Bench:
- Justice A.N. Ray
- Justice D.G. Palekar
- Justice P. Jagannatha Shetty
Facts:
The appellant, R. M. Malkani, was serving as the Coroner of Bombay when he was accused of demanding a bribe from Dr. Shantilal J. Mehta and Dr. Adatia in connection with an inquest.
A patient named Jagdish Prasad Ramnarayan Khandelwal was admitted to the nursing home of Dr. Adatia on May 3, 1964, for acute appendicitis. After 24 hours, the patient’s condition worsened, and surgery was performed. However, the patient developed complications and was later shifted to Bombay Hospital, where he passed away on May 13, 1964.
The appellant, in his capacity as the Coroner, had the authority to conduct an inquest into the cause of death. He initially allowed the disposal of the body without a post-mortem but later ordered an inquiry due to a request from the police.
During the inquiry, the appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹20,000 from Dr. Adatia through Dr. Mehta, stating that the inquest would create suspicion of negligence unless money was paid. Later, this demand was reduced to ₹10,000 and then increased to ₹15,000, of which ₹5,000 was meant for the Coroner’s Surgeon to give a favorable report.
The demand for the bribe was reported to the Anti-Corruption Bureau. The police set up a trap using a telephone recording. The conversation between Dr. Mehta and the appellant was recorded on tape, confirming the demand for a bribe.
On October 10, 1964, when Dr. Mehta went to deliver the money, the police planned to catch the appellant red-handed. However, the appellant refused to take the money directly and instructed that it be given to his wife. Due to this, the actual payment was not made, but the recorded conversation was used as key evidence.
A case was registered, and the appellant was convicted under Sections 161, 385, and 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant challenged his conviction, arguing that the tape-recorded conversation was illegally obtained and should not have been admitted as evidence.
Issues:
- Whether the tape-recorded conversation between the accused and the complainant was admissible in evidence.
- Whether the use of tape-recorded evidence violated the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the conversation recorded during the police investigation was barred under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
- Whether the appellant’s demand for a bribe constituted an offense under the Indian Penal Code, despite the money not being physically received.
Arguments:
Prosecution (State of Maharashtra)
The tape-recorded conversation clearly established that the accused demanded a bribe. The accused voluntarily spoke on the telephone, and his statements were recorded without coercion or force. The police had the permission of Dr. Mehta to attach a recording device to his telephone, so there was no illegal interception of communication. The conversation was corroborative evidence and was admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as it formed part of the res gestae (facts surrounding the crime). As the accused made an attempt to obtain a bribe, he was guilty under Section 161 IPC (public servant taking gratification). The offense of attempt to commit extortion was also established under Section 385 IPC.
Defense (R. M. Malkani)
The tape recording was illegal because it violated Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which prohibits tampering with communication devices. The recording was made without the appellant’s knowledge or consent, violating his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Under Article 20(3), an accused person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. The tape recording amounted to self-incrimination and should be excluded from evidence.
Section 162 of CrPC prohibits the use of statements made during a police investigation as evidence. Since the tape recording was made during the investigation, it was inadmissible. There was no actual acceptance of the bribe, so the offense was incomplete, and conviction was unjustified.
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle Applied):
The Supreme Court held that tape-recorded evidence is admissible, provided that:
- The conversation is relevant to the case.
- The voices are properly identified.
- The accuracy of the recording is proven, ensuring there is no tampering.
A tape-recorded conversation is comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident and qualifies as real evidence. There was no violation of the Indian Telegraph Act, as the recording was done with the consent of Dr. Mehta, who was one of the parties in the conversation.
The right to privacy under Article 21 does not protect a public servant demanding a bribe over the phone. The accused’s conversation was voluntary, and there was no element of coercion.
Under Article 20(3), self-incrimination requires compulsion. In this case, the accused spoke freely, and his statements were recorded without police interference. Thus, there was no violation of Article 20(3).
Section 162 of CrPC applies to statements made to police officers. Here, the conversation was between two private individuals, so the restriction did not apply.
Attempt to take a bribe does not require actual receipt of money. The demand itself is an offense, and the accused’s instructions to Dr. Mehta on how to deliver the money proved his guilty intention.
Observations:
The Supreme Court emphasized that modern legal systems must adapt to technological advancements, including the use of electronic evidence.
The Court referred to English case law (R. v. Maqsud Ali, 1963), where a secretly recorded conversation was admitted as evidence in a criminal trial.
It was also noted that while courts must safeguard the rights of the accused, they should not ignore the rights of the public to have corrupt officials prosecuted.
The ruling clarified that evidence obtained by illegal means is still admissible, provided it is relevant and not tampered with. The judge, however, has the discretion to exclude such evidence if it causes prejudice to the accused.
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, stating that:
- The tape-recorded evidence was admissible and lawfully obtained.
- There was no violation of Article 20(3) or Article 21.
- The accused’s demand for a bribe constituted an offense, even though the money was not physically delivered.
The appellant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.
The Court refused to reduce the sentence, despite the accused’s plea that he had suffered health issues and had already paid the fine.
Important Terms:
- Section 161 IPC – Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
- Section 385 IPC – Attempt to commit extortion.
- Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC – Attempt to cheat by deception.
- Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act – Relevance of tape-recorded evidence as part of res gestae.
- Article 20(3) – Right against self-incrimination; not applicable when statements are made voluntarily.
- Article 21 – Right to privacy; not applicable when a public servant is demanding a bribe.
