IMPORTANT POINT
A discrepancy would be minor if it did not affect the substratum of the prosecutions case or impact on the core issue. In such an event, the minor discrepancy could be ignored.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)-Prosecution of appellant for demanding and accepting illegal gratification-Acquittal by Trial Court-State Appeal-High Court set aside the judgment and order of Trial Court and convicted appellant- Appeal-Whether the absence of Rs. 10/- currency note could or could not be explained or why appellants wallet was not sent for forensic examination or whether he was wearing trousers or a lungi at the relevant point of time being matters of minor detail did not impact on the substratum of prosecutions case-Evidence of witnesses that there was sufficient evidence of Appellant demanding illegal gratification and receiving and accepting it when given to him-No reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal-Appeal dismissed (Paras 36 to 40)
       Facts of the Case :
        Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. Trial Court acquitted appellant .However on State Appeal, High Court set aside the judgment and order of Trial Court and convicted appellant.
        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Court held that there was sufficient evidence of Appellant demanding illegal gratification and receiving and accepting it when given to him. Hence there was no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal.Appeal was dismissed.
       Result : Appeal dismissed

Judgment :-

Madan B. Lokur, J.

The Appellant (Syed Ahmed) was acquitted by the Trial Court of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The acquittal was set aside by the High Court and he is aggrieved thereby. We are in agreement with the order of conviction handed down by the High Court. We are not in agreement with the sentence awarded, but prefer to let the matter rest. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

The facts:

Nagaraja @ Nagarajegowda (PW1) and his father, Thimmegowda (PW4) are owners of some land. On 7th June, 1993 they had a boundary dispute with their immediate neighbour, Channakeshavegowda which resulted in their being assaulted by him and others. Thimmegowda then lodged a complaint on the same day with the Konanur Police Station in this regard.

According to Syed Ahmed (a police officer in the Konanur Police Station), the complaint was inquired into by S.C. Rangasetty (PW7). According to Nagaraja, illegal gratification was demanded by Syed Ahmed to enable him to file a charge-sheet against Channakeshavegowda and others on the complaint by Thimmegowda.

The dispute between Thimmegowda and Channakeshavegowda was, however, amicably resolved in a few days time and the settlement entered into between them is Exhibit P.15 in the Trial Court.

Unfortunately, on 27th June, 1993 a boundary dispute again arose between Nagaraja and Thimmegowda on the one hand and Channakeshavegowda and others on the other. This resulted in Nagaraja lodging a complaint against Channakeshavegowda in the Konanur Police Station on 27th June, 1993. For inquiring into this complaint, Syed Ahmed allegedly demanded illegal gratification from Nagaraja.

Feeling aggrieved by the unlawful demand, Nagaraja lodged a complaint with the Lok Ayukta Police at Hassan on 28th June, 1993. The Lok Ayukta Police decided to trap Syed Ahmed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification from Nagaraja. As per the arrangement for the trap, some currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and upon delivery of these tainted currency notes to Syed Ahmed, his fingers would get smeared with the powder. Thereafter, on washing the powdered fingers with sodium carbonate solution, the resultant wash would turn pink indicating thereby the physical receipt of the tainted currency by Syed Ahmed.

Also, as per the arrangements, two independent persons were to accompany Nagaraja to witness the transaction of delivery of the tainted currency notes to Syed Ahmed. The two independent witnesses in the case are Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) and Keshavamurty (PW6).

As per the plan chalked out by the Lok Ayukta Police, Nagaraja went to the Konanur Police Station to hand over the illegal gratification to Syed Ahmed. However, when he reached there, he was told that Syed Ahmed was available at the Inspection Bungalow. Accordingly, Nagaraja and the trap party went to the Inspection Bungalow.

At the Inspection Bungalow, the two independent witnesses positioned themselves close to Syed Ahmed’s room. Nagaraja then entered his room and after a brief conversation with Syed Ahmed, he handed over some currency notes to him. Thereafter, Nagaraja exited from the room and gave a pre-determined signal to the trap party who reached Syed Ahmed’s room and washed his hands with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. This confirmed his physical receipt of the tainted currency notes from Nagaraja.

On these broad facts, the prosecution charged Syed Ahmed (a public servant) with demanding and accepting illegal gratification from Nagaraja and thereby committing an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

The prosecution examined eight witnesses including Nagaraja (PW1) and the two independent trap witnesses Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) and Keshavamurty (PW6). In addition, the prosecution also examined Bistappa (PW3) the scribe of the complaint da

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 504

Supreme Court of India A.K. PATNAIK & MADAN B. LOKUR Syed Ahmed Versus State of Karnataka CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1323 OF 2007 Decided on : 31-07-2012

IMPORTANT POINT A discrepancy would be minor if it did not affect the substratum of the prosecutions case or impact on the core issue. In such an event, the minor discrepancy could be ignored.

Cases Referred (5)

Supreme Court of India
A.K. PATNAIK & MADAN B. LOKUR
Syed Ahmed
Versus
State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1323 OF 2007
Decided on : 31-07-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
A discrepancy would be minor if it did not affect the substratum of the prosecutions case or impact on the core issue. In such an event, the minor discrepancy could be ignored.