Kannan vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1580 OF 2011

KANNAN Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s)

WITH

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1581 OF 2011

M. NADIMUTHU Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) These appeals arise out of the conviction of the

appellants under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the

appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

one year.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2018.09.15 13:16:39 IST Reason:

(2) A grocery shop under the name and style “Ambika Stores”

was run by father of Sabapathy-(PW-2). On 19th October, 1994 2

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (PW-4) along with accused no.1,

M. Nadimuthu, who was then working as Assistant Commercial Tax

Officer, inspected the grocery shop and seized the accounts

book. Case of the prosecution is that PW-2 approached A-1 and

asked for return of accounts book for which A-1 demanded bribe

amount of Rs.2000/-. On 22nd October, 1994, PW-2 gave an

application for registration and produced a challan for

Rs.100/-. On 22nd November, 1994 PW-2 again went to the Office

of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officers and asked A-1 to return

of accounts book on which A-1 is said to have reiterated the

demand for Rs.2000/-. On 30th November, 1994, PW-2 again

approached A-1 who stated that the bribe amount of Rs.2000/-

which was subsequently reduced to Rs.800/-, to be paid on 1st

November, 1994 failing which the application for registration

certificate would be rejected. On 1 st November, 1994, PW-2

lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

Wing, based on which an F.I.R. was registered and trap was

arranged. On the same day i.e. 1st November, 1994 PW-2

accompanied by PW-3 went to the office of A-1 where A-1 asked

him whether he brought the money and when PW-2 stated that he

brought the money, A-1 asked PW-2 to pay the money to A-2,

Kannan, and directed A-2 to receive the money. Accordingly,

PW-2 paid the bribe amount of Rs.800/- to A-2. PW-5 and the

trap team went inside and after completion of the test with

sodium carbonate solution turning red and other formalities

arrested A-1 and A-2.

3

(3) The Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 7 and

Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years. In appeal, the High Court

maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of

imprisonment to one year.

(4) We have heard Ms. Malini Poduval and Mr. P.B. Suresh,

learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Both learned

counsel submitted that the evidence of PW-2 remains

uncorroborated and that A-1 was not in receipt of money. So

far as A-2 is concerned, it was submitted that there was no

evidence to show that there was any demand by A-2 and therefore

conviction of A-2 is not sustainable. Learned counsel have

taken us through the depositions of the witnesses and the

relevant portion of the judgment. We have considered the

submissions and also perused the impugned judgment and the

materials on record.

(5) So far as the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by

A-1 and A-2 are concerned, PW-2 has clearly stated about the

demand and acceptance. PW-3, accompanying witness, though

turned hostile, in his Chief-Examination clearly stated that he

accompanied PW-2 who went and met A-1 and on the direction of

A-1, PW-2 paid the money to A-2. To that extent, the evidence

of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3. That apart,

as submitted by Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the 4

respondent-State, the evidence of PW-6, the office assistant,

also corroborates the version of PW-2. In his evidence PW-6

has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and that A-1

told A-2 that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must take and

keep it with him. Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 who

received the same. Thus the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated

by the evidence of PW-6, the Office Assistant. Based on the

evidence of PW-2 and test conducted in the sodium carbonate

solution the Trial Court and the High Court had found the

appellants-accused guilty of the offences. Having regard to

the concurrent findings of the courts below, we do not find any

good ground to take a different view.

(6) The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

(7) The appellants are to surrender to custody within a period

of eight weeks to serve the remaining sentence failing which

they shall be taken to custody.

(8) A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court

for necessary action.

..........................J. (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J. (INDIRA BANERJEE) NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 12, 2018.