Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 58
2005(1) Supreme 243
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar, JJ.
V. Radhakrishna Reddy —Appellant
versus
State of A.P. —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 1999
Decided on 11-1-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : D. Ramakrishna and Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocate (NP).
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Sections 7, 13(1)(a) r/w 13(2)—Appellant Incharge General Manager of District Industries Centre accepted Rs. 150 as bribe to supply a certificate of registration for a small scale industry applied by complainant PW 1—Trap case—Conviction by two Courts below with sentence of one year imprisonment and fine—Appeal—Explanation by accused during trial that amount had been paid to him towards payment of challan—Question for consideration whether amount paid to him was by way of illegal gratification or was paid for any other lawful purpose—No much importance to be attached to fact if PW 1 was a genuine applicant for registration of a small scale industries unit—It was unbelievable that applicant would go to the General Manager and pay him in cash the amount required to be deposited in the treasury for the challan—Explanation by accused was wholly unconvincing and was liable to be rejected—No reason to set aside conviction and sentence passed against appellant.
Held : We do not attach much importance to the fact that PW-1 may not be a genuine applicant for registration of a small scale industrial unit. That fact is wholly immaterial in judging the guilt of the appellant. PW-1 has stated that he had met the appellant on 29.7.1991 at 10.00 A.M. and the appellant had made the demand. On the next day, he had reported the matter to the police and thereafter, on 31st July, 1991 a trap was arranged and the amount was recovered from him. The explanation offered by the appellant is most unconvincing. If an applicant is required to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- by way of fee on the application for registration of a small scale industrial unit, the same has to be paid in the treasury under a challan. It is unbelievable that an applicant would go to the General Manager of the District Industrial Centre and pay him in cash the amount which is required to be deposited in the treasury with a challan. Apart from this, the fact remains that the sum recovered is Rs. 150/- and not Rs. 50/- which was the fee payable for one application. The explanation of the appellant is that Rs. 100/- had been paid to him in advance for two applications which were yet to be made. The explanation is wholly unconvincing and there appears to be no special reason for the appellant to show such a favour to the complainant PW-1. In normal course it was expected that the applicant would deposit the amount in the treasury and file a receipted challan with his application for registration of his small scale industrial unit. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the explanation offered by the appellant as has been done by the courts below. We, therefore, find no reason to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant. It was stated before us that the appellant died on 17th May, 2004 and his legal representatives have been brought on record. Since the result of this appeal may affect the payment of dues to the family of the appellant, the legal representatives have pursued this appeal before this Court. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. (Paras 11 to 15)
Judgment
B.P. Singh, J.—Delay condoned.
Application for substitution is allowed.
2. In this appeal by special appeal the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 20th November, 1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 196/94 has been challenged.
3. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order affirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The High Court upheld the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the Act but reduced the sentence of one and a half years under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Act to one year rigorous imprisonment.
4. The facts of the case are that at the relevant time the appellant was In-charge General Manager of the District Industries Centre at Ongole. His co-accused was an Attender in the District Industries Centre.
5. The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 Samapathkumar wanted to set up a small scale industry and for that purpose he was required to apply for registration of the industry as a small scale industry. On 29.7.1991 at 10.00 A.M. he met the appellant in his office, who demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- for granting him the requisite certificate. On the persuasion of PW- he reduced the amount to Rs. 150/-. Similarly, the co-accused who was a Attender in the same office initially demanded Rs. 30/- and later reduced the sum to Rs. 20/- for getting the certificate signed and issued from the office.
On the very next day i.e. 30th July, 1991 the complainant PW-1 went to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch and lodged a report, but the same was not registered immediately. On the following day, however, i.e. on July 1, 1991 a first information report was registered and a trap was arranged by DSP, ACB PW-5. Thereafter, PW-1 went to the office of the appellant and after handing over the marked currency notes to the appellant as well as to the co-accused gave a signal pursuant to which DSP, ACB PW-5 who was waiting outside for a signal, entered the room of the appellant and recovered tainted currency notes from the right side pocket of his trousers. In fact, the appellant himself took out the currency notes and handed them over to PW-5. Similarly, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the co-accused. At that time the appellant gave the explanation that the amount had been paid to him towards payment of challan. It is stated before us that every application made for the registration of a small scale industrial unit has to be accompanied with a challan of Rs. 50/- being the fees payable on such application.
6. The appellant as well as co-accused A-2 were put up for trial before the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore. The trial court after considering the evidence of witnesses produced by the prosecution including the evidence of PW-1 Samapathkumar and the DSP, ACB PW-5 found the appellant guilty of the offences with which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of for Rs. 500/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo imprisonment for one month. Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo one and a half years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo one month’s imprisonment. The trial court, however, acquitted the co-accused A-2 of the charges levelled against him.
7. The State of Andhra Pradesh as well as appellant herein preferred appeals before the High Court. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order affirmed the conviction of the appellant while reducing the sentence to one year under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of A-2 was rejected.
8. In this appeal, it was contended by learned
