Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 82 of 2004
PETITIONER:
State Through Inspector of Police, A.P.
RESPONDENT:
K. Narasimhachary
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/10/2005
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & R.V. Raveendran
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J :
The State is in appeal before us from a judgment of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court dated 20.03.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.1058 of 1996,
recording a finding of acquittal as against the Respondent, upon reversing a
judgment passed by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, dated
06.12.1996 convicting the Respondent herein for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13(3) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ’the Act’) and sentencing him
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/-.
The Respondent herein was a Mandal Revenue Inspector in the office
of Mandal Revenue Office, Cuddapah in the year 1994. The complainant
(PW-1) was the owner of some immovable property situated within the
jurisdiction of the said Mandal Office. He intended to get himself registered
as a contractor with the Public Works Department wherefor a certificate as
regard valuation of his property was necessary. An application to that effect
was filed before the Mandal Revenue Officer (PW-3) on 01.03.1994. The
Mandal Revenue Officer adopted a peculiar procedure by putting his initial
thereon and handed over the same to PW-1 himself and asked him to give it
to the accused. When PW1 handed over application to the accused on the
same day, he is said to have asked him to present the same before the
Village Administrative Officer (PW-4) and to bring cultivation accounts
relating to his lands and certain statements. PW-4 thereafter recorded the
statements of PW-1 and his grandmother. He granted his own (VAO’s)
Statement, statement of PW-1, his grandmother and village elders as also
certified copies of Adangals, extracts (revenue records) marked as Exs.P-2
to P-6 to the said PW-1. PW-1 allegedly handed over the same to the
Respondent on 02.03.1994. The Respondent is said to have demanded a
sum of Rs.1,000/- for issuance of the property valuation certificate. He on
the next day i.e. on 03.03.1994 met the Respondent at the office of PW-3
and upon negotiation, the amount of alleged illegal gratification was
reduced to Rs.600/- from Rs.1000/-. A complaint was made to the ACB on
05.03.1994 at 6.35 A.M. A trap was laid at 12.30 P.M. on the same day
upon complying with the usual formalities. A sum of Rs.600/- in the
denomination of Rs.50/- is said to have been recovered from the Respondent
allegedly kept by him in his right pocket of the trouser.
The defence of the Respondent was that certificate valuing the
complainant’s land for a sum of Rs. one lac was submitted on 04.03.1993
itself whereas PW-1 wanted that the valuation of the lands should be made
three lacs; and as the Respondent did not oblige, PW-1 bore grudge against
him as a result he was falsely implicated.
The learned Special Judge framed as many as five issues and
answered them against the Respondent by a judgment dated 6.12.1996,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
holding the Respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.
On appeal, the High Court reversed the said findings, inter alia,
holding that the order of sanction dated 1.5.1995 was not proved by PW-6 in
accordance with law. On merit of the matter also, the High Court opined
that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the
Respondent.
Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant, in assailing the impugned judgment, would contend that the High
Court committed an error in holding that the order of sanction was not
admissible in evidence having not been proved by PW-6 in accordance with
law.
The learned counsel also took us through the evidences of the
prosecution witnesses and submitted that PW-3 and PW-5 corroborated the
evidence of the complainant (PW-1). It was contended that the fact that the
Respondent was merely a recommending authority and not the final
authority for the purpose of grant of a valuation certificate cannot be treated
to be a ground for disbelieving the entire prosecution case.
Mr. Srinivas R. Rao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the prosecution was bound
to prove the order of sanction in accordance with law. The learned counsel
in this behalf relied upon a decision of this Court in R.J. Singh Ahuluwalia
vs. The State of Delhi [(1970) 3 SCC 451].
The learned counsel would take us through the judgment of the High
Court and submit that the High Court has taken into consideration all the
facts and circumstances of this case in arriving at a finding that the State has
not been able to prove its case against the Respondent.
The order of sanction dated 02.03.1995 has been produced in
original. The order of sanction is a Government Order No.GOMs. No.76
dated 02.03.1995
A bare perusal of the order of sanction shows that the allegation as
against the Respondent herein for taking into consideration that the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, who was the competent authority to remove
the said Sri K. Narasimha Chari, Mandal Revenue Inspector, Cuddapah,
from the Government Service, after fully and carefully examining the
material placed before them in respect of the said allegations and having
regard to the circumstances of the case considered that the Respondent
should be prosecuted in the court of law; whereupon the order of sanction
was issued in the name of the Governor. Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy,
Secretary to the Government, merely authenticated the said order of sanction
which was issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The
order of sanction was, thus, issued by the State in discharge of its statutory
functions in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The order of sanction was
authenticated. The said order of sanction was an executive action of a State
having been issued in the name of the Governor. It was authenticated in the
manner specified in the Rules of Executive Business. The authenticity of the
said order has not been questioned. It was, therefore, a public document
within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-6 proved
the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy. He identified his signature.
He was not cross-examined on the premise that he did not know the
signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy. In answer to the only question put
to him, he stated "By the time the Secretary signed in Ex.P.17 I was in
G.A.D."
Nothing was, thus, elicited in the cross-examination of the said
witness to show that he was not a competent witness to identify the
signature of Shri Madanmohan Reddy.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
The Respondent, therefore, allowed the said document to be exhibited
without any demur. He did not question the admissibility of the said
document before the Trial Court, either when the same was exhibited or at
the final hearing before the trial court. He, therefore, could not be permitted
to question the admissibility of the said document for the first time before
the appellate court. [See Ranvir Singh and Another Vs. Union of India,
2005 AIR SCW 4565 : 2005 (7) SCALE 238].
A public document can be proved in terms of Sections 76 to 78 of the
Evidence Act. A public document can be proved otherwise also. The High
Court, therefore, was not correct in invoking the provisions of Section 47 of
the Indian Evidence Act in the instant case as it was not called upon to form
an opinion as to by whom the said order of sanction was written and signed.
PW-6 was not examined as an expert or was required to give his opinion as
regard the correctness or otherwise of the signature of the said N.
Madanmohan Reddy. The authenticity of the said document was never in
question.
The High Court relied upon a decision of this Court in Gulzar Ali vs.
State of H.P. [(1998) 2 SCC 192], wherein this Court observed :
"It must be remembered that expert evidence regarding
handwriting is not the only mode by which genuineness
of a document can be established. The requirement in
Section 67 of the Evidence Act is only that the
handwriting must be proved to be that of the person
concerned. In order to prove the identity of the
handwriting any mode not forbidden by law can be
resorted to. Of course, two modes are indicated by law in
Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act. The former
permits expert opinion to be regarded as relevant
evidence and the latter permits opinion of any person
acquainted with such handwriting to be regarded as
relevant evidence. Those and some other provisions are
subsumed under the title "Opinion of third persons, when
relevant". Opinions of third persons, other than those
enumerated in the fasciculus of provisions, would have
been irrelevant. Among the permitted opinions those
mentioned in Sections 45 and 47 are also included. So it
cannot be said that identity of handwriting of a document
can be established only by resorting to one of those two
sections. There can be other modes through which
identity of the handwriting can be established\005"
It is, therefore, evident that the High Court misread and misconstrued
the law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned decision. It also
wrongly applied Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act.
In R.J. Singh Ahuluwalia (supra), this Court was concerned with the
validity of the sanction; inasmuch as therein the Home Ministry, which was
the sanctioning authority did not make any sanction, as a result whereof it
was conceded by the State that in absence thereof the prosecution must fail.
In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1979) 4 SCC
172], the order of sanction was found to be invalid as the sanctioning
authority did not duly apply its mind.
Therein this Court held that an order of valid sanction can be proved
by the Sanctioning Authority in two ways : either (1) by producing the
original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and
the grounds of satisfaction; or (2) by adducing evidence aliunde to show that
the facts were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction
arrived at by it. In this case, the original order of sanction has been
produced.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
So far as the merit of the matter is concerned, as would appear from
the discussions made hereinbefore that the prosecution case is not entirely
free from doubt. PW-1 intended to obtain a signature as regard valuation of
his lands so as to enable him to get himself registered with the Public Works
Department as a contractor. He went to PW-3. PW-3 did not send the same
to the Respondent by following the existing procedure. He merely initialed
the same and handed over it back to PW-1 allegedly for the purpose of
giving it to the Respondent who in turn asked to take it to PW-4.
It is really curious that when PW-1 handed over the application to
PW-4 on 2.3.1994, on the same day his statement as also the statement of
his grandmother were recorded and all the documents, namely, Ext. P-2 and
P-6 were handed over by him to PW-1 who in turn handed them over to the
Respondent. It was at this stage the purported demand was said to have been
made. Strangely enough he met the Respondent in the evening of
03.03.1994, although a demand was said to have been made by the
Respondent on 02.03.1994 in the office, presumably after office hours and
then the amount of gratification was reduced from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.600/-.
PW-1 did not make any complaint to PW-3 on the said date i.e. 03.03.1994
and even on 04.03.1994, although from the conduct of PW-1 and PW-3, it is
evident that they were very close to each other. PW-3 apparently intended to
help him out of way. The valuation certificate was sent to PW-3 by the
Respondent on 04.03.1994 which was signed by PW-3 on the same day. It
was also certified by PW-4. It is wholly unlikely that although his demand
was not met, the Respondent would forward his certificate to PW-3. The
natural conduct of the Respondent, if he had in fact demanded any amount
by way of gratification, would have been to wait for PW-1 to meet his
demand.
It is not in dispute that it was PW-4, who was to evaluate the property
and it was PW-3 who was to grant the certificate. The Respondent was
merely a recommending authority. In the aforementioned situation, the High
Court has arrived at the following findings :
"\005The evidence on record in this case discloses that
Ex.P1 was submitted by PW1 directly to PW3 and it has
moved with almost jet speed. The local verification,
recording of statements, furnishing of certified copies of
revenue record etc., had taken place within one day. The
file reached PW3, in all probability on 03.03.1994 and he
signed on the next day. PW3 was very much accessible
to PW-1. If he sensed and delay or if there were any
hindrances, he could have brought the same to the notice
of PW.3 himself. When PW3 received Ex.P1 directly
from PW.1 without any objection, there should not have
been any impediment in handing over the Ex.P.8 to PW.1
directly. The accused was neither the issuing authority
nor was the outward clerk. He figured somewhere in
between. The handing over of Ex.P8 by PW3 to the
accused appears to be deliberate and planned.
Suggestions to PW3 that he was suspended for certain
irregularities on earlier occasion, he bore grudge against
the accused and wanted to implicate him gains credence
in this regard."
Shri K. Kumar (PW-8) was the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
ACB, at Tirupathi. On 05.03.1994, he was at Cuddapah. According to PW-
1, he approached PW-8 at 6.35 a.m., whereas according to PW-8, he came to
him at 8.00 a.m. The mediators were summoned and the trap was laid after
making all arrangements therefor at about 12.30 p.m. After the transaction
was completed, the Respondent was found having not only the tainted
amount of Rs.600/- but also a sum of Rs.235/- in different denominations
and wads. Why the said amount of Rs.235/- which was recovered from the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
right pocket of the accused was not subjected to phenolphthalein test is a
matter of guess. The amount of Rs.235/- was kept in the same pocket of his
trouser, it must have come in contact with the tainted amount.
PW-1 appears to be an influential person. He could approach PW-3
directly. He was in a position to obtain a certificate, copies of various
documents from PW-4 on the same day as also obtain a certificate from him
on the same day. Thus, as the valuation certificate was sent to PW-3 by the
Respondent on 04.03.1994, there does not appear to be any good reason as
to why PW-1 would not come to know thereabout. According to him, he
came to know that PW-8 was at Cuddapah and be approached him in the
early morning at 6.35 on 05.03.1994.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of
the opinion that two views are possible and the view of the High Court
cannot be said to be wholly improbable; it cannot be said, in view of the
discussions made hereinbefore, that the materials brought on records would
lead to only one conclusion, i.e., the guilt of the accused. The impugned
judgment, therefore, is sustained.
For the reasons aforementioned, we do not intend to interfere with the
impugned judgment of the High Court. The Appeal is dismissed
accordingly.