Calcutta High Court
Shamsul Haq vs Emperor on 22 September, 1920
Equivalent citations: 64IND. CAS.369
JUDGMENT
1. This petitioner Shamsul Huq, a taxi driver, was prosecuted for some petty offence under the Motor Car Act by one Sergeant Alchin.
2. On the 16th June the case against the petitioner was dismissed and on the 21st June the petitioner is said to have offered Re. 1 to the Sergeant as a bribe to withdraw the charge which the Sergeant had brought against him.
3. As stated above, the case against the petitioner had already been dismissed on the 16th June. The petitioner says that he was aware of that fact. He has examined a Writer Head Constable (Motor Vehicles Department), who says that the petitioner went to him on the 16th and that he was informed by the witness that he (the accused) had been discharged. The Trying Magistrate, however, did not believe this witness and was of opinion that one rupee was offered to the Sergeant in ignorance of the case having been dismissed against the petitioner.
4. The question is whether the petitioner can be convicted under Section 161/109, Indian Penal Code. Now, on the 21st June it was not within the powers of the Sergeant to show any favour to the petitioner who had already been discharged by the Magistrate and no money could have been paid to him as a motive or reward for doing any. thing for the petitioner.
5. We do not think that in these circumstances the petitioner can be convicted of abetment of an offence of taking a gratification as reward or motive to forbear to do any official act. The conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him are accordingly set aside. The petitioner will be discharged from his bail bond.