IMPORTANT POINT
The trial Court which has the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses and it is in a better position to appreciate it, the appellate Court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation done by the trial Court except for cogent reasons.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 7-Conviction of accused by trial Court reversed by High Court-Appeal against-Award of a cleaning contract at New Domestic Terminal Complex at Calcutta Airport-Accused respondent was the final authority for passing of the bills for payment-Allegations that accused respondent demanded illegal money for passing the bills-PW3 arranged a trap party-They were accompanied with two independent witnesses, PW4, a bank employee and PW15, a Law Officer of the Bank-Money was handed over by PW3 to accused respondent and he pocketed the money-IO accompanied by others entered into the room, seized the money and arrested the accused respondent-All these currency notes were produced during the trial-Numbers of the currency notes tallied with the numbers noted-Prosecution has substantiated its case with reference to oral evidence as well as documentary evidence-Conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court affirmed.
       Held : A survey of this evidence shows that a trap was laid and how the currency notes were seized from the accused. On this evidence, the trial court convicted the accused but the appellate court i.e. the learned Single Judge reversed the finding for the reasons mentioned above. We will examine each of the reasons given by learned Single Judge of High Court to find out whether they are substantial or not so as to render the prosecution story improbable. The first reason given by Learned Single Judge was that no signature of the accused was taken on the seizure list. It has been stated by the prosecution witnesses i.e. by the Investigating Officers that the accused refused to sign on the seizure list. No accused can be forced to put his signature and the prosecution cannot force him to append his signature on the seizure memo if he refused to sign. Therefore, just because the accused did not append the signature on the seizure memo that cannot be a ground to improbabilise the prosecution story. Similarly, another reason assigned by the learned Single Judge was that the currency notes and pant of the accused were not sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination. When the currency notes which were mixed with the phenolphthalein powder were handled by the accused the hands of the accused was washed in a water bowl, the colour of the water turned pink. Likewise, the pant pocket of the accused was also washed and the colour of the water turned into pink and the hand and pant wash which was kept in bottles were sent for chemical examination, that is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. Just because the notes were not sent for F.S.L. examination, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution story. The pant of the accused was produced and exhibited in the Court and the pant has been identified by P.W.15, Sanjay Kumar as Ext. V. It is very strange that the pyjama which was given to the accused to wear that was not required to be seized or produced before the Court because the accused could not be permitted to go naked without wearing anything since his pant was already seized. Therefore, non-seizure of the pyjama is not fatal to the prosecution. Another ground has been given that when the money was allegedly received by the right hand of the accused, how it was kept in the left hand pocket but hand wash was taken of the right hand only. This is no reason to disbelieve the entire prosecution story when a man accepts anything in the right hand in normal course of human conduct and if he has kept the money in the left hand pocket the prosecution cannot be held responsible. The accused has received the currency notes and the hand wash of the water turned into pink and the left hand pocket of the trouser was also washed and the colour of the water also turned into pink, therefore, putting these two evidence together, there remains no doubt about the prosecution case. (Para 10)
       Nothing turns on non-production of the envelope. What is material is the acceptance of money by the accused which is more than apparent from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the money was recovered from the accused and the accused s hand which accepted the currency notes was washed and the hand wash turned in to pink colour water and likewise the accused s pant pocket which was washed, the water also turned into pink. Therefore, from the chain of circumstances, the prosecution story stands fully substantiated. (Para 10)
       The fact of the matter is that the money was accepted by the accused from the complainant and it was recovered by the Investigating Officer and the money was paid primarily for an illegal purpose i.e. to facilitate the passing of the bills of P.W.3, Shankar Prasad Sengupta and not to deduct amount from the bills. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the easy approach adopted by the High Court was not correct. (Para 11)
       The prosecution has led sufficient and cogent evidence to substantiate the allegation against the accused but unfortunately the learned Single Judge of the High Court took a very easy approach and picked a small hole in the prosecution story so as to improbablise the same which, in our opinion, was not correct. We are satisfied that sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence is available on record which fully established the guilt of the accused. It is needless to reiterate that the appellate court should be slow in reappreciating the evidence. This Court time and again has emphasized that the trial court which has the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses and it is in a better position to appreciate it, the appellate court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation done by the trial court except for cogent reasons. (Paras 12 and 13)
       In view of the discussions made above, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated December 9, 2002 of learned Single Judge of the High Court passed in C.R.A. No. 192 of 2000 and affirm the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

A.K. Mathur, J.-This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Calcutta dated 9.2.2002 passed in C.R.A. No. 192 of 2000 whereby learned Single Judge has reversed the conviction of the accused-respondent, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, 24 - Parganas (N) in Special Case No.2 of 1997, whereby learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge & Special Judge convicted the accused under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows. On May 23, 1996, one Shankar Prasad Sengupta, the proprietor of M/s. Rakshak Security Services lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Calcutta stating that he was awarded a cleaning contract at New Domestic Terminal Complex at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Calcutta vide award letter dated December 3, 1994 for two years with effect from December 21, 1994. As per practice, he was required to submit the bills in the Office of the Deputy General Manager (Airport) and thereafter the bills on presentation were processed by the House Keeping department functioning under the respondent. Accused-respondent was the final authority for passing of the bills for payment. It is alleged that the accused-respondent demanded illegal money for passing the bills which the complainant-Shankar Prasad Sengupta (P.W.3) had managed till May 21, 1996. P.W.3 submitted a bill for a sum of Rs. 1,39,000/- on May 23, 1996 and made a request to the accused-respondent to pass the said bill. Accused-respondent insisted that unless P.W.3 pays a sum of Rs. 5000/- he would not pass the bill. Accused-respondent directed P.W.3 to make payment of Rs. 5000/- on May 24, 1996 after lunch hours in his Office. As P.W.3 had no intention to pay the said amount, he lodged a written complaint before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Anti Corruption Department disclosing all the details on the basis of which a complaint was registered against the accused-respondent for commission of an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Mr. M.S. Hazari, Inspector, C.B.I. was entrusted with the investigation of the case. P.W.3 was called by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. in his office for laying a trap. A pre-trap memo was prepared with necessary particulars. Pursuant to that pre-trap, a trap party including P.W.3 left to the Office of the accused-respondent to lay the trap and they were accompanied with two independent witnesses i.e. P.W.-4-Ratan Krishna Das, an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce and P.W.15 - Sanjay Kumar, a Law Officer of the Bank along with the Investigating Officer. On the fateful day, the money was handed over by P.W.3 to the accused-respondent and he pocketed the money. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer accompanied by others entered into the room, seized the money and arrested the accused-respondent. The sanction was obtained on December 10, 1996 and after the accord of the proper sanction by the Chairman, Airports Authority of India, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-respondent on January 31, 1997.

3. Accused-respondent denied the charges and pleaded that he was falsely implicated with ulterior motive. The prosecution in support of its case examined 16 witnesses and no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The trial Judge after considering the matter, after recording the evidence and hearing both the sides found the guilt of the accused established and convicted the accused-respondent under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him as above said.

4. Aggrieved against that order, the accused-respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1299

IMPORTANT POINTThe trial Court which has the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses and it is in a better position to appreciate it, the appellate Court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation done by the trial Court except for cogent reasons.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
The trial Court which has the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses and it is in a better position to appreciate it, the appellate Court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation done by the trial Court except for cogent reasons.