Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2008
State of Kerala Appellant(s)
VERSUS
P. Muhammed Noushad Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the State against the final judgment and
order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2000 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court
set aside the order dated 29.07.2000 passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No.
21 of 1999 convicting the respondent herein for the offences punishable
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act”) and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years
with a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
one year under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment for a
term of four years under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
P.C. Act.
2) In short, the case of the prosecution was as under:
The respondent-accused was a Village officer, Vijayapuram in Kottayam
District. There was a property dispute between PW-2 (Complainant) and his
sister-in-law. The sister-in-law submitted a complaint to the District
Collector on 01.09.1998. The District Collector (PW-1) immediately
directed an enquiry through the respondent-Village Officer (accused) and
directed him to submit a report before 15.09.1998.
3) On 10.09.1998, the respondent-accused demanded gratification of
Rs.500/- from PW-2 for forwarding a favourable enquiry report to the
District Magistrate. On the same day, the complainant paid the accused a
sum of Rs.300/-. Thereafter on 19.09.1998, the accused demanded the
balanced sum of Rs.200/- from PW-2 and agreed to send a favourable report.
4) On 24.09.1998, PW-2 reported the illegal demand of the accused to the
officials of vigilance department. Thereafter, on 26.09.1998, PW-2 made a
formal complaint (Ex.P-3), F.I. statement and produced M.O.1 notes (two
notes of hundred rupees denomination) each before the Vigilance officer.
5) After registering the FIR, the Dy.S.P. affixed identification marks
on the notes and after applying Phenolphthalein powder on the notes, placed
them in the pocket of PW-2 with a direction to make the payment to the
accused if, demanded.
6) At the time of trap, PW-3 (Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
Erattupetta) and Additional Tahsildar, Taluk Officer, Meenachil (PW-4) were
present. After completion of the formalities of the trap team, PW-2 alone
went inside the village officer’s room. On seeing PW-2, the accused asked
for the balanced amount and PW-2 tendered the amount to the accused, who
after receiving the same placed the same in his shirt’s pocket.
7) Thereafter, PW-2 came out of the room and conveyed the signal and the
trap team arrived there. After investigation, the accused was apprehended
and subsequently charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 7
and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act against the
accused.
8) During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and the
defence examined three witnesses.
9) By order dated 29.07.2000 the trial Judge convicted the accused
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years with a fine
of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year
under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment for a term of
four years under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
10) Challenging the said order, the accused filed an appeal before the
High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court by impugned order dated
09.08.2004 set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the respondent
of the charges leveled against him.
11) The High Court appreciated the evidence and on its appreciation
recorded its disagreement with the reasoning of the Trial Court. The High
Court held that it is not satisfactorily proved that how the currency notes
reached in the pocket of accused. It is also not proved that colour of
currency note did not turn pink. In the opinion of the High Court when
these two material facts were not satisfactorily proved with the aid of
evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused is entitled to claim the
benefit of doubt and hence can not be convicted for the offences in
question. It is with these findings, the High Court allowed the appeal
filed by the accused and set aside his conviction.
12) Aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed this appeal by way
special leave before this Court.
13) Heard Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant-
State and Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, learned counsel for the respondent-accused.
14) As mentioned above, this is a case where the Trial Court convicted
the accused-respondent of the offences alleged against him under the PC Act
whereas the High Court on appreciation of evidence finding fault in the
manner of appreciation done by the Trial Court reversed the judgment of the
Trial Court and acquitted the respondent on the findings mentioned in para
11 giving rise to filing of this appeal by the State.
15) We have perused the order of the High Court. In our considered
opinion, the view taken by the High Court as detailed in para 11 above is
based on appreciation of evidence and the same was taken within its
jurisdiction. The High Court has given its reasoning as to why it has
reversed the finding of the Trial Court. It is one of the possible views,
which the High Court is capable to take on appreciation of evidence and it
has so taken.
16) It is a settled principle of law that if the view taken by the High
Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court appears to be just
and reasonable and which is supported by cogent reasoning then this Court
would not re-appreciate the evidence again especially when the appeal
arises out of the order of acquittal.
17) It is only when the High Court while reversing the judgment of the
Trial Court fails to record any reason or fails to appreciate the evidence
or when the High Court records any material finding which is wholly
perverse or against any provision of law, this Court would examine the
issues arising in the case and in appropriate case may interfere. Such is
not the case here.
18) In our view, the High Court has given cogent reasons in support of
its view and we have not been able to notice any infirmity or perversity in
the reasoning of the High Court, which may persuade us to interfere in the
impugned order. In these circumstances, there is no need to undertake the
exercise of appreciating the whole evidence in this appeal.
19) All the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant
(State) are on facts and involved appreciation of evidence. He was not able
to point out any legal or jurisdictional error or/and extreme perversity in
the reasoning of the High Court, which may persuade us to probe into
evidence de novo. We thus decline to accept the submissions and also
decline to re-appreciate the evidence.
20) In the light of foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the
appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.
.……...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………..................................J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
New Delhi,
June 29, 2016
-----------------------
11
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2008
State of Kerala Appellant(s)
VERSUS
P. Muhammed Noushad Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the State against the final judgment and
order dated 09.08.2004 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in
Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2000 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court
set aside the order dated 29.07.2000 passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No.
21 of 1999 convicting the respondent herein for the offences punishable
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act”) and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years
with a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
one year under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment for a
term of four years under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
P.C. Act.
2) In short, the case of the prosecution was as under:
The respondent-accused was a Village officer, Vijayapuram in Kottayam
District. There was a property dispute between PW-2 (Complainant) and his
sister-in-law. The sister-in-law submitted a complaint to the District
Collector on 01.09.1998. The District Collector (PW-1) immediately
directed an enquiry through the respondent-Village Officer (accused) and
directed him to submit a report before 15.09.1998.
3) On 10.09.1998, the respondent-accused demanded gratification of
Rs.500/- from PW-2 for forwarding a favourable enquiry report to the
District Magistrate. On the same day, the complainant paid the accused a
sum of Rs.300/-. Thereafter on 19.09.1998, the accused demanded the
balanced sum of Rs.200/- from PW-2 and agreed to send a favourable report.
4) On 24.09.1998, PW-2 reported the illegal demand of the accused to the
officials of vigilance department. Thereafter, on 26.09.1998, PW-2 made a
formal complaint (Ex.P-3), F.I. statement and produced M.O.1 notes (two
notes of hundred rupees denomination) each before the Vigilance officer.
5) After registering the FIR, the Dy.S.P. affixed identification marks
on the notes and after applying Phenolphthalein powder on the notes, placed
them in the pocket of PW-2 with a direction to make the payment to the
accused if, demanded.
6) At the time of trap, PW-3 (Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan,
Erattupetta) and Additional Tahsildar, Taluk Officer, Meenachil (PW-4) were
present. After completion of the formalities of the trap team, PW-2 alone
went inside the village officer’s room. On seeing PW-2, the accused asked
for the balanced amount and PW-2 tendered the amount to the accused, who
after receiving the same placed the same in his shirt’s pocket.
7) Thereafter, PW-2 came out of the room and conveyed the signal and the
trap team arrived there. After investigation, the accused was apprehended
and subsequently charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 7
and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act against the
accused.
8) During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and the
defence examined three witnesses.
9) By order dated 29.07.2000 the trial Judge convicted the accused
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years with a fine
of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year
under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment for a term of
four years under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
10) Challenging the said order, the accused filed an appeal before the
High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court by impugned order dated
09.08.2004 set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the respondent
of the charges leveled against him.
11) The High Court appreciated the evidence and on its appreciation
recorded its disagreement with the reasoning of the Trial Court. The High
Court held that it is not satisfactorily proved that how the currency notes
reached in the pocket of accused. It is also not proved that colour of
currency note did not turn pink. In the opinion of the High Court when
these two material facts were not satisfactorily proved with the aid of
evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused is entitled to claim the
benefit of doubt and hence can not be convicted for the offences in
question. It is with these findings, the High Court allowed the appeal
filed by the accused and set aside his conviction.
12) Aggrieved by the said order, the State has filed this appeal by way
special leave before this Court.
13) Heard Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant-
State and Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, learned counsel for the respondent-accused.
14) As mentioned above, this is a case where the Trial Court convicted
the accused-respondent of the offences alleged against him under the PC Act
whereas the High Court on appreciation of evidence finding fault in the
manner of appreciation done by the Trial Court reversed the judgment of the
Trial Court and acquitted the respondent on the findings mentioned in para
11 giving rise to filing of this appeal by the State.
15) We have perused the order of the High Court. In our considered
opinion, the view taken by the High Court as detailed in para 11 above is
based on appreciation of evidence and the same was taken within its
jurisdiction. The High Court has given its reasoning as to why it has
reversed the finding of the Trial Court. It is one of the possible views,
which the High Court is capable to take on appreciation of evidence and it
has so taken.
16) It is a settled principle of law that if the view taken by the High
Court while reversing the judgment of the Trial Court appears to be just
and reasonable and which is supported by cogent reasoning then this Court
would not re-appreciate the evidence again especially when the appeal
arises out of the order of acquittal.
17) It is only when the High Court while reversing the judgment of the
Trial Court fails to record any reason or fails to appreciate the evidence
or when the High Court records any material finding which is wholly
perverse or against any provision of law, this Court would examine the
issues arising in the case and in appropriate case may interfere. Such is
not the case here.
18) In our view, the High Court has given cogent reasons in support of
its view and we have not been able to notice any infirmity or perversity in
the reasoning of the High Court, which may persuade us to interfere in the
impugned order. In these circumstances, there is no need to undertake the
exercise of appreciating the whole evidence in this appeal.
19) All the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the appellant
(State) are on facts and involved appreciation of evidence. He was not able
to point out any legal or jurisdictional error or/and extreme perversity in
the reasoning of the High Court, which may persuade us to probe into
evidence de novo. We thus decline to accept the submissions and also
decline to re-appreciate the evidence.
20) In the light of foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the
appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.
.……...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………..................................J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
New Delhi,
June 29, 2016
-----------------------
11
