Case: Ramanlal Mohanlal Pandya Vs. State of Bombay

is provided by somebody other than the bribe-giver, it makes a distinction in principle........." *It was also stated in that case that in judging the testimony of a witness many considerations arise and the decision of every case must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Again the learned Judge observed that the correct rule was :"If any of the witnesses are accomplices who are particeps criminals in respect of the actual crime charged, their evidence must be treated as the evidence of accomplices is treated; if they are not accomplices but are partisan or interested witnesses, who are concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as other interested evidence is tested by the application of diverse considerations which must vary from case to case, and in a proper case, the Court may even look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person." *It does not seem to be the law that if the money given as bribe is provided by a particular officer of the police then the evidence of all the witnesses becomes evidence of accomplices and must be looked at with suspicion. In the present case no. doubt Rs. 250 came from the police officer Dy. S. P. Pandya and this money was given to the complainant to be passed on to the appellant purporting to be a bribe but even in such a circumstance the testimony of the witnesses has to be judged like the testimony of any other witness and all diverse factors which arise for consideration and their relative importance must depend upon the facts of that particular case. In the case before us the money was given to the appellant in the presence of one of the search witnesses Mohanbhai Shankarbhai and when it was thrown on the ground by the appellant it was picked up by that witness at the instance of the Dy. S. P. Pandya. It cannot be said that these two witnesses were not independent witnesses even though they consented to become Search or Panch witnesses. Mohanbhai Shankarbhai has been characterised by the trial Court as a respectable man who has worked as a teacher, was then in business and was at the time of the occurrence serving in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. He had no. connection whatever with the complainant and he had no. connection with the appellant either. The other witness Rambhai Dahyabhai is described as B. Ag. (Honours) and he was in service as Assistant Dairy Superintendent in Kaira District Co-operative Milk Union Ltd. He also had no. connection with the complainant or with any other person with regard to whom it could be stated that he was inimical towards the appellant. In regard to these persons the trial Court said :"It appears to be highly improbable that such persons would be willing tools in the hands of Shri Tribhowandas and Bhailalbhai in fabricating false evidence against an innocent man."Their evidence was accepted by the High Court also. This is not a case where the police or anybody else has done any act in order to oblige any particular person but it is one of those cases where a complaint was made to the police that the appellant was demanding a bribe from the complainant. The police no. doubt provided the money and are witnesses to the passing of the money but it is not a case where the police had instigated any one to offer a bribe to the appellant.6. Even if it was a case where it was necessary to have corroborative evidence, that is supplied by the testimony of Mohanbhai Shankarbhai and Rambhai Dahyabhai and as was pointed out by this Court in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, 1952 SCR 377 : 1952 AIR(SC) 54), that it is not necessary that there should be independent corroboration of every material circumstances. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplices or the complainant is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it and the corroboration need not be direct evidence. It is sufficient if it is merely circumstantial evidence of the connection of the accused with the crime. In Rameshwars case 1952 SCR 377 : 1952 AIR(SC) 54) (supra), the previous statement of the complainant was held to be evidence of conduct and also as corroborative evidence within the limits of S. 157 of the Evidence Act.7. In Basawan Singhs case, 1958 AIR(SC) 500 (supra), at p. 507 it was observed :"that corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime; it is sufficient even though it is merely circumstantial evidence of his connection with the crime."8. In our opinion in this case the Courts below have not proceeded on any wrong principle and the Courts below having accepted all the essential facts which constitute an offence the conviction must be held to be proper and correct. It was submitted that the offence was committed as far back as June 1954 and the appellant has already undergone about three months sentence and it would be very hard to sent him back to jail. The appellant first took an appeal to he High Court which was decided on September 10, 1955 when his appeal was dismissed and the sentence passed by the trial Court was upheld. The appellant then obtained special leave in this Court on November 21, 1955 and was released on bail. No. doubt since then it has taken some time for the appeal to be heard but in the circumstances sentence passed by the trial Court cannot be called excessive and this Court would ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment given by the Courts below particularly in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 136. For a public servant to be guilty of corruption is a very serious matter and the Courts would not look upon it with under leniency.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. In our opinion in this case the Courts below have not proceeded on any wrong principle and the Courts below having accepted all the essential facts which constitute an offence the conviction must be held to be proper and correct. It was submitted that the offence was committed as far back as June 1954 and the appellant has already undergone about three months sentence and it would be very hard to sent him back to jail. The appellant first took an appeal to he High Court which was decided on September 10, 1955 when his appeal was dismissed and the sentence passed by the trial Court was upheld. The appellant then obtained special leave in this Court on November 21, 1955 and was released on bail. No. doubt since then it has taken some time for the appeal to be heard but in the circumstances sentence passed by the trial Court cannot be called excessive and this Court would ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment given by the Courts below particularly in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 136. For a public servant to be guilty of corruption is a very serious matter and the Courts would not look upon it with underdoes not seem to be the law that if the money given as bribe is provided by a particular officer of the police then the evidence of all the witnesses becomes evidence of accomplices and must be looked at with suspicion.