2004 Supreme(SC) 1424
2004(8) Supreme 88
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
B.N. Agrawal & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
State of A.P. -Appellant
versus
S. Janardhana Rao -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2003
With
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2569 of 2004
Decided on 17-11-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A. Sharan, Additional Solicitor General, Samir Ali Khan, Manoj Saxena, Amit Anand Tiwari, M.P. Meharia, S.K. Mittra and Khem Chand, Advocates.
For the Respondents : D. Rama Krishna Reddy, G. Venugopal and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Advocates.
For the Registrar, (Vigilance) High Court of A.P. : T.V. Ratnam, Advocate.
For the Applicant in Crl. M.P.No. 2569/2004: P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, S. Chandra Shekhar, Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, S.G. Balaji Iyer, Ms. T. Swarupa Reddy and Dr. I.P. Singh, Advocates.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)-Conviction of A1, member of A.P. Higher Judicial Service, by trial Court-A2, examined as approver during trial, was posted as Constable in Court of A1 where Sessions Trial case against PW1 and PW2 was pending and demand of Rs. 3 lacs as illegal gratification was conveyed by A1 through A2 to PW1 and PW2 in order to give acquittal judgment in their favour-Trap was laid after PW1 met Chief Justice of A.P. High Court and permission was granted by High Court-An amount of Rs. 3 lacs was paid by PW1 in presence of A2 (examined as approver PW21) to wife of A1 at their residence after A1 conveyed a predetermined code to PW1 and PW2 on date of hearing-Amount was recovered from the house-A1 was found entertaining PW1 in his flat in the night after amount had been paid-Prosecution had succeeded in proving all those facts by credible evidence-High Court was not justified in refusing to place reliance on evidence because of some minor discrepancies or minor contradictions-Conviction recorded by trial Court and sentence of three years imprisonment was liable to be restored. (Paras 6 to 12)
JUDGMENT
B.N. Agrawal, J.-Initially four persons, namely, S. Janardhana Rao (A-1), Mohammed Omar Bin Moin (A-2), S. Indira (A-3) and S. Prasanth (A-4) were made accused, but as A-2 turned to be an approver, pardon was granted to him and he was examined as PW-21. Thus, trial proceeded against the remaining three accused persons and the learned Special Judge upon the conclusion of trial acquitted A-3 and A-4 whereas convicted A-1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-; in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months on each count. The sentences, however, were ordered to run concurrently. Against the order of conviction, A-1 preferred an appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh whereas the State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of A-3 and A-4 and the High Court dismissed the State appeal whereas allowed the appeal filed by A-1 and acquitted him of all the charges. The State of Andhra Pradesh filed two petitions for grant of Special Leave to appeal; one against the order whereby the High Court dismissed appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of A-3 and A-4 by the trial court, which SLP was dismissed; and the second against the order whereby the High Court acquitted A-1 of all the charges in which leave was granted.
2. The prosecution case, in short, was that A-1 was the member of Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service and posted as IIIrd Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, at the relevant time and residing in Flat No. 402 of Garudagagan Apartments, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad, A-3 was his wife, who was working as a teacher in Government New High School, Kotteru, Hanumakonda, and A-4 was their 19 years old son, who was deaf and dumb by birth. A-2 was a police constable attached to the court of A-1. Before A-1, Sessions Case No. 186 of 1989 was pending trial in which besides others, Sant Esher Singh (PW-1) and Rajinder Singh (PW-2) were accused. As the trial of the said case was at its final stage, A-1 is alleged to have sent message through PW-21 to PWs 1 and 2 demanding a sum of Rs. 6 lacs as illegal gratification for recording their acquittal in the said case, but ultimately the amount was reduced by A-1 to Rs. 3 lacs. As PWs 1 and 2 were not agreeable to pay even the reduced amount, PW 1 approached the officials of Anti Corruption Branch (hereinafter referred to as ACB ) for conducting a trap, but as it was a case in which a judicial officer was involved, they expressed their inability to do anything without any order from the High Court. Thereafter, on 3rd and 4th September, 1996, PW-1 met the learned Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court and permission was granted by the High Court to conduct trap and register case. Thereupon, PW-1 went to the office of ACB with Rs. 3 lacs which was kept in a plastic cover and gave it to S. Sreeramulu (PW-3) whose services were secured by R. Suryanarayana, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, (PW-23). PW-23 noted down the numbers of all the currency notes which were in the denomination of Rs. 500/- in six bundles, on a separate sheet of paper. One of the officials of ACB treated the currency notes with the layer of phenolphthalein powder. Thereupon, officials of ACB organized a trap and they went to the court of A-1 on 4th September, 1996 which was a date fixed in the case where A-1 pronounced in open court the code word that "all the matters will be adjourned to 6th September, 1996" which could be taken as confirmation that PW-21 approached PWs 1 and 2 on his behalf and the work would be done. Then, on the same day, PWs 1 and 21 along with the trap party went to the house of A-1 at Hanumakonda in which his wife and son were residing. While members of the trap party were waiting at some distance from the house, PWs 1 and 21 went to the said house and as it