minal Appeal No 168 of 1959
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 10 1958 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No 580 of 1953
B B Tawakley and R C Prasad for the appellant
A K Dutt and section P Varma for the respondent
April 18
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAGHUBAR DAYAL J
This appeal by special leave is against the order of the Patna High Court dismissing the appellant s appeal against his conviction for offences under section 161 Indian Penal Code and a 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 Act 11 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act
The appellant was the Construction Engineer at Sindhri
R B Basu was a contractor living in Calcutta and carrying on the business of the company named and styled the Hindustan Engineering and Construction Company
The prosecution alleged and the Courts below have found that the appellant accepted the sum of Rs 10000 as illegal gratification from Basu at the Kelner s Restaurant at Dhanbad Railway Station on July 18 1951
The Courts disbelieved the appellant s defence that he had taken the envelope containing this amount not knowing that it contained this amount but knowing that it contained papers relating to Basu s con
tracts
The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are ithat the provisions regarding the presumption contained in section 4 of the Act are unconstitutional ii that the case was tried by the Special Judge who had no jurisdiction to try it iii that there had been no proper corroboration of the statement of Basu about the accused demanding the bribe and accepting the amount as illegal gratification
The Constitutionality of section 4 of the Act was sought to be questioned on the ground that it went against 52 the provisions of article 21 of the
Constitution which reads No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty exceptaccording to procedure established by law
 We do not consider this question to be a substantial question of law for the purpose of article 1453 which lays down that the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution shall be five in view of it being held that the word law  in article 21 refers to law made by the State  and not to positive law
It has been held in A K Gopalan vs The State of Madras 1 that in article 21 the word law  has been used in the sense of State made law and not as an equivalent of law in the abstract or general sense embodying the principles of natural justice and procedure established by law  means procedure established by law made by the State that is to say by the Union Parliament or the Legislatures of the States Section 4 has been enacted by Parliament and therefore it must be held that what it lays down is a procedure established by law
The appellant was tried by the Special Judge of Patna
The offence was committed at Dhanbad in Manbhum District
The case was chalanned to the Magistrate at Dhanbad
On an application by the accused the High Court transferred it to the Court of the Munsif Magistrate at Patna
Subsequent to this order of transfer the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952 Act XLVI of 1952 came into force on July 28 1952
The case thereafter was forwarded to the Special Judge at Patna in view of section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act
The contention for the appellant is that there was the Special Judge at Manbhum and flat he alone could have tried this case
Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act reads 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or in any other law the offences specified in subjection 1 of section 6 shall be triable by special Judges only
1  53 2 Every offence specified in sub section 1 of section 6 shall be tried by the special Judge for the area within which it was committed or where there are more special Judges than one for such area by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government
3When trying any case a special Judge may also try any offence other than an offence specified in section 6 with which the accused may under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be charged at the same trial Sub section 1 makes the offences under section 161 Indian Penal Code and section 52 of the Act triable by a special Judge only
The appellant has been tried by a special Judge appointed under the Act
His grievance is not with respect to the competency of the Court which tried him but is with respect to the trial Court having no territorial jurisdiction to try him as sub section
2 of section 7 provides that such offences would be tried by the special Judge for the area in which the were committed
The offences were committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the special Judge at Manbhum and therefore could have been tried by him alone
It would therefore appear that the special Judge at Patna had no jurisdiction to try this case
Sub section 3 of section 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act reads Save as provided in sub section 1 or sub section 2 the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 shall so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act apply to the proceedings before a special Judge and for the purposes of the said provisions the Court of the special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session trying cases without a jury or without the aid of assessors and the person conducting a prosecution before a special Judge shall be deemed to be a public prosecutor
 It follows that the provisions of section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the High Court to transfer any case from a criminal Court subordinate to it 1  54 to any other Court competent to try it apply to the case before any special Judge
If this case had been transferred to the Court of the Special Judge Manbhum on the coming into force of the Criminal Law Amendment Act it would have been open to the High Court to transfer the case from that Court to the Court of the Special Judge Patna
The case had been transferred from Dhanbad to Patna at the request of the appellant
The trial at Patna cannot be said to have prejudiced the appellant in any way
The mere omission of a formal forwarding of this case to the Special Judge at Manbhum and of a formal order of the High Court to transfer it to the Court of the Special Judge at Patna have not in our opinion prejudiced the appellant in any way
When the case was taken up by the Special Judge Patna on October 23 1952 the accused as well as the Public Prosecutor desired de novo trial
No objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case was taken at that time
Such an objection appears to have been taken at the time of the arguments before the Special Judge and was repelled by him
Such an objection was not raised before the High Court when the appellant s appeal was first heard in 1955 or in this Court when the State of Bihar appealed against the order of the High Court
All this indicates that the appellant did not feel prejudiced by the trial at Patna
In view of section 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the order of the Special Judge Patna is not to be set aside on the ground of his having no territorial jurisdiction to try this case when no failure
of justice has actually taken place
It is contended for the appellant that section 531 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable to this case in view of sub section
1 of section 7 and section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act
We do not agree
The former provision simply lays down that such offences shall be triable by special Judges and this provision has not been offended against
Section 10 simply provides that the cases triable by a special Judge under section 7 and pending before a Magistrate immediately before the commencement of the Act shall be forwarded for trial to the 55 special Judge having jurisdiction over such cases
There is nothing in this section which leads to the non application of section 531 of the Criminal Procedure Code
We are therefore of opinion that the order of the special Judge convicting the appellant cannot be quashed merely on the ground that he had no territorial jurisdiction to try this case
The last contention for consideration is whether there had been proper corroboration of the statement of Basu about the accused demanding the bribe of Rs 10000 and accepting it on July 18 1951 at the Kelner Refreshment Room Dhanbad Railway Station
We may briefly indicate the salient facts deposed to by Basu in this connection
The appellant is said to have visited Calcutta in December 1950 to have gone to Basu s house and to have asked him to pay a bribe of Rs 10000
There is no direct corroboration of this statement by the testimony of any other witness
Kanjilal an employee of Basu under in
structions of his master met the appellant in May 1951 enquired of him whether he would accept the amount he had demanded in December and had not been so far paid and got the reply that the amount would be acceptable
He conveyed this information to Basu
Nothing was done till over a month and then too not to make the payment but to inform the authorities
In June 1951 Basu informed Mr K N Mookerjee P W 3 the then Superintendent of Police Special Police Establishment about the accused s demanding bribe and at his request delivered the letter Exhibit 111 dated June 18 to him
He made mention in this letter about the demand made in December 1950 but made no reference to the appellant s expression of readiness to accept the amount in the month of May Mr Mookerjee took steps for laying the trap and deputed Mr section P Mookerjee PW 1
Kanjilal met the appellant on July 14 and arranged with him that he would go to Dhanbad railway station when Basu would also be reaching there and that the money would be paid there and that the date of that meeting would be communicated later
Basu was told of this arrangement at Calcutta
He in his turn informed the authorities
July 18 was fixed for the purpose
Kanjilal informed the appellant by telephone on July 16 that the meeting would be on the 18th and that Basu would be reaching Dhanbad by the Toofan Express at about 5 pm
The trap arrangements were completed and the trap party reached Dhanbad by the Toofan Express on July 18
Kanjilal himself went to Sindhri on the morning of July 18 and confirmed the arrangement to the appellant
The appellant also reached Dhanbad railway station at about 5pm
The members of the trap party took their seats at different tables in the corners of the Refreshment Room of Kellner s Restaurant
Basu with the appellant reached there and occupied another table
Refreshments were taken
Thereafter Basu talked over matters about the contract with the appellant moved near him took out the file from his satchel and then after some conversation took out the envelope containing the currency notes of the value of Rs 10000 and having its one long edge slit
This envelope was passed on to the appellant
Basu states that he made a statement at the time that there were Rs 10000 which he could not pay to the appellant so far
The appellant took the envelope and put it in his trouser pocket
The trap party after getting the signal that the bribe money had been paid surrounded the appellant and got the envelope from him
 It was found to contain the very currency notes whose numbers had previously been noted by the Magistrate Mr Mahadevan
There is no verbal corroboration of Kanjilal s statement about the message he conveyed to the appellant either in May or on the telephone or on the morning of the 18th of July
The Courts below have found corroboration of the statements of Basu from the circumstances that the demand of money in December 1950 was mentioned in June 1951 to Mr K N Mookerjee that the trap must have been laid when Basu must have been 67 certain that the appellant would turn up at Dhanbad at the appointed time and that the appellant s presence at Dhanbad railway station could not have been accidental but must have been the result of previous arrangement
No infirmity can be found in this reasoning
The appellant gave an explanation for his presence at the railway station that day
It has not been accepted by the Courts below
In fact the learned counsel for the appellant did not press it for consideration at the second hearing of the appeal on remand by this Court
No doubt the trap arrangements must have been made when there was a practical certainty that the appellant would turn up at Dhanbad railway station
Basu is not expected to mention falsely in the month of June that the appellant made a demand of Rs 10000 in December 1950
Ordinarily one is not expected to make a complaint of such a demand after such a long period of time
The interval of time seems to have been due possibly to a hope that matters may straighten out or that a lower sum might be acceptable as bribe to pass the pending bills of Basu
The omission of the trap witnesses to corroborate Basu s statement at the time of the passing on of the envelope to the appellant in forming the appellant of the envelope containing Rs 10000 is really surprising when the party consisted of four persons who had gone there for the purpose of being witnesses of the appellant s accepting the bribe and who could therefore be expected to be alert to hear what passed on between the appellant and Basu
The question here is what did the appellant expect the envelope to contain It was no occasion for Basu to personally deliver any bills or papers concerning the contract business
Such papers could have been sent in the regular course of business to the appellant s office
The appellant does not appear to have questioned Basu as to what the envelope contained as he would have done if he did not know for certain what it contained
The appellant s statement that he understood the envelope to contain bills etc is not consistent with his putting the envelope in his 8 58 pocket
The envolope is expected to be a fat one as it contained one hundred Rs 100 currency notes
An envelope containing business papers is not expected to be put in the trouser pocket
One usually carries it in hand or in one of the pockets of the coat or bush shirt one may be putting on
When it is held that the appellant must have gone to Dhanbad railway station by arrangement it becomes a moot point what the purpose of the arrangement was
Surely it could not have been a mere delivering of certain bills and papers
As already mentioned it could have been sent to Sindhri by post or through Kanjilal or any other messenger
The purpose of the meeting at Dhanbad railway station must have been different
The appellant has failed to mention any purpose which could be accepted as correct
It is true that the appellant was not specifically questioned when examined under section 342 Criminal Procedure Code with respect to his demanding Rs 10000 at Calcutta Kanjilal s visit to him in May and July and his telephonic call and the arrangement and about Basu s statement at the time the envelope was passed on to him
But we are of opinion that this omission has not occasioned any failure of justice
The appellant fully knew what had been deposed to by witnesses and what had been the case against him
He denied the correctness of the main allegation that he received Rs 10 000 as bribe
We are therefore of opinion that the appellant knew when he took the envelope from Basu that he was getting Rs 10000 as bribe which amount he had demanded and that therefore the conviction of the appellant is correct
The appeal is therefore dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant accepted a sum of Rs 10000 from a con tractor
He was chalanned before a Magistrate at Dhanbad but on an application by the appellant the High Court trans ferred the case to the Munsif Magistrate Patna
Subsequently the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1952 came into force which made every offence under section 161 Indian Penal Code and section 52 Prevention of Corruption Act triable only by a Special judge for the area within which it was committed
The case of the appellant was forwarded to the Special judge at Patna who convicted him both under section 161 and section 52
The appellant contended 1 that the Special judge at Patna had no jurisdiction to try the appellant as the offence was committed within the area of the Special judge at Dhanbad and 2 that the provisions regarding the presumption contained in section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 offended article 21 of the Constitution
Held that the order of conviction could not be quashed on the ground that the Special judge at Patna had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case as no failure of justice had been occasioned
Section 531 Code of Criminal Procedure was applicable to trials by Special judges
The High Court had also the power under section 526 of the Code to transfer a case from one Special judge to another and the omission of a formal order transferring the case to the Special Judge at Patna had not prejudiced the appellant
Held further that the procedure laid down by section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which was enacted by Parlia ment laid down a procedure established by law
The question that section 4 offended article 21 of the Constitution was not a substantial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution within the meaning of article 1453 and it was not necessary to refer it to a Bench of five judges
A K Gopalan vs The State of Madras   followed