Back
2004 Supreme(SC) 1015
2004(6) Supreme 440
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
K.G. Balakrishnan & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
State of A.P. -Appellant
versus
K. Punardana Rao -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 1998
Decided on 3-9-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Guntur Prabhakar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Jaspal Singh, Sr. Advocate and D. Mahesh Babu, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
If there is perverse appreciation of evidence and serious miscarriage of justice, acquittal of accused is to be reversed.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)-Respondent-accused working as Commercial Tax Officer was convicted by trial Court for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 20,000/- from PW1, a proprietor of two firms-Accused was apprehended by a trap party-High Court in appeal rejected evidence of PW 1 and held it to be suspicious-State appeal-Defence offered by accused that PW1 visited his house and sought time for submitting account books and left the house and then DW 4, servant of accused, found a bundle of notes lying on sofa set appeared highly improbable-Phenolphthelein test conducted on hands pyjama and bed cover of accused proved to be positive-Explanation of accused that he shook hands with PW1 was highly improbable-Alibi set up by respondent was also not free from suspicion-Where appreciation of evidence by High Court was not in correct perspective and perverse appreciation resulted in serious miscarriage of justice, acquittal was to be reversed-Respondent was liable to be held guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for one year. (Paras 4 to 7)
JUDGMENT
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.-This is an appeal preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Nellore, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was working as a Commercial Tax Officer at Naidupet from 13.7.1991 to 22.8.1992. The de-facto complainant Badri Audhiseshaiah was the proprietor of two firms, by name, Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill & Company and Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders at Gudur. The complainant received notices from the respondent asking him to submit C Forms and affidavits and other account books relating to his firm. Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders. The prosecution case is that on 8.8.1992 at about 7.00 A.M., the complainant went to the house of the respondent and sought for a month s time for submission of accounts and other documents. The respondent refused to grant time and threatened that the complainant would be visited with penalty in case he failed to submit the books of accounts and other documents in time. Complainant made repeated requests and then the respondent agreed to extend the time provided the complainant paid him Rs. 25,000/- as bribe. The complainant said that the amount demanded was a huge amount and, therefore, the respondent reduced the amount to Rs. 20,000/- and wanted the complainant to pay the amount on the next day. The complainant on 8.8.1992 itself approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau office at Nellore and gave a statement before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who registered a case and decided to lay a trap. On 9.8.1992, at about 8.00 A.M., the complainant went to the house of the respondent and gave him Rs. 20,000/-. Trap party immediately intervened and Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from the possession of the respondent Officer. On being subjected to chemical test, the fingers of the respondent were found positive and the pyjama allegedly worn by the respondent-Officer was also found to be positive on chemical test. On the side of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined and Exhs. P1 to P25 and M.Ps. 1 to 10 were marked. The complainant was examined as PW 1. He deposed that he had met the respondent on 8.8.1992 when the latter demanded Rs. 25,000/- and on his request the amount was reduced to Rs. 20,000/- and that he paid that amount to the respondent on the next day. On the side of defence, DW 1 to DW 5 were also examined. The evidence of PW 1 was accepted by the Special Judge.
2. The High Court in appeal rejected the evidence of PW 1 and held that it was suspicious. The defence of the respondent was that on 8.8.1992, he was not at Nellore and that he had gone to Chirala and attended the Panchayat at the instance of DW 3 Major D. Samuel in Chirala. The respondent also contended that on chemical test his fingers were found to be positive only as he had shaken hands with PW-1 and his pyjama pockets were also contaminated with chemical substance as a mediator of the trap party had searched his pockets for the tainted money.
3. The learned Single Judge held that there were certain discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1. It was noted that the complainant received notice in respect of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill & Company whereas the assessment was in respect of M/s. Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders. PW 1 claimed that he was the proprietor of the M/s. Bharatha Lakshmi Traders as well as Shri Lakshmi Oil Mill & Company. Admittedly, the notices were issued by the respondent to the complainant. Whether the assessment related to M/s. Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill & Company or M/s Bharatha Lakshmi Traders is inconsequential, as the assessment of both these concerns had to be finally settled by the respondent Officer. The High Court also was of the view that the turnover of M/s. Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders was only Rs. 1,55,750/-; therefore, the tax payable was only Rs. 6000/- or Rs. 7000/- and the complainant could not have ag
