2009 Supreme(SC) 1756

2009(7) Supreme 393
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Deepak Verma, JJ.
The State rep. by CBI, Hyderabad — Appellant
versus
G. Prem Raj — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2007
Decided on : 19-11-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
Unless the judgment of acquittal tends to be perverse or unless the inferences drawn in the acquitting judgment were not at all reasonable, possibly the acquittal should not be upset.
2. Where the story of demand of illegal gratification by the respondent-accused prior to the contract and the acceptance by the respondent-accused, had not at all been demolished, and where once this story became acceptable, there was no other go, but to raise a presumption under Section 20 of the Act.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 –Prosecution of respondent accused for demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs 50,000/ from complainant while working as a Senior Engineer in MIDHANI at Hyderabad-Conviction by Trial Court – Appeal – Allowed by High Court acquitting respondent accused – Appeal – Finding of High Court that PW-5 had admitted in his cross – examination that since the time of contract was likely to expire, he requested the respondent – accused to get it signed and as such, there was pressure on the part of the management to get the agreement signed within time – However held that this theory of pressure was of no consequence and could not be viewed as helpful to the defence – Even if the contract was to be got signed by (PW-1), the fact remained that for purpose of contract, ultimately, the respondent-accused had to give detailed programme of work –The signatures of (PW-1) could have been obtained on the agreement and at that time, it was necessary that the work schedule was ready, which was to be prepared by the respondent – accused and it was for that purpose that the respondent-accused demanded the money- After putting signatures of complainant on the agreement and after preparation of the work schedule, the contract would be complete and the complainant would get the benefit of huge contract worth about Rs.35 lakhs – The bribe was for this purpose-High Court had not properly viewed at this position that the bribe was demanded for completing the contract, worth about Rs.35 lakhs – Again no explanation offered by respondent as to why a responsible senior officer like respondent-accused would chose to go to Taj Mahal Hotel for doing official work of getting the contract signed – He could have easily called complainant to his office and got the agreement signed – Apart from that High Court had not, in any manner, considered the factum of solution of Sodium Carbonate turning pink when the fingers of the respondent-accused were dipped – In the whole cross – examination, the story of demand of the respondent-accused prior to the contract and the acceptance by the respondent – accused near the scooter stand, has not at all been demolished – Once this story became acceptable, there was no other go, but to raise a presumption under Section 20 of the Act – High Court committed an error in ignoring this provision which amounted to a perverse appreciation of evidence –Impugned judgement of High Court set aside (Paras 8 to 18)

       Facts of the case :

        Respondent accused was prosecuted herein in the instant case for demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs 50,000/ from complainant while working as a Senior Engineer in MIDHANI at Hyderabad. Trial Court convicted respondent accused for aid offence. Appeal thereagainst was allowed by High Court acquitting respondent accused.

        2. Present State appeal has been preferred against said order of acquittal recorded by HighCourt.

       Findings of the Court :

        Finding of High Court that PW-5 had admitted in his cross-examination that since the time of contract was likely to expire, he requested the respondent-accused to get it signed and as such, there was pressure on the part of the management to get the agreement signed within time. However held that this theory of pressure was of no consequence and could not be viewed as helpful to the defence. Even if the contract was to be got signed by (PW-1), the fact remained that for purpose of contract, ultimately, the respondent-accused had to give detailed programme of work. The signatures of (PW-1) could have been obtained on the agreement and at that time, it was necessary that the work schedule was ready, which was to be prepared by the respondent-accused and it was for that purpose that the respondent-accused demanded the money. After putting signatures of complainant on the agreement and after preparation of the work schedule, the contract would be complete and the complainant would get the benefit of huge contract worth about Rs.35 lakhs. The bribe was for this purpose. High Court had not properly viewed at this position that the bribe was demanded for completing the contract, worth about Rs.35 lakhs. Again no explanation was offered by respondent as to why a responsible senior officer like respondent-accused would chose to go to Taj Mahal Hotel for doing official work of getting the contract signed. He could have easily called complainant to his office and got the agreement signed. Apart from that High Court had not, in any manner, considered the factum of solution of Sodium Carbonate turning pink when the fingers of the respondent-accused were dipped. In the whole cross-examination, the story of demand of the respondent-accused prior to the contract and the acceptance by the respondent-accused near the scooter stand, had not at all been demolished. Once this story became acceptable, there was no other go, but to raise a presumption under Section 20 of the Act. High Court committed an error in ignoring this provision which amounted to a perverse appreciation of evidence