Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1578 OF 2011
M.R. Purushotham … Appellant
versus
State of Karnataka … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
C. NAGAPPAN, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
4.1.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bangalore in Criminal Appeal no.1130 of 2007 reversing
the judgment of acquittal dated 8.12.2006 in Special Case
no.36 of 2001 passed by the Principal Special Judge,
Mandya. The High Court in the impugned judgment
found the appellant/accused not guilty of the offence
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred as “the Act”) but guilty of offences
under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Meenakshi Kohli
Date: 2014.09.24
11:29:52 IST
Reason:
and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for
1
one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
The appellant/accused was working as Second Division
Surveyor in the office of Assistant Director of Land
Records, Nagamangala and on 18.2.2000 he demanded an
illegal gratification of Rs.500/- from PW1 Ramesh for
issuance of survey sketch pertaining to Survey no.255 of
Hullenahalli village and it is further alleged that though
the accused had surveyed the land on the application of
the complainant he was postponing issuance of survey
sketch, to force PW1 Ramesh to pay bribe. PW1 Ramesh
lodged Exh.P1 complaint on 18.2.2000 with Lokayukta
Police on which a case came to be registered in Crime
no.1/2000 on the file of Mandya Lokayukta Police Station
for the alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the Act. A trap was organized and
PW2 Sridhar and PW3 Kumaraswamy, Government
servants, were directed to be present as panch witnesses.
2
PW1 Ramesh produced a sum of Rs.500/- i.e. five
currency notes of Rs.100/- each and the numbers of the
said currency notes were recorded in the presence of
panch witnesses and the currency notes got smeared with
phenolphthalein powder. The complainant Ramesh took
the powder smeared notes and went along with PW3
Kumaraswamy to the house of the appellant/accused.
PW2 Sridhar and PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar stood
outside the said house. The accused was watching T.V.
inside the room and on seeing them, he asked PW1
Ramesh as to whether he has brought what he had asked
and PW1 Ramesh answered yes and gave the currency
notes of Rs.500/- and accused took them by his right
hand and kept the same on his table and directed PW1
Ramesh to come on Monday for obtaining copy of the
Re-Survey. They came out and PW1 Ramesh gave the
signal, immediately PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar along
with PW2 Sridhar went inside the house and in the
solution of clean water and sodium carbonate the right
hand fingers of the accused was immersed upon which it
3
turned into light pink color and on verification the
numbers of the currency notes which were lying on the
table were tallied with the numbers of the notes written in
Exh.P2 Mahazar. All the formalities were completed and
after obtaining sanction charge sheet came to be filed
against accused.
3. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 7,
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the accused
pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined four
witnesses and marked Exh.P1 to P10 and M.Os. 1 to 10.
The Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges against the accused and acquitted him.
The State preferred appeal and the High Court in the
impugned judgment held that the prosecution has failed
to prove the offence under Section 7 of the Act and at the
same time it proved the commission of offence under
Section 13(1)(d) by the accused and consequently set aside
the judgment of acquittal for said offences and convicted
the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and
4
sentenced him as stated above. The said judgment is
under challenge in this appeal.
4. We heard Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.
5. PW1 Ramesh, the complainant did not support the
prosecution case. He disowned making the complaint in
Exh.P1 and stated in his examination-in-chief that the
accused had not demanded anything from him and he did
not know what is written in Exh.P1 and the police have
not recorded his statement in respect to this case. He
was, therefore, declared hostile. However, PW3
Kumaraswamy, panch witness has testified that after
being summoned by PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar on
18.2.2000, the contents of Exh.P1 were explained to him
in the presence of the complainant and he accompanied
the complainant to the house of the accused, wherein, the
complainant gave the sum of Rs.500/- to the accused as
illegal gratification. It is on the aforesaid basis that the
liability of appellant/accused for commission of the
5
offences alleged was held to be proved, notwithstanding
the fact that in his evidence the complainant PW1 Ramesh
had not supported the prosecution case.
6. In such type of cases the prosecution has to prove
that there was a demand and there was acceptance of
illegal gratification by the accused. As already seen the
complainant PW1 Ramesh did not support the prosecution
case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. No
other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove
the demand made by the accused with the complainant.
In this context the recent decision of a three Judge bench
of this Court in B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh reported in 2014(4) Scale 81 is relevant and it is
held as follows :
“ 8. In the present case, the complainant did
not support the prosecution case in so far as
demand by the accused is concerned. The
prosecution has not examined any other
witness, present at the time when the money
was allegedly handed over to the accused by the
complainant, to prove that the same was
pursuant to any demand made by the accused.
When the complainant himself had disowned
what he had stated in the initial complaint
(Exbt.P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other
evidence to prove that the accused had made
6
any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the
contents of Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon
to come to the conclusion that the above
material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly
made by the accused. We are, therefore,
inclined to hold that the learned trial court as
well as the High Court was not correct in holding
the demand alleged to be made by the accused
as proved. The only other material available is
the recovery of the tainted currency notes from
the possession of the accused. In fact such
possession is admitted by the accused himself.
Mere possession and recovery of the currency
notes from the accused without proof of demand
will not bring home the offence under Section 7.
The above also will be conclusive in so far as the
offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned
as in the absence of any proof of demand for
illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal
means or abuse of position as a public servant
to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage cannot be held to be established.”
The above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of
the present case. When PW1 Ramesh himself had
disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in
Exh.P1 before PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is
no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any
demand, the evidence of PW3 Kumaraswamy and the
contents of Exh.P1 complaint cannot be relied upon to
conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand
allegedly made by the accused. The High Court was not
7
correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the
accused as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the
currency notes from the accused without proof of demand
will not bring home the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of
the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant are liable to be set aside.
7. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and
the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant/accused under Section 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Act are set aside and he is acquitted of
the charges. Bail bond, if any furnished by the appellant,
be released.
…….…………………...J.
(Madan B. Lokur)
.…………………………J.
(C. Nagappan)
New Delhi;
September 24, 2014
8
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.12 SECTION IIB
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1578/2011
M.R.PURSHOTHAM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Date : 24/09/2014 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.Nagappan pronounced the non-reportable
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur
and His Lordship.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed non-reportable
judgment.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (JASWINDER KAUR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file]
9