Back
2003(8) Supreme 804
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
A. Abdul Kaffar -Appellant
versus
State of Kerala -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 1997
Decided on 18-12-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Fazlin Anam, E.M.S. Anam and Adolf Mathew, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Ramesh Babu M.R., Advocate.
Held : According to the prosecution on 6.4.1989 at about 5 p.m. the accused received Rs. 10,000 as an illegal gratification for showing official favour to PW-1 in the Tourist Home where the appellant was staying. According to the appellant, he received the said sum of money as advance payment of sales-tax due from the appellant. In support of this contention the appellant relies upon the copy of the receipt found in the receipt register giving the particulars of the receipt of the money and the endorsement made at the back to the effect that the money in question could not be deposited in the treasury for want of time. There is no dispute that such a receipt book was produced by the appellant during the course of investigation but the question is: is the receipt contained in the said book pertaining to the payment of money by the appellant a genuine receipt or not? PW-1 denies the fact that the appellant had ever given him an official receipt for payment of advance tax. He also denies that the said amount was paid to the appellant as advance-tax. In this process if we examine the conduct of the appellant, we notice that when the appellant was arrested at about 6.30 p.m. on 6.3.1989 or 9 p.m. (as the case may be) on the same day, he did not tell the I.O. that he had received the money as part payment of tax due from PW-1 and had issued a receipt for the same. If really the appellant had on receipt of the money from PW-1 given him any official receipt as now contended by the appellant then he would not have forgotten to tell the I.O. as to the issuance of an official receipt to PW-1 or as to the existence of a receipt book in which a duplicate copy of the receipt was maintained because that would have been a clinching defence for the appellant to prove that the money in question was not received as an illegal gratification. The very fact that he failed to mention this to the I.O. at the first available opportunity, shows that this defence is not genuine. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant however submitted that due to the mental state of the appellant at the time of arrest it is possible that the appellant forgot to mention that part of his defence that he had issued a receipt and a copy of the receipt book was available with him. We do not think this is an acceptable excuse. If really the appellant had given a receipt to PW-1 immediately on receipt of Rs. 10,000 in the Tourist Home where he was staying then the receipt book must have been there when the raiding party entered his room. There could be no reason for him to either forget to tell the I.O. about the receipt having been given to PW-1 or in offering the receipt book to the I.O. From the sequence of events it can be seen that if really the appellant had issued a receipt to PW-1 on receiving the money, then the raiding party would have noticed the same because they came immediately after the money was received. Therefore, the only conclusion available on this point is that the receipt was prepared by the appellant after he was released on bail and the same is now sought to be utilised as a defence for the money received which we think is unacceptable. Since this is the only question for our consideration, this finding of ours should be sufficient to dismiss this appeal. (Para 6)
JUDGMENT
Santosh Hegde, J.-The appellant herein was charged of offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act) and sections 201 and 477-A of the IPC. The Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge, Thrissur, found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months on that count. He also found him guilty under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) and sentenced him to undergo 2 years RI. He also found the appellant guilty under section 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 6 months RI, while he found the appellant not guilty of offence punishable under section 477-A IPC and acquitted him of the said charge.
2. In an appeal filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, the High Court agreed with the finding of the trial court on all counts and affirmed the judgment of the trial court by dismissing the said appeal. It is against the said judgment of the courts below the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. The prosecution case briefly stated is that when the appellant was working as a Sales-tax-cum-Agricultural Income Tax Officer in Devikulam Range of Idukki district in Kerala, he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 from the appellant sometime in the month of February, 1989 for showing official favour to PW-1 in regard to proposed assessment of his turnover which according to the prosecution would in the normal course be about Rs. 8 lacs. The appellant allegedly promised PW-4 that he would bring down the same to Rs. 2 lacs if he was paid the said sum of money. The appellant allegedly told PW-1 that he could pay the amount on a day convenient to him preferably in March, 1989 when he was to visit Munnar. It is the case of PW-1 that on such demand being made by the appellant, he contacted PW-13 who was then working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police at Idukki who, on receipt of said complaint of PW-1, registered a case under section 7 of the Act and laid a trap according to which PW-1 was to carry Rs. 10,000 in currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination which were marked and smeared with phenolphthalein powder. PW-1 was then directed to approach the appellant with instructions to hand over the said money to the appellant who was then staying in S.N. Tourist Home at Munnar. It is prosecution case that on the money being paid by PW-1 to the appellant, PW-13 and other witnesses to the trap approached the appellant who on being questioned admitted having received the said money but told the I.O. and others that the said money was received by him not as bribe but as advance payment from PW-1 towards his sales-tax dues. Being not satisfied with the explanation given by the appellant and after further investigation, he was charged for offences punishable as stated above and after trial was found guilty by the trial court as well as the High Court.
4. Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that since it is the defence of the appellant that the amount in question was paid by PW-1 to him on 6.4.1989 at the Tourist Home where he was staying, the sole question that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the said amount was received as a bribe or advance payment towards the sales-tax dues of PW-1 s firm. He submitted that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses themselves, it is clear that the sales-tax department had evolved a scheme for an effective and quick collection of sales-tax dues by which the Officers were directed to collect sales-tax dues even in cash wherever so offered and remit the same to the local treasury and it is in this process that PW-1 had paid Rs. 10,000 to the appellant. He also submitted that there was a raid earlier in the premises of the firm belonging to the appellant who was running a liquor shop and the firm was an unregistered firm and assessment and other penalty proceedings were going on against PW-1 s firm because of which r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
