Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.(s) 924925 /2022
(@SLP (Crl) No.(s) 62416242/2022 @ D. No. 6034 OF 2020)
The State of Kerala ..Appellant(S)
Versus
M. Karunakaran Etc. ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and the
offence alleged against the accused is punishable under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the issue involved in
the present appeal is a pure question of law and facts,
therefore, the delay caused in preferring the present appeal
is hereby condoned. Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2022.07.11
17:21:50 IST
Reason:
common judgment and order dated 22.02.2018 passed by
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal
1
Nos. 915/2008 and 1021/2008, by which, the High Court
has allowed the said appeals, preferred by the original
accused Nos. 1 and 2 and consequently has acquitted both
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, the State has preferred the present
appeal(s).
2. As per the prosecution case, accused Nos. 1 and 2 while
working as Excise Prevention Officers, Excise Range,
Hosdurg visited Toddy Shop No.36, Ambalathara, Hosdurg,
Taluk at about 7:30 pm on 21.03.2001 and threatened Shri
P.J. Joseph, who was looking after the affairs of the shop
and demanded Rs. 2,000/ from him. They asked him to
bring the said amount at the Excise Range Office on
24.03.2001. As PW1 – original complainant lodged a
complaint against the accused persons with the Vigilance
Department on 24.03.2001, a FIR was registered on the said
complaint by the Vigilance Dy.SP. After completing the
necessary formalities at 3:15 pm the raid party and PW8
reached the Excise Range Office and the PW1 was informed
to give signal to the Policemen who were standing on the
2
road side after giving the money to the accused persons. As
per the case of the prosecution, in pursuance of the
demand, accused Nos. 1 and 2 accepted an amount of Rs.
1,000/ and Rs. 500/, respectively from the complainant at
3:35 pm on 24.03.2001 at the Excise Range Office and
thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The investigating officer filed the
chargesheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
Both came to be tried by the learned Special Court and they
denied the charges levelled against them.
2.1 To prove the charges the prosecution examined in all nine
witnesses including PW1 – complainant and PW2 – an
independent witness. The accused examined DW1, the
owner of the shop in their defence. That on appreciation of
the evidence on record, learned Special Court held both the
accused guilty for the aforesaid offences and convicted them
and imposed a sentence. The learned Special Court
sentenced accused No. 1 to undergo two years rigorous
imprisonment (RI) each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/
each and in default to six months RI and sentenced accused
3
No. 2 to undergo one year RI each and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/ each and in default to undergo three months RI.
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of sentence and conviction passed by the learned
Special Court, the original accused preferred appeals before
the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and
order the High Court has allowed the said appeals and has
acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were
convicted.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the High Court
acquitting the accused, the State has preferred the present
appeals with a delay of 632 days in preferring the appeal(s).
3. Having gone through the impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court acquitting the accused for
the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is apparent that
the High Court has acquitted the accused mainly on the
ground that the twin conditions of demand and acceptance
has not been established and proved. The High Court has
heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of
4
Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his LR Vs.
State of Punjab ; (2017) 8 SCC 136 . On the other hand,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied
upon a threejudge bench decision of this Court in the case
of M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P.; (2001) 1 SCC 691.
3.1 It is brought to our notice that having found conflict with
the decisions of two and three judge benches of this Court
in the cases of B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh;
(2014) 13 SCC 55 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs.
District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and
Another; (2015) 10 SCC 152 with that of an earlier three
judge bench decision of this Court in the case of
M.
Narsinga Rao (supra) regarding nature and quality of proof
necessary to sustain conviction for the offences under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 when the primary
evidence is unavailable, subsequently the three judge bench
of this Court in the case of
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi); Criminal Appeal No. 1669/2009 , has
referred the following question of law for determination by a
5
larger bench:
“whether in the absence of evidence of
complainant/direct or primary evidence of
demand of illegal gratification, is it not
permissible to draw inferential deduction of
culpability/guilt of a public servant under
Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 based on other evidence adduced by the
prosecution?”
It is reported that the said reference is pending and the
aforesaid question of law is yet to be determined and/or
considered by a larger bench.
3.2 The issue arising in the present appeal is somewhat similar
and the decision of a larger bench may have a direct effect
on the decision of the present appeal(s). Therefore, we are of
the opinion that the decision in the present appeal(s) be
deferred till the question of law, which is referred to a larger
bench, referred to hereinabove, in Criminal Appeal No.
1669/2009, is decided by the larger bench.
Hence these appeal(s) is/are adjourned sine die till the
4.
aforesaid question of law framed in Criminal Appeal No.
1669/2009 is decided by the larger bench. The Registry is
to notify the present criminal appeal(s) for final hearing after
6
the decision on the question of law by the larger bench of
the reference is made hereinabove.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
th
July, 11 2022
7