LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

illegal gratification= from the evidence of the witnesses that there was sufficient evidence of Syed Ahmed demanding illegal gratification from Nagaraja and receiving and accepting it when given by him. On this basis, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. With regard to the sentence awarded to Syed Ahmed, the High Court has erred in awarding a sentence of only three months rigorous imprisonment. Section 13(2) of the Act prescribes a minimum sentence of one year imprisonment. However, the State has not appealed against the quantum of sentence. Moreover, the incident is of 1993, which is about 19 years ago. Keeping these factors in mind, we do not propose to interfere with the sentence awarded. The appeal is dismissed.


                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1323 OF 2007


Syed Ahmed                                   …..Appellant

                 Versus

State of Karnataka                                …..Respondent


                               J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

      The Appellant (Syed  Ahmed)  was  acquitted  by  the  Trial  Court  of
offences under Sections 7 and  13(1)(d)  read  with  Section  13(2)  of  the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The acquittal was set aside by the  High
Court and he is aggrieved thereby. We are in agreement  with  the  order  of
conviction handed down by the High Court. We are not in agreement  with  the
sentence awarded, but  prefer  to  let  the  matter  rest.  Accordingly,  we
dismiss this appeal.
The facts:
      Nagaraja @ Nagarajegowda (PW1) and his father, Thimmegowda  (PW4)  are
owners of some land.  On 7th June, 1993 they had  a  boundary  dispute  with
their immediate neighbour, Channakeshavegowda which resulted in their  being
assaulted by him and others. Thimmegowda then  lodged  a  complaint  on  the
same day with the Konanur Police Station in this regard.
      According to Syed Ahmed  (a  police  officer  in  the  Konanur  Police
Station),  the  complaint  was  inquired  into  by  S.C.  Rangasetty  (PW7).
According to Nagaraja, illegal gratification was demanded by Syed  Ahmed  to
enable him to file a charge-sheet against Channakeshavegowda and  others  on
the complaint by Thimmegowda.
      The dispute between Thimmegowda and Channakeshavegowda  was,  however,
amicably resolved in a  few  days  time  and  the  settlement  entered  into
between them is Exhibit P.15 in the Trial Court.
      Unfortunately, on 27th June,  1993  a  boundary  dispute  again  arose
between Nagaraja and Thimmegowda on the one hand and Channakeshavegowda  and
others on the other. This resulted in Nagaraja lodging a  complaint  against
Channakeshavegowda  in  the  Konanur  Police  Station on  27th  June,  1993.
For inquiring into this complaint, Syed  Ahmed  allegedly  demanded  illegal
gratification from Nagaraja.
      Feeling aggrieved by the unlawful demand, Nagaraja lodged a  complaint
with the Lok Ayukta Police at Hassan on 28th  June,  1993.  The  Lok  Ayukta
Police decided to trap Syed Ahmed  while  demanding  and  accepting  illegal
gratification from Nagaraja. As per  the  arrangement  for  the  trap,  some
currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder  and  upon  delivery
of these tainted currency  notes  to  Syed  Ahmed,  his  fingers  would  get
smeared with the powder. Thereafter, on washing the  powdered  fingers  with
sodium carbonate solution, the resultant wash  would  turn  pink  indicating
thereby the physical receipt of the tainted currency by Syed Ahmed.
      Also, as  per  the  arrangements,  two  independent  persons  were  to
accompany Nagaraja to witness the transaction of  delivery  of  the  tainted
currency notes to Syed Ahmed.  The two independent  witnesses  in  the  case
are Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) and Keshavamurty (PW6).
      As per the plan chalked out by the Lok Ayukta  Police,  Nagaraja  went
to the Konanur Police Station to hand  over  the  illegal  gratification  to
Syed Ahmed. However, when he reached there, he was told that Syed Ahmed  was
available at the Inspection Bungalow.  Accordingly, Nagaraja  and  the  trap
party went to the Inspection Bungalow.
      At the Inspection Bungalow, the two independent  witnesses  positioned
themselves close to Syed Ahmed’s room. Nagaraja then entered  his  room  and
after a brief conversation with Syed Ahmed, he  handed  over  some  currency
notes to him.  Thereafter, Nagaraja exited from the room  and  gave  a  pre-
determined signal to the trap  party  who  reached  Syed  Ahmed’s  room  and
washed his hands with sodium carbonate  solution  which  turned  pink.  This
confirmed his physical receipt of the tainted currency notes from  Nagaraja.

      On these broad facts, the prosecution charged  Syed  Ahmed  (a  public
servant) with demanding and accepting illegal  gratification  from  Nagaraja
and thereby committing an offence under Sections 7 and  13(1)(d)  read  with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988  (for  short,  ‘the
Act’).
      The prosecution examined eight witnesses including Nagaraja (PW1)  and
the two independent trap witnesses Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) and  Keshavamurty
(PW6). In addition, the prosecution also examined Bistappa (PW3) the  scribe
of  the  complaint  dated  28th  June,  1993  to  the  Lok  Ayukta   Police;
Thimmegowda (Nagaraja’s father) as PW4; B. Pradeep Kumar  (PW5)  the  Police
Inspector of the Lok Ayukta Police, who  arranged  the  trap,  prepared  the
trap mahazar and investigated the case;  S.C.  Rangasetty  (PW7)  who  dealt
with the complaint  dated  7th  June,  1993  and  confirmed  the  settlement
Exhibit P.15. The officer who seized the samples relevant to  the  trap  and
sent them to Bangalore  for  analysis  and  then  received  the  report  was
examined as PW8. None of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
Trial Court judgment:
Upon a consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and the documents  on
record, the Trial Judge by his judgment and  order  dated  21st  July,  2000
concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove  its  case  against  Syed
Ahmed beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Syed Ahmed  was  acquitted  of
the charges leveled against him.
      The  Trial  Judge  held  that  the  dispute  between  Thimmegowda  and
Channakeshavegowda (of 7th June, 1993) was amicably  settled  and  so  there
was no occasion for Syed Ahmed to demand any gratification from Nagaraja  in
connection with that complaint. As far as the other dispute (of  27th  June,
1993) is concerned, it was held that Syed Ahmed had no role to  play  in  it
since he was not investigating that  complaint.  There  was,  therefore,  no
occasion for Syed Ahmed to demand any gratification from  Nagaraja.  On  the
contrary, it was held that Nagaraja had some enmity with  Syed  Ahmed  as  a
result of Nagaraja’s failure to return some village utensils, which  led  to
Syed Ahmed taking action against Nagaraja’s elder  brother  Thimmegowda.  It
was to wreak vengeance on Syed Ahmed because of  that  event  that  Nagaraja
filed a false complaint against him.
      The Trial Judge had  some  reservations  about  the  location  of  the
witnesses when the gratification was said to have been given to Syed  Ahmed.
The Trial Judge also held that Syed Ahmed’s wallet and  a  Rs.10/-  currency
note recovered therefrom ought to have been sent for  forensic  examination.
The Trial Judge also noted that there was an inconsistency in the  testimony
of the witnesses about the dress worn by Syed Ahmed when he  is  alleged  to
have taken the illegal gratification. Finally, the  Trial  Judge  held  that
the failure of the prosecution to produce the  complaint  dated  27th  June,
1993 made by Nagaraja against Channakeshavegowda was significant.
      Taking all these factors and  discrepancies  into  consideration,  the
Trial Judge did not accept the version  of  the  prosecution  and  acquitted
Syed Ahmed of the charges framed against him.
High Court judgment:
      On appeal by the State, a learned Single Judge of the  High  Court  of
Karnataka by his order dated 25th July, 2006  set  aside  the  judgment  and
order of the Trial Court and convicted Syed Ahmed for an offence  punishable
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section  13(2)  of  the  Act.   Syed
Ahmed was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a  period  of  three
months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default thereof  to  undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
      The High Court held that there was no reason to  disbelieve  Nagaraja,
nor  was  there  any  reason  to  disbelieve  Sidheshwara  Swamy  (PW2)  the
independent witness. It was also held that in view of Section  7(d)  of  the
Act, a public servant who is not in a position to do any favour to a  person
could also be deemed to commit an offence under the Act if  he  demands  and
accepts illegal gratification. As regards the discrepancies pointed  out  by
the Trial Court, the High Court found that they did not  dent  the  veracity
of Nagaraja (PW1) or of  Sidheshwara  Swamy  (PW2).  Accordingly,  the  High
court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted Syed Ahmed.
      Feeling aggrieved, Syed Ahmed preferred an appeal to this Court.
Statutory provisions:
      Section 7 of the Act, to the extent that we are  concerned,  reads  as
follows:
        “7.  Public  servant  taking   gratification   other   than   legal
        remuneration in respect of  an  official  act.—Whoever,  being,  or
        expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or  agrees  to
        accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for  himself  or  for
        any other person, any  gratification  whatever,  other  than  legal
        remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing  to  do
        any official act or for showing  or  forbearing  to  show,  in  the
        exercise of his official functions,  favour  or  disfavour  to  any
        person or for rendering or attempting  to  render  any  service  or
        disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any  State
        Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any  State  or  with
        any local authority, corporation or Government company referred  to
        in clause (c) of Section 2, or with  any  public  servant,  whether
        named or otherwise, shall be  punishable  with  imprisonment  which
        shall be not less than six months but  which  may  extend  to  five
        years and shall also be liable to fine.


        Explanations.—(a) xxx xxx xxx.
        (b) xxx xxx xxx.
        (c) xxx xxx xxx.


        (d) “A motive or  reward  for  doing.”  A  person  who  receives  a
        gratification as a motive or reward for  doing  what  he  does  not
        intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within
        this expression.


        (e) xxx xxx xxx.”




      Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act read as follows:
           “Section 13 - Criminal, misconduct by a public servant

           (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence  of  criminal
           misconduct, —


           (a)  xxx xxx xxx


           (b)  xxx xxx xxx      


           (c)  xxx xxx xxx


           (d) if he,—


           (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for  any
           other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or


           (ii) by abusing his position as a public  servant,  obtains  for
           himself or for any other person any valuable thing or  pecuniary
           advantage; or


           (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for  any
           person any valuable thing or  pecuniary  advantage  without  any
           public, interest; or


           (e) xxx xxx xxx


           Explanation.—


           xxx xxx xxx


           (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct 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.”


Preliminary submissions and conclusions:
      Learned counsel for Syed Ahmed contended that the High Court ought not
to have interfered with the order of acquittal given by the Trial Judge.  In
this context, reference was made to the principles laid down  in  Chandrappa
v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, namely:-
        “(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate  and
        reconsider the evidence  upon  which  the  order  of  acquittal  is
        founded.


        (2) The Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973  puts  no  limitation,
        restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate
        court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion,  both
        on questions of fact and of law.


        (3) Various  expressions,  such  as,  “substantial  and  compelling
        reasons”,   “good   and   sufficient   grounds”,    “very    strong
        circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring  mistakes”,  etc.
        are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate  court
        in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in  the
        nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the  reluctance  of
        an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail  the
        power of the court to review the evidence and to come  to  its  own
        conclusion.
        (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case  of
        acquittal, there is double presumption in favour  of  the  accused.
        Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the
        fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that  every  person
        shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved  guilty  by  a
        competent court of law. Secondly, the accused  having  secured  his
        acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further  reinforced,
        reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.


        (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of  the
        evidence on record, the appellate  court  should  not  disturb  the
        finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”




      While culling out the above principles, this  Court  referred  to  and
relied  upon  over  a  dozen  earlier  decisions.  These   principles   were
reiterated recently in Jugendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 (5) SCALE  691.
We do not think it necessary to burden this decision  with  the  very  large
number of citations on the subject. Suffice it to say that these  principles
are now well settled.
      It is also necessary to appreciate the ingredients of the offence  for
which Syed Ahmed was convicted. This is necessary for understanding  whether
or not the Trial Judge correctly applied the law on the subject.
      Learned counsel relied upon State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao (2011)  6  SCC
450 and Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, (2010) 4  SCC  450  and  contended
that “mere recovery of tainted money, divorced  from  the  circumstances  in
which it is paid,  is  not  sufficient  to  convict  the  accused  when  the
substantive evidence in the case is not reliable”.  It  was  also  contended
that the  prosecution  should,  additionally,  prove  that  payment  to  the
accused was by way of a reward for doing or proposing to do a favour to  the
complainant.
      We are in agreement with learned counsel on this issue and it  is  for
this reason that we went through the evidence on record.
      We must add that on a reading of the provisions of the Act, it is also
necessary for the  prosecution  to  prove  that  the  person  demanding  and
accepting gratification is a public servant. In so far as the  present  case
is concerned, there is no dispute that Syed Ahmed is a public  servant.  The
prosecution must  also  prove  a  demand  for  gratification  and  that  the
gratification has been given to  the  accused.  If  these  basic  facts  are
proved, the accused may be found guilty of an offence under  the  provisions
of law that concern us in this case.
      Viewed in this light, the inquiry by the Trial  Judge  ought  to  have
been somewhat limited and confined to the question of a demand  for  illegal
gratification by Syed Ahmed, meeting that demand by Nagaraja and  acceptance
of the illegal gratification by  Syed  Ahmed.  Of  course,  Syed  Ahmed  was
entitled to put forward his defence, which was required to be considered  by
the Trial Judge. However, in this case, no defence was put forward,  but  an
attempt was made to discredit the witnesses.
      Given the law laid down by this Court, we are of the opinion that  the
High Court did not  commit  any  error  in  reappraising  the  evidence  for
arriving at the truth of the matter. The High Court  also  rightly  confined
itself to the core issues before it in concluding the guilt of Syed Ahmed.
Submissions on merits and conclusions:
      On the merits of the case, learned counsel made  several  submissions.
It was submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that Syed  Ahmed
made any demand for gratification  or  received  and  accepted  any  illegal
gratification.
      This contention does not appeal to us, particularly  in  view  of  the
unshaken testimony of Nagaraja (PW1) and the corroborative evidence  of  the
eye witness Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2).  This witness was near the  window  and
just  outside  the  room  occupied  by  Syed  Ahmed.  He  refers   to   some
conversation that took place between Syed Ahmed and Nagaraja in a  low  tone
and which he could not hear. Thereafter, this  witness  specifically  states
that Syed Ahmed asked Nagaraja if he had brought what he was told to  bring.
 Nagaraja replied  in  the  affirmative  and  thereupon  Nagaraja  gave  the
tainted currency notes to Syed Ahmed, which he  accepted.  Thereafter,  Syed
Ahmed kept the tainted currency notes in a purse which was  then  placed  in
the pocket of his trousers hung on the wall. There is,  therefore,  a  clear
statement of Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2), which has not been  shaken  in  cross-
examination, to the effect that there was a demand  for  some  gratification
by Syed Ahmed from Nagaraja and that Nagaraja paid some money to Syed  Ahmed
by way of gratification. The ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act  are
fulfilled in this case and have been proved beyond any doubt.
      We agree with the High Court  that  in  view  of  Explanation  (d)  to
Section 7 of the Act, the issue  whether  Syed  Ahmed  could  or  could  not
deliver results (as it were) becomes irrelevant in view  of  the  acceptance
of the testimony of Nagaraja (PW1) and Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2).
      It was then contended that the High Court overlooked the fact that the
complaint dated 7th June, 1993 made by Thimmegowda  had  been  settled  vide
Exhibit P.15 and that the subsequent complaint  made  by  Nagaraja  on  27th
June, 1993 was not available on the record. It was  submitted  that  in  the
absence of the basic document, that is the complaint dated 27th  June,  1993
the case of the prosecution could not stand scrutiny.
      We are unable to accept this submission.   The  basis  of  the  action
against Syed Ahmed was not the complaint  dated  27th  June,  1993  but  the
complaint dated 28th June, 1993 made by Nagaraja to the Lok  Ayukta  Police.
This complaint is on the record and  is  marked  as  Exhibit  P.3.   In  the
complaint,  it  is  alleged,  that   Syed   Ahmed   had   demanded   illegal
gratification from Nagaraja and it is on a follow up of this complaint  that
arrangements were made to lay a trap against  Syed  Ahmed.  Learned  counsel
is, therefore, in error in assuming  that  action  against  Syed  Ahmed  was
based on the complaint dated 27th June, 1993.  As mentioned above,  this  is
factually not so.
      As regards settlement of the dispute  referred  to  in  the  complaint
dated 7th June, 1993 in our opinion that would not take away  the  substance
of the issue before us, namely, whether Syed  Ahmed  demanded  and  accepted
illegal gratification from Nagaraja or not. But, it is  submitted  that  the
complaint against Syed Ahmed was motivated. This is  traced  to  an  earlier
dispute between Nagaraja’s elder brother (also named Thimmegowda)  and  Syed
Ahmed. It appears that  sometime  in  May,  1993  Nagaraja  had  taken  some
utensils belonging to the village community for performing the  marriage  of
his younger brother. These utensils were  retained  by  Nagaraja  for  quite
some time. A complaint came to be made against  Thimmegowda  (PW4)  in  this
regard and at that time, Syed Ahmed assaulted Thimmegowda (elder brother  of
Nagaraja) for not promptly returning the utensils.  Due  to  this  incident,
and by way of revenge, Syed Ahmed is said to have  been  falsely  implicated
by Nagaraja.
      We are not inclined to give much weight to this incident.  The  reason
is that the issue regarding the return of utensils was settled as  testified
by Nagaraja and  S.C.  Rangasetty  (PW7).  In  addition,  we  find  that  no
suggestion was given by Syed Ahmed to any  witness  that  the  complaint  of
28th June, 1993 was a result  of  this  particular  incident.  Even  in  his
statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal  Procedure  Code,  Syed
Ahmed does not make out a case that that incident had some nexus  with  this
complaint. Also, if anybody had to have any grievance  in  this  regard,  it
would be Thimmegowda (elder brother of Nagaraja) and not Nagaraja. In  fact,
it appears that  Nagaraja  was  not  particularly  happy  with  his  brother
because he says  in  his  cross  examination  that  during  1993-94  he  was
managing the family affairs since his father was aged  and  infirm  and  his
elder brother was a drunkard.
      The next two submissions of learned counsel were to the effect that  a
currency note of Rs.10/- recovered from the wallet of Syed Ahmed and  indeed
the wallet also were not sent for  forensic  examination  to  ascertain  the
presence of phenolphthalein powder. Moreover, there is nothing on record  to
indicate what eventually happened to that currency note.
      We cannot see relevance of these submissions.  What we  are  concerned
with is whether Syed Ahmed had demanded illegal gratification from  Nagaraja
and whether he had received and accepted  that  illegal  gratification.  The
tainted currency notes given to Syed  Ahmed  as  illegal  gratification  are
material and not the untreated Rs.10/- currency note or the wallet in  which
all the currency notes were kept. These are minor issues that have  no  real
bearing on the controversy on hand.
      The final contention was that there is considerable  doubt  about  the
attire of Syed Ahmed at the time  of  receiving  the  illegal  gratification
from Nagaraja. It is pointed out that Nagaraja stated that  Syed  Ahmed  had
kept the tainted currency notes in a purse and that the purse  was  kept  in
the hip pocket of his trousers.  It is suggested  by  learned  counsel  that
this would indicate that Syed Ahmed was wearing trousers at  that  point  of
time.
      In his cross-examination also, Nagaraja stated  that  Syed  Ahmed  was
wearing his uniform  when  the  illegal  gratification  was  given  to  him.
According to learned counsel, both these statements confirm that Syed  Ahmed
was wearing his trousers when the concerned incident took place.
      In this context, reference was made to the  testimony  of  Sidheshwara
Swamy (PW2) who stated that Syed Ahmed kept the tainted currency notes in  a
purse which he put in the pocket of his trousers hanging on a wall.  In  his
cross-examination this witness stated that at the relevant time, Syed  Ahmed
was sitting on a cot wearing a vest and a lungi.
      On this basis, it is submitted by learned  counsel  that  there  is  a
discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses with regard to the dress  worn
by Syed Ahmed when he was sought to be trapped. It is submitted  by  learned
counsel that the discrepancy casts a doubt on the correctness of the  events
said to have taken place on 28th June, 1993 and the benefit of this must  go
to Syed Ahmed.
      In our opinion, the discrepancy with regard  to  the  attire  of  Syed
Ahmedthe Rs.10/- currency note and the forensic examination  of  the  wallet
are rather minor matters. What is a minor discrepancy?  This  has  been  the
subject matter of discussion in Abdul Nawaz v. State of  West  Bengal,  2012
(5) SCALE  357  and  Jugendra  Singh.  After  referring  to  a  few  earlier
decisions of this Court, it was held that a discrepancy would  be  minor  if
it did not affect the substratum of the prosecution’s case or impact on  the
core issue. In such an event, the minor discrepancy could be ignored.
      As far as we are concerned,  whether  the  absence  of  the  Rs.  10/-
currency note could or could not be explained or  why  Syed  Ahmed’s  wallet
was not sent for forensic examination or whether he was wearing trousers  or
a lungi at the relevant point of time are matters of minor detail  which  do
not impact on the substratum of the prosecution’s case. We are  required  to
look at the core issue and  at  the  overall  picture  of  the  events  that
transpired on 28th June, 1993 and not get diverted  by  minor  discrepancies
or trivialities.
      It is while undertaking this exercise that we find from  the  evidence
of the witnesses that there was sufficient evidence of Syed Ahmed  demanding
illegal gratification from Nagaraja and  receiving  and  accepting  it  when
given by him. On this basis,  we  find  no  reason  to  interfere  with  the
judgment and order under appeal.
      With regard to the sentence awarded to Syed Ahmed, the High Court  has
erred in awarding a sentence of only  three  months  rigorous  imprisonment.
Section 13(2)  of  the  Act  prescribes  a  minimum  sentence  of  one  year
imprisonment. However, the State has not appealed  against  the  quantum  of
sentence. Moreover, the incident is of 1993, which is about  19  years  ago.
Keeping these factors in mind, we do  not  propose  to  interfere  with  the
sentence awarded.
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                                           ….…….……………………..J.
                                        (A.K. Patnaik)


                                                           ….…….……………………..J.
New Delhi;                                   (Madan B. Lokur)
July 31, 2012