Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
P. Somaraju – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2014
Decided on : 28-10-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 378 and 386 [Sections 419 and 427 of BNSS] – Appeal against acquittal – Appellate Court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – However, due to reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited – If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of record, acquittal should not be disturbed – Judicial intervention is only warranted where Trial Court’s view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in manifest miscarriage of justice – Appellate Court must address reasons given by Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sections 13(2) and 20 – Illegal gratification – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Statutory presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is not automatic and arises only once foundational facts of demand and acceptance are proved – In instant case, sole basis of prosecution to prove demand and acceptance is narration of complainant which reveals serious infirmities – Complainant has no proof other than his own oral statement that he visited appellant, wherein appellant allegedly made his first demand for bribe – Defence has consistently maintained that alleged demand and acceptance of bribe never took place – Unless DWs’ evidence is shown to be inherently improbable or contradicted by record, it cannot be discarded solely because they were professionals who had cause to interact with appellant’s office – Trial Court’s view was both reasonable and firmly rooted in evidence on record – Acquittal was based on careful evaluation of evidence, including material contradictions, unreliable testimonies, and serious procedural lapses, and cannot be termed perverse or unsustainable – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court set aside and order of acquittal restored. (Paras 17, 18, 20, 23, 30, 33 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 08.07.2011 passed by High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1540 of 2004. By way of impugned judgment, High Court reversed order of acquittal dated 28.11.2003 passed by Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in Calendar Case No.13 of 1999. Appellant, who was accused before Trial Court, was thereby convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- on each count.
Findings of Court:
High Court, on other hand, did not demonstrate any compelling reason to depart from that view. It failed to engage with Trial Court’s detailed reasoning and instead substituted its own inferences without addressing evidentiary gaps identified above. Strength of criminal process lies in restraint as much as in scrutiny. Appellant’s acquittal, having stood on reasonable grounds, deserves to stand restored.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. This Appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 08.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1540 of 2004. By way of the impugned judgment, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in Calendar Case No.13 of 1999. The appellant, who was the accused before the Trial Court, was thereby convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881[For short, ‘the PC Act’] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.10,000/- on each count.
2. The facts leading to the instant Appeal may be described briefly. The appellant was an Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Circle I, at Anjaiah Karmica Bhavan, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad from 01.01.1996 to 26.09.1996. The complainant, S. Venkat Reddy (PW-1) was a licensed Labour Contractor who had been operating two establishments, Swetha Enterprises and Sindhu Enterprises, for many years. In June 1997, the complainant made an application to the appellant in connection with the renewal of contract labour licenses for the aforementioned establishments for the year 1997-1998 and also paid the necessary fees, including a late application fee for one of the establishments, of total Rs.250/-. The appellant allegedly verified and signed the registers produced by the complainant but he kept postponing the renewal of the licenses on some pretext or the other. The nephew of the complainant, S. Prabhakar Reddy (PW- 3), had also sought renewal of license for his firm, Tirumala Enterprises, and similarly states that he met the appellant twice or thrice along with the complainant to renew his license, but after some delay, entrusted the matter to the complainant.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.09.1997, the complainant went to meet the appellant in the evening. At that meeting, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.9,000/- as bribe for renewing the three licenses, failing which he would keep the renewals pending. Allegedly, a part payment of Rs.3,000/- was made by the complainant on that day itself by placing the money in the appellant’s table- drawer and the remaining amount of Rs.6,000/- was demanded to be paid within one to two days. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau2[For short, ‘ACB’] around 11:00 AM the next day and presented a written complaint against the appellant (Ex. P1) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police3[For short, ‘DSP’] of ACB, U.V.S. Raju (PW-7). The DSP asked the complainant to bring the balance bribe amount in Rs.100/- denominations by 2:00-2:30 PM.
4. The DSP allegedly made some enquiries and found out that the reputation of the appellant was not good. An FIR was registered around 1:00 PM. The DSP also sent a requisition for two mediators. When the complainant returned with the money, he was introduced to two Government employees: (i) P. N. Rajender (PW-2), Office Superintendent in the Directorate of Insurance and Medical Services, Hyderabad; and (ii) B. Balaji Rao, Junior Assistant, Directorate of Insurance and Medical Services, Hyderabad. They were to be the mediators in the trap proceedings. The complaint was handed over to them with instructions to verify their contents. The mediators did so and further noted down the numbers of the notes brought by the complainant in Annexure I to the pre-trap mediators’ report (Ex. P2). A constable (PC 490, Sri Kistappa) applied phenolphthalein powder to the notes and then kept them in the complainant’s shirt-pocket. The DSP instructed the complainant not to touch the notes and only hand it over to the appellant in case a demand for money was made. Demonstration of the sodium carbonate solution or ‘hand-wash’ test was also done. It was explained to the complainant that in case the tainted amount was handed over to the appellant,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
