S. N. Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1968 SC 1292

S. N. BOSE V. STATE OF BIHAR

Whether the investigation was conducted without the authority of law?
Whether the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the Appellant had accepted the sum as a motive or reward should not be drawn unless the prosecution proved that the amount was paid as a bribe?
Whether the presumption was rebutted by the Appellant’s explanation that what was paid to him was the return of a loan?

Section 114 of the Evidence Act states that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the ordinary course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

S.N. Bose, an Assistant Medical Officer at Gaya Railway Hospital in 1964, was a non-gazetted Class III officer.
On March 2, 1964, Doman Ram, a railway worker, visited the appellant for treatment. The appellant allegedly demanded and accepted ₹2 as a bribe for providing treatment.
By March 12, 1964, Doman Ram recovered and requested a fitness certificate to resume duty. The appellant allegedly demanded ₹5 for issuing the certificate and threatened to remove Ram’s name from the sick list if the payment was not made.
Doman Ram reported the demand to Inspector A.C. Das (PW 17) of the Special Police Establishment on March 14, 1964. PW 17 recorded the complaint and obtained permission under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act from a First-Class Magistrate to lay a trap.
A marked ₹5 currency note was prepared for the operation and given to Doman Ram. Witnesses observed the appellant accepting the marked note from Doman Ram.
Upon receiving a signal, PW 17 confronted the appellant, who produced the marked note and claimed it was repayment of a loan. The appellant was subsequently charged under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The trial court convicted the appellant, which was upheld by the Patna High Court in appeal.
The case came before the Supreme Court under its criminal appellate jurisdiction after the appellant obtained special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The investigation under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was deemed valid. The permission obtained by the inspector to lay the trap also extended to the full investigation, and a second permission was unnecessary.
The trial and High Court correctly upheld the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that the ₹5 was accepted as a bribe. The appellant’s claim of loan repayment was unsubstantiated.
The sanction for prosecution was invalid because the Chief Medical Officer, who granted the sanction, lacked the authority to remove the appellant from service as required under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that the lack of valid sanction rendered the prosecution unsustainable.