Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 492
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2013
STATE OF KARNATAKA ……. APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
NAGESH …….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and
order dated 09.03.2012 passed by High Court of Karnataka,
Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Crl. Appeal No. 1290/2006. By the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAVI ARORA
Date: 2025.04.16
17:32:09 IST
Reason:
impugned judgment and order, the conviction rendered by the trial
court to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and
1
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one month
under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and to undergo R.I. for one
year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo S.I. for one month, for the offences under
Section 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter, ‘P.C. Act’) was reversed and an acquittal order
was passed by the High Court.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.01.1995, the
complainant gave an application to the tahsildar, Belgaum
requesting change of mutation entries in the Revenue Records in
respect of certain agricultural lands which had fallen to his share
in partition between himself and his brothers. After some time,
complainant met the accused who was working as Village
Accountant in Kadoli and enquired about his application. The
accused informed that he had not received his application.
Allegedly, the accused asked the complainant to file another
application. Accordingly, on 03.04.1995, he submitted a new
application (Ex.P.18). At that time, allegedly, the accused asked for
Rs.2,000/- as bribe for attending his work. Since, his inability to
pay Rs.2,000/- was expressed, they initially agreed for Rs.
2
1,500/-. Further, when he was unable to pay Rs.1,500/- at once,
it was agreed that Rs. 1000/- would be paid immediately and
balance Rs.500/- would be paid after the competition of work. He
told the Respondent-Accused that he would come back in 4 days
with the money. PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe as demanded
by the accused. Subsequently, P.W.1/Complainant filed
Complaint (Ex.P.1) before the Lokayukta, DSP, Belgaum on
07.04.1995. FIR in Crime No.6/1995 was registered and steps
were taken to lay a trap.
3. As a prelude to the trap, Entrustment Mahazar (Pre-trap
Panchnama) was drawn as per Ex.P.3. 10 notes of Rs.100/-
denomination smeared in Phenolphthalein powder was given to
P.W.1/Complainant and he was accompanied by P.W.2. All of
them went to the office of the Respondent/Accused at about 12.30
PM. P.W.1 and 2 went inside while others were waiting outside.
They asked Respondent- Accused if he had brought the money.
P.W.1/Complainant replied in affirmative. But the Respondent/
Accused demanded Rs.500/-. The same was given and was
accepted by the Respondent/ Accused with his left hand and kept
the same in his pants pocket. Other notes were retained by P.W.1.
Thereafter, P.W.1 signalled and others came inside. Left hand
3
fingers of the Respondent/Accused were washed in Sodium
Carbonate Solution and the same turned pink. On the right hand,
there was no change in colour. The number on the currency notes
were tallied with the Entrustment Mahazar.
4. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences
punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the P.C.
Act. Special Case (PC) No.97/1996 was registered.
5. The Trial Court vide its judgement and order dated
14.06.2006 convicted the accused to undergo R.I. for one year and
pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo S.I. for one month under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988
and to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one month,
for the offence under 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the P.C. Act.
6. On appreciation of evidence in record, the High Court vide its
judgement dated 09.03.2012, acquitted the appellant accused of
all the charges levelled against him. Special Case (PC) No.97/1996
was set aside as the court was of the opinion that the finding
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge regarding evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 establishing the demand and acceptance of the bribe
by the accused, is highly perverse.
4
7. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the High Court, the
appellant is before us.
CONTENTIONS
8. The Learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka vehemently
submitted that the reasons given by the trial court, while passing
the judgment of conviction are on the basis of evidence on record
and without giving scope for contrary view and are not liable for
setting aside, only on the basis of minor contradictions pointed out
by the Appellate Court and which will not go to the root of the case.
It was submitted that only one stray sentence in the evidence of
PW.1 to the effect that right hand wash has not shown any change
of colour and thereby doubting the evidence of PW.1 is not proper.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the
importance of Sections 20 of the P.C. Act is not properly
appreciated. It was also submitted that the bribe money of M.O.2
recovered from the possession of the accused under trap mahazar
Ex.P.2, clearly proves that the accused had accepted the bribe -
money and though he had stated in Ex.P.8 that the money was
forcibly kept in his pocket, but the same was denied by the
complainant and shadow witness and the presumption has been
raised as contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Learned
5
Counsel for the state further submitted that the Ex.P.2 trap
mahazar clearly discloses numbers of currency notes recovered
from the possession of the accused and also number of currency
notes of Rs. 500/- which remained with the complainant was
separately mentioned and it was also mentioned that the said
money was returned to the complainant. Hence, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra , Learned counsel for the accused argued that the
Complainant in this case had suppressed material facts in his
complaint and has not been very truthful about the incidents that
have taken place. It was also submitted that the two statements
of PW1 and PW2 are completely different from one another which
not only indicates the suspicious nature of the complaint, but also
shows that the complaint is false. Learned Counsel for the accused
submitted that there is no acceptable evidence to substantiate the
claim of PW 1 that he filed an application to the accused on
03.04.1995, where according to the complainant, the demand for
bribe money was made and hence, the complaint submitted by the
Complainant has no firm standing and is based on extremely
flimsy evidence. The High Court on appreciation of evidence
allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 1290/2006 and thereby,
6
acquitting the accused is legal and correct in doing so and the
appeal of the appellant needs to be set aside.
ANALYSIS
10. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Ld.
Counsel for the respondent. We have also perused relevant
documents on record and the judgment passed by the High Court.
11. The High Court vide its judgement dated. 09.03.12 acquitted
the respondent-accused while observing as under:
“7. …Ex.P18 is a copy of the application filed by
PW.1 to the Tahsildar. In any case, he could not
have met the accused on 03.04.1995 in this
regard. Therefore, there is serious doubt about
the alleged demand made by the accused for
the bribe on 03.04.1995 or on any subsequent
dates. Therefore, in the absence of any such
evidence and in the light of the fact that the
application to the Tahsildar was filed only on
06.04.1995, the whole case of the complainant
in this regard is highly unbelievable and it is
highly unsafe to place utmost confidence on this
part of the evidence of PW.1….
8. …it is highly unnatural that the accused
would ask for only Rs.500/- as against
Rs.1000/-…
9. …Thus, according to the evidence of PW.1,
accused had not handled the marked currency
notes by his right hand. However, according to
PW.2, the accused handed over the marked
currency notes by both the hands and when the
7
fingers of both hands were washed separately
in sodium carbonate solution, the solution
turned into pink colour indicating handling of
marked currency notes by both hands.
According to PW.2, the police seized the pant
and marked with the help of a ball point pen on
the right side pant pocket of the accused
indicating that the money had been kept in the
right pocket of the pant. P.W-2 has also not
stated whether or not the inner lining of the pant
pocket was washed. Thus there is no
consistency in the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 with
regard to handling of marked currency notes by
the accused and as to in which side of the
pocket of the pant the marked currency notes
had been kept...
..This creates great amount of doubt as to the
acceptance of the marked currency notes by the
accused.
…However, the witness again stated that PW-1
told him about the accused keeping the currency
notes in the left side pant pocket... Therefore,
the possibility of the currency notes which were
in possession of PW.1 having been seized
cannot be ruled out. In any case the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the acceptance of
bribe by the accused is not consistent and
cogent and their testimony in this regard is
highly unrealiable. ..Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that the finding recorded by
the learned Sessions Judge that evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 establishes the demand and
acceptance of the bribe by the accused, is highly
perverse...
10. …In the case on hand, the oral evidence on
record does not satisfactorily establish either
the demand or acceptance of bribe by the
8
accused. Therefore, Section 20 of the Act has no
application to the facts of the case.”
12. At the outset, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial
Court, on appreciation of the evidence got before it by the
prosecution, arrived at just and proper conclusion that the
prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and accordingly awarded the sentence and conviction to the
accused. We are of the opinion further that the High Court
committed serious error in setting aside the well-reasoned
judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge on erroneous grounds.
13. Dealing with a charge under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, this
Court in the case of C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of
1
India has observed that the prosecution is required to prove that:
(i) The accused was a public servant at the material time;
(ii) The accused accepted or obtained a gratification other
than legal remuneration; and
(iii) The gratification was for illegal purpose.
1
(1997) 9 SCC 477
9
Applying these legal principles to the facts at hand, we are of
the opinion that these ingredients have clearly been established by
the prosecution in the present case.
14. The High Court gave an undue importance to the minor
discrepancies and failed to appreciate the trust-worthy evidence in
the form of ocular testimony of the witnesses as well as the
documentary evidence. PW1/Complainant in his testimony before
the court gave a detailed account establishing the basic and
important facts such as the demand and acceptance of bribe by
the accused. PW1 makes a reference to his first application
seeking the entry in the revenue records. The said application was
secured in the process of investigation and in the part of the
documentary evidence namely Ex. P22. This application was
submitted to the office of Tehsildar as there was no action on the
said application. When PW1/complainant met with the accused,
the accused responded to the complainant initially by stating that
he had not received the application, then the application – Ex. P18
was submitted. The accused then asked for the bribe amount and
with this demand the accused stated that if PW1 complainant pays
the amount of bribe, he will do the needful. For this obligation the
accused made a demand for Rs. 1500/- and when the PW1
10
complainant expressed his inability to pay an amount of Rs.
1500/-, the accused stated that he should pay at least Rs. 500/-.
As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount he
approached a Lokayukt Police. It may not be necessary to refer to
the facts again in detail as reference is already made to these facts
in earlier part of this judgment. Perusal of the testimony of PW1,
shows that though there is a little departure in his testimony
prompting the Special Public Prosecutor to declare the witness as
hostile but in our opinion, the limited part of the version of this
witness in respect of the date of submitting the application this
minor departure is not sufficient to discard the other detailed and
reliable version of the witness in so far as the demand and
acceptance of the accused is concerned. PW1 stated before the
court that on 07.04.1995 at 12.20 PM he along with PW 2 (Shadow
Witness) approached the accused. He further stated in clear words
about the demand as well as acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.
500/- with a rider that the complainant would pay the balance
bribe amount of Rs. 1000/- after the work is over. Then he stated
about giving the signal to raiding party and the raiding party
approaching the accused.
11
15. It is also noteworthy that, Ex. 22 dated 24.01.1995 is a joint
application filed by PW1 and his brother to effect mutation in the
revenue records as per their partition deed (vatani patra). This
application is in Marathi language, which is part of the record that
the learned Trial Judge as well as PW4 was well-conversant with
Marathi and incidentally one of us are also conversant and can
read and write in Marathi language. We have also perused the said
Ex. 22.
16. The Trial Court appreciated the evidence of PW1 in great
detail. However, the High Court observed that there are
discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1 and evidence of PW 1 shows
that on washing by phenolphthalein, only one hand i.e. right-hand
fingers of the accused, the colour got changed to pink colour. The
High Court made observations that there is no material on record
to support the prosecution case and particularly version of PW 1
that the accused after accepting the money i.e. Rs. 500/- kept the
notes in his pant pocket. Now, these observations of the High
Court are not in consonance with the evidence which is well
appreciated by the Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge while
appreciating the evidence, particularly oral evidence, makes a
detailed reference to the oral testimony of PW 2 who is the Shadow
12
Witness. As per the version of PW 2 the accused accepted the bribe
of Rs. 500/-, counted the bribe amount and then kept the money
in his pant pockets. PW2 stated before the court “the police
washed both the hand fingers of accused in washing soda solution
of white colour, and thereafter it changed to kempu gulabi colour
and it was seized separately in 2 bottles. He further stated before
the Court that the police also seized the accused pant and marked
the right pocket by ball pen”. This witness was subjected to
detailed cross – examination and the witness stood firm, thus, the
High Court totally ignored the version of PW 2 (Shadow Witness)
and erroneously observed that the prosecution failed to establish
the demand in so far as the prosecution failed to show that colour
of the solution from both the hands did not change and further the
accused kept the bribe amount in his pant pockets.
17. The High Court observed that the version of PW 1 is doubtful
as PW1 stated in the complaint, as well as, before the Court that
he had filed an application before the Tehsildar two months prior
to 07.04.1995, whereas there was an application submitted to the
Tehsildar only on 06.04.1995 and as such the version of PW1 that
he met with the accused on 03.04.1995 is doubtful. Now, on
perusal of the record clearly shows that even before the application
13
dated 06.04.1995, an earlier application (Ex 22) was already
submitted by PW1 and the same was collected during the course
of investigation and the Investigating Officer in his testimony
stated about collecting this application in course of investigation.
18. Another very important factum which missed the attention of
the High Court is that the incident took place in the year 1995, the
trial got delayed and after span of 10 years the witnesses were
subjected to their ocular testimony before the Court. PW 1 was
examined on 24.03.2005, PW 2 was examined on 22.08.2005 and
the other witnesses were examined in the year 2006. In view of
this fact, it can safely be said that the long span would certainly
result in some minor discrepancies in the version of the witness
particularly PW1 who is the rustic villager. The High Court ought
to have seen that these were some minor discrepancies and they
were not of such a nature so as to discard the other version of the
witnesses, particularly PW1 and PW2, which are truthful and
reliable.
19. The learned Trial Judge rightly made observation by
referring to this fact in the following words:
“The court is of the view that the trap is dated 07.04.1995
and PW1 is examined before the court on 24.03.2005 i.e.
almost after 10 years. Hence, possibility of lapse of
14
memory regarding the names of panchas and the date of
trap cannot be ruled out”.
20. PW2 gave a detailed account in his examination in chief and
also in his cross examination he re-affirmed that the accused
accepted the money, counted it and kept it in his pocket. The
trouser of the accused was seized and another trouser was
provided to the accused by police. PW 4 also supported the version
of PW 1 and PW2, particularly about the trap. It may also be noted
that though the aspect of grant of sanction was not seriously taken
up by the appellant before the High Court nor did the High Court
refer to the same, but the Trial Court dealt in detail with the fact
of sanction also by making reference to the oral evidence and the
documentary evidence and arrived at the conclusion that there
was a proper sanction in the matter supporting the case of
prosecution.
21. The other oral testimonies namely testimony of PW3, PW 4,
PW 5 and PW 6 also support the case of prosecution. The High
Court gave undue weightage to some confusion about the name of
PW2 and PW4 in the version of PW1 /complainant but as stated
above, the witnesses were subjected to testimony after 10 years
and PW 2 and PW 4 had no earlier acquaintance with the
15
complainant, as such some confusion in names of witness is
possible and thus, it is not sufficient to discard the version of PW
1 on this minor discrepancy alone.
22. It may not be necessary for us to refer to the version of other
witnesses in detail. Suffice to say that the Trial Court appreciated
this evidence in detail and accepted the same as the reliable
evidence in support of the prosecution by assigning the just and
cogent reasons.
23. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that that
the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond the
reasonable doubt and the charges against the accused namely
under Section 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act are
proved so as to hold the accused guilty of these offences.
24. On the contrary, the High Court committed the serious error
in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Needless to state
that in this situation the appeal needs to be allowed. In so far as,
the sentence awarded the accused is concerned the learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Nuli appearing for the respondent-accused attempt to
submit before this Court that as the incident is of the year 1995
and by passage of time now the accused in his advanced age, this
court may consider reducing the quantum of sentence. Somewhat
16
similar submission was made before the Trial Court that some
leniency be shown to the accused while awarding sentence and the
learned Trial judge in Para. 67 and 68 dealt with this aspect of
sentence in following words:
“67) In this case, the accused is convicted for the offence
under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of
P.C.Act 1988. As per Sec 7 of the P.C. Act, the punishment
provided is imprisonment which shall be not less than six
months but which may extend to five years, and shall
also be liable to fine. Further, Section 13 (2) of said Act
provides that any public servant who commits criminal is
conduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall be not less than one year but which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
68) So, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand, I feel that if the accused is sentenced to
undergo R.l. for one year pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo S.l. for one
month, for the offence under Sec. 7 of the P.C. Act, it will
meet the ends of justice. Likewise, if the accused is
sentenced to undergo R.l for one year and pay fine of Rs.
500/-,and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
S.l. for one month, for the offence under Sec. 13(1) (d) r/w
Sec 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, it will meet the ends of
justice.”
25. The record indicates that the respondent- accused enjoyed a
liberty during the trial as he was on bail and post the judgment of
the Trial Court as also during the pendency of the appeal before
the High court, he was enjoying the liberty by way of bail. As
such, we are unable to show any kind of indulgence on the aspect
17
of the quantum of sentence and accordingly, the conviction and
sentence recorded by the Trial Court is upheld. Resultantly, the
accused is to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks
from today.
26. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms
of the aforesaid observations.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall also be disposed of
accordingly.
...............................J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
….............................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.
18
2025 INSC 492
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2013
STATE OF KARNATAKA ……. APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
NAGESH …….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and
order dated 09.03.2012 passed by High Court of Karnataka,
Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Crl. Appeal No. 1290/2006. By the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RAVI ARORA
Date: 2025.04.16
17:32:09 IST
Reason:
impugned judgment and order, the conviction rendered by the trial
court to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and
1
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one month
under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and to undergo R.I. for one
year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo S.I. for one month, for the offences under
Section 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter, ‘P.C. Act’) was reversed and an acquittal order
was passed by the High Court.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.01.1995, the
complainant gave an application to the tahsildar, Belgaum
requesting change of mutation entries in the Revenue Records in
respect of certain agricultural lands which had fallen to his share
in partition between himself and his brothers. After some time,
complainant met the accused who was working as Village
Accountant in Kadoli and enquired about his application. The
accused informed that he had not received his application.
Allegedly, the accused asked the complainant to file another
application. Accordingly, on 03.04.1995, he submitted a new
application (Ex.P.18). At that time, allegedly, the accused asked for
Rs.2,000/- as bribe for attending his work. Since, his inability to
pay Rs.2,000/- was expressed, they initially agreed for Rs.
2
1,500/-. Further, when he was unable to pay Rs.1,500/- at once,
it was agreed that Rs. 1000/- would be paid immediately and
balance Rs.500/- would be paid after the competition of work. He
told the Respondent-Accused that he would come back in 4 days
with the money. PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe as demanded
by the accused. Subsequently, P.W.1/Complainant filed
Complaint (Ex.P.1) before the Lokayukta, DSP, Belgaum on
07.04.1995. FIR in Crime No.6/1995 was registered and steps
were taken to lay a trap.
3. As a prelude to the trap, Entrustment Mahazar (Pre-trap
Panchnama) was drawn as per Ex.P.3. 10 notes of Rs.100/-
denomination smeared in Phenolphthalein powder was given to
P.W.1/Complainant and he was accompanied by P.W.2. All of
them went to the office of the Respondent/Accused at about 12.30
PM. P.W.1 and 2 went inside while others were waiting outside.
They asked Respondent- Accused if he had brought the money.
P.W.1/Complainant replied in affirmative. But the Respondent/
Accused demanded Rs.500/-. The same was given and was
accepted by the Respondent/ Accused with his left hand and kept
the same in his pants pocket. Other notes were retained by P.W.1.
Thereafter, P.W.1 signalled and others came inside. Left hand
3
fingers of the Respondent/Accused were washed in Sodium
Carbonate Solution and the same turned pink. On the right hand,
there was no change in colour. The number on the currency notes
were tallied with the Entrustment Mahazar.
4. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences
punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the P.C.
Act. Special Case (PC) No.97/1996 was registered.
5. The Trial Court vide its judgement and order dated
14.06.2006 convicted the accused to undergo R.I. for one year and
pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo S.I. for one month under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988
and to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one month,
for the offence under 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the P.C. Act.
6. On appreciation of evidence in record, the High Court vide its
judgement dated 09.03.2012, acquitted the appellant accused of
all the charges levelled against him. Special Case (PC) No.97/1996
was set aside as the court was of the opinion that the finding
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge regarding evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 establishing the demand and acceptance of the bribe
by the accused, is highly perverse.
4
7. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the High Court, the
appellant is before us.
CONTENTIONS
8. The Learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka vehemently
submitted that the reasons given by the trial court, while passing
the judgment of conviction are on the basis of evidence on record
and without giving scope for contrary view and are not liable for
setting aside, only on the basis of minor contradictions pointed out
by the Appellate Court and which will not go to the root of the case.
It was submitted that only one stray sentence in the evidence of
PW.1 to the effect that right hand wash has not shown any change
of colour and thereby doubting the evidence of PW.1 is not proper.
The Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the
importance of Sections 20 of the P.C. Act is not properly
appreciated. It was also submitted that the bribe money of M.O.2
recovered from the possession of the accused under trap mahazar
Ex.P.2, clearly proves that the accused had accepted the bribe -
money and though he had stated in Ex.P.8 that the money was
forcibly kept in his pocket, but the same was denied by the
complainant and shadow witness and the presumption has been
raised as contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Learned
5
Counsel for the state further submitted that the Ex.P.2 trap
mahazar clearly discloses numbers of currency notes recovered
from the possession of the accused and also number of currency
notes of Rs. 500/- which remained with the complainant was
separately mentioned and it was also mentioned that the said
money was returned to the complainant. Hence, the impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra , Learned counsel for the accused argued that the
Complainant in this case had suppressed material facts in his
complaint and has not been very truthful about the incidents that
have taken place. It was also submitted that the two statements
of PW1 and PW2 are completely different from one another which
not only indicates the suspicious nature of the complaint, but also
shows that the complaint is false. Learned Counsel for the accused
submitted that there is no acceptable evidence to substantiate the
claim of PW 1 that he filed an application to the accused on
03.04.1995, where according to the complainant, the demand for
bribe money was made and hence, the complaint submitted by the
Complainant has no firm standing and is based on extremely
flimsy evidence. The High Court on appreciation of evidence
allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 1290/2006 and thereby,
6
acquitting the accused is legal and correct in doing so and the
appeal of the appellant needs to be set aside.
ANALYSIS
10. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Ld.
Counsel for the respondent. We have also perused relevant
documents on record and the judgment passed by the High Court.
11. The High Court vide its judgement dated. 09.03.12 acquitted
the respondent-accused while observing as under:
“7. …Ex.P18 is a copy of the application filed by
PW.1 to the Tahsildar. In any case, he could not
have met the accused on 03.04.1995 in this
regard. Therefore, there is serious doubt about
the alleged demand made by the accused for
the bribe on 03.04.1995 or on any subsequent
dates. Therefore, in the absence of any such
evidence and in the light of the fact that the
application to the Tahsildar was filed only on
06.04.1995, the whole case of the complainant
in this regard is highly unbelievable and it is
highly unsafe to place utmost confidence on this
part of the evidence of PW.1….
8. …it is highly unnatural that the accused
would ask for only Rs.500/- as against
Rs.1000/-…
9. …Thus, according to the evidence of PW.1,
accused had not handled the marked currency
notes by his right hand. However, according to
PW.2, the accused handed over the marked
currency notes by both the hands and when the
7
fingers of both hands were washed separately
in sodium carbonate solution, the solution
turned into pink colour indicating handling of
marked currency notes by both hands.
According to PW.2, the police seized the pant
and marked with the help of a ball point pen on
the right side pant pocket of the accused
indicating that the money had been kept in the
right pocket of the pant. P.W-2 has also not
stated whether or not the inner lining of the pant
pocket was washed. Thus there is no
consistency in the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 with
regard to handling of marked currency notes by
the accused and as to in which side of the
pocket of the pant the marked currency notes
had been kept...
..This creates great amount of doubt as to the
acceptance of the marked currency notes by the
accused.
…However, the witness again stated that PW-1
told him about the accused keeping the currency
notes in the left side pant pocket... Therefore,
the possibility of the currency notes which were
in possession of PW.1 having been seized
cannot be ruled out. In any case the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the acceptance of
bribe by the accused is not consistent and
cogent and their testimony in this regard is
highly unrealiable. ..Therefore, I am of the
considered opinion that the finding recorded by
the learned Sessions Judge that evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 establishes the demand and
acceptance of the bribe by the accused, is highly
perverse...
10. …In the case on hand, the oral evidence on
record does not satisfactorily establish either
the demand or acceptance of bribe by the
8
accused. Therefore, Section 20 of the Act has no
application to the facts of the case.”
12. At the outset, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial
Court, on appreciation of the evidence got before it by the
prosecution, arrived at just and proper conclusion that the
prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and accordingly awarded the sentence and conviction to the
accused. We are of the opinion further that the High Court
committed serious error in setting aside the well-reasoned
judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge on erroneous grounds.
13. Dealing with a charge under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, this
Court in the case of C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of
1
India has observed that the prosecution is required to prove that:
(i) The accused was a public servant at the material time;
(ii) The accused accepted or obtained a gratification other
than legal remuneration; and
(iii) The gratification was for illegal purpose.
1
(1997) 9 SCC 477
9
Applying these legal principles to the facts at hand, we are of
the opinion that these ingredients have clearly been established by
the prosecution in the present case.
14. The High Court gave an undue importance to the minor
discrepancies and failed to appreciate the trust-worthy evidence in
the form of ocular testimony of the witnesses as well as the
documentary evidence. PW1/Complainant in his testimony before
the court gave a detailed account establishing the basic and
important facts such as the demand and acceptance of bribe by
the accused. PW1 makes a reference to his first application
seeking the entry in the revenue records. The said application was
secured in the process of investigation and in the part of the
documentary evidence namely Ex. P22. This application was
submitted to the office of Tehsildar as there was no action on the
said application. When PW1/complainant met with the accused,
the accused responded to the complainant initially by stating that
he had not received the application, then the application – Ex. P18
was submitted. The accused then asked for the bribe amount and
with this demand the accused stated that if PW1 complainant pays
the amount of bribe, he will do the needful. For this obligation the
accused made a demand for Rs. 1500/- and when the PW1
10
complainant expressed his inability to pay an amount of Rs.
1500/-, the accused stated that he should pay at least Rs. 500/-.
As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount he
approached a Lokayukt Police. It may not be necessary to refer to
the facts again in detail as reference is already made to these facts
in earlier part of this judgment. Perusal of the testimony of PW1,
shows that though there is a little departure in his testimony
prompting the Special Public Prosecutor to declare the witness as
hostile but in our opinion, the limited part of the version of this
witness in respect of the date of submitting the application this
minor departure is not sufficient to discard the other detailed and
reliable version of the witness in so far as the demand and
acceptance of the accused is concerned. PW1 stated before the
court that on 07.04.1995 at 12.20 PM he along with PW 2 (Shadow
Witness) approached the accused. He further stated in clear words
about the demand as well as acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.
500/- with a rider that the complainant would pay the balance
bribe amount of Rs. 1000/- after the work is over. Then he stated
about giving the signal to raiding party and the raiding party
approaching the accused.
11
15. It is also noteworthy that, Ex. 22 dated 24.01.1995 is a joint
application filed by PW1 and his brother to effect mutation in the
revenue records as per their partition deed (vatani patra). This
application is in Marathi language, which is part of the record that
the learned Trial Judge as well as PW4 was well-conversant with
Marathi and incidentally one of us are also conversant and can
read and write in Marathi language. We have also perused the said
Ex. 22.
16. The Trial Court appreciated the evidence of PW1 in great
detail. However, the High Court observed that there are
discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1 and evidence of PW 1 shows
that on washing by phenolphthalein, only one hand i.e. right-hand
fingers of the accused, the colour got changed to pink colour. The
High Court made observations that there is no material on record
to support the prosecution case and particularly version of PW 1
that the accused after accepting the money i.e. Rs. 500/- kept the
notes in his pant pocket. Now, these observations of the High
Court are not in consonance with the evidence which is well
appreciated by the Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge while
appreciating the evidence, particularly oral evidence, makes a
detailed reference to the oral testimony of PW 2 who is the Shadow
12
Witness. As per the version of PW 2 the accused accepted the bribe
of Rs. 500/-, counted the bribe amount and then kept the money
in his pant pockets. PW2 stated before the court “the police
washed both the hand fingers of accused in washing soda solution
of white colour, and thereafter it changed to kempu gulabi colour
and it was seized separately in 2 bottles. He further stated before
the Court that the police also seized the accused pant and marked
the right pocket by ball pen”. This witness was subjected to
detailed cross – examination and the witness stood firm, thus, the
High Court totally ignored the version of PW 2 (Shadow Witness)
and erroneously observed that the prosecution failed to establish
the demand in so far as the prosecution failed to show that colour
of the solution from both the hands did not change and further the
accused kept the bribe amount in his pant pockets.
17. The High Court observed that the version of PW 1 is doubtful
as PW1 stated in the complaint, as well as, before the Court that
he had filed an application before the Tehsildar two months prior
to 07.04.1995, whereas there was an application submitted to the
Tehsildar only on 06.04.1995 and as such the version of PW1 that
he met with the accused on 03.04.1995 is doubtful. Now, on
perusal of the record clearly shows that even before the application
13
dated 06.04.1995, an earlier application (Ex 22) was already
submitted by PW1 and the same was collected during the course
of investigation and the Investigating Officer in his testimony
stated about collecting this application in course of investigation.
18. Another very important factum which missed the attention of
the High Court is that the incident took place in the year 1995, the
trial got delayed and after span of 10 years the witnesses were
subjected to their ocular testimony before the Court. PW 1 was
examined on 24.03.2005, PW 2 was examined on 22.08.2005 and
the other witnesses were examined in the year 2006. In view of
this fact, it can safely be said that the long span would certainly
result in some minor discrepancies in the version of the witness
particularly PW1 who is the rustic villager. The High Court ought
to have seen that these were some minor discrepancies and they
were not of such a nature so as to discard the other version of the
witnesses, particularly PW1 and PW2, which are truthful and
reliable.
19. The learned Trial Judge rightly made observation by
referring to this fact in the following words:
“The court is of the view that the trap is dated 07.04.1995
and PW1 is examined before the court on 24.03.2005 i.e.
almost after 10 years. Hence, possibility of lapse of
14
memory regarding the names of panchas and the date of
trap cannot be ruled out”.
20. PW2 gave a detailed account in his examination in chief and
also in his cross examination he re-affirmed that the accused
accepted the money, counted it and kept it in his pocket. The
trouser of the accused was seized and another trouser was
provided to the accused by police. PW 4 also supported the version
of PW 1 and PW2, particularly about the trap. It may also be noted
that though the aspect of grant of sanction was not seriously taken
up by the appellant before the High Court nor did the High Court
refer to the same, but the Trial Court dealt in detail with the fact
of sanction also by making reference to the oral evidence and the
documentary evidence and arrived at the conclusion that there
was a proper sanction in the matter supporting the case of
prosecution.
21. The other oral testimonies namely testimony of PW3, PW 4,
PW 5 and PW 6 also support the case of prosecution. The High
Court gave undue weightage to some confusion about the name of
PW2 and PW4 in the version of PW1 /complainant but as stated
above, the witnesses were subjected to testimony after 10 years
and PW 2 and PW 4 had no earlier acquaintance with the
15
complainant, as such some confusion in names of witness is
possible and thus, it is not sufficient to discard the version of PW
1 on this minor discrepancy alone.
22. It may not be necessary for us to refer to the version of other
witnesses in detail. Suffice to say that the Trial Court appreciated
this evidence in detail and accepted the same as the reliable
evidence in support of the prosecution by assigning the just and
cogent reasons.
23. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that that
the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond the
reasonable doubt and the charges against the accused namely
under Section 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act are
proved so as to hold the accused guilty of these offences.
24. On the contrary, the High Court committed the serious error
in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Needless to state
that in this situation the appeal needs to be allowed. In so far as,
the sentence awarded the accused is concerned the learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Nuli appearing for the respondent-accused attempt to
submit before this Court that as the incident is of the year 1995
and by passage of time now the accused in his advanced age, this
court may consider reducing the quantum of sentence. Somewhat
16
similar submission was made before the Trial Court that some
leniency be shown to the accused while awarding sentence and the
learned Trial judge in Para. 67 and 68 dealt with this aspect of
sentence in following words:
“67) In this case, the accused is convicted for the offence
under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of
P.C.Act 1988. As per Sec 7 of the P.C. Act, the punishment
provided is imprisonment which shall be not less than six
months but which may extend to five years, and shall
also be liable to fine. Further, Section 13 (2) of said Act
provides that any public servant who commits criminal is
conduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall be not less than one year but which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
68) So, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand, I feel that if the accused is sentenced to
undergo R.l. for one year pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo S.l. for one
month, for the offence under Sec. 7 of the P.C. Act, it will
meet the ends of justice. Likewise, if the accused is
sentenced to undergo R.l for one year and pay fine of Rs.
500/-,and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
S.l. for one month, for the offence under Sec. 13(1) (d) r/w
Sec 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, it will meet the ends of
justice.”
25. The record indicates that the respondent- accused enjoyed a
liberty during the trial as he was on bail and post the judgment of
the Trial Court as also during the pendency of the appeal before
the High court, he was enjoying the liberty by way of bail. As
such, we are unable to show any kind of indulgence on the aspect
17
of the quantum of sentence and accordingly, the conviction and
sentence recorded by the Trial Court is upheld. Resultantly, the
accused is to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks
from today.
26. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms
of the aforesaid observations.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall also be disposed of
accordingly.
...............................J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
….............................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025.
18