjee.

Girija Prasad, a lower division clerk in the Madhya Pradesh government, was charged with accepting a bribe of Rs. 200 in September 1983.

The sessions court in Jabalpur acquitted him. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded him a four-month imprisonment under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (public servant taking gratification) and imposed a fine of Rs. 200.

The present appeal was directed against this judgment.

Though Prasad died while the case was still pending, his wife Munni Devi pursued the appeal. She pleaded that if the conviction was set aside, the family members would get retirement benefits.

Appeal dismissed

Dismissing her plea, the Bench said that the High Court was wholly justified in setting aside Prasad’s acquittal once the finding was recorded by the trial court that the accused had accepted the amount, it was wholly immaterial whether the money was for him or for someone else.

“Even if an accused accepts the amount for “someone else,” he commits an offence. Once we are satisfied that the acquittal recorded by the trial court was not in consonance with law and the High Court was right in setting it aside and in convicting the accused, it is a mere consequence which cannot be helped.

The argument of sympathy, therefore, does not impress us and cannot carry the case of the appellant-applicant herein further,” the Bench said.

“We appreciate the anxiety of counsel for the appellant that if the conviction of the deceased is upheld by this court, the deceased may not be held entitled to pensionary and other benefits. We are, however, helpless,” the Bench said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National