N. Raja Kantham vs State: Inspector Of Police, A.P

N. RAJA KANTHAM .......Appellant

Versus

STATE: INSPECTOR OF POLICE ......Respondent

ORDER

The accused-appellant was, at the relevant time, working

as a Senior Accountant in the District Treasury Office,

Warangal. On 4th June, 1991, a salary bill pertaining to 23

employees of Irrigation Division No.2 amounting to 2 Rs.43,178/- was submitted in the District Treasury Office,

Warangal. As per the prosecution story, the very same

evening, the complainant Venugopal PW-1 and his colleague

K. Srinuvas Rao PW-2 approached the accused and enquired

about the bill. The accused demanded Rs.700/- as a bribe

for getting the bill passed. As the complainant was not wiling

to pay this amount he approached the DSP, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Warangal and lodged a complaint, Ext.P.1 On the

basis of this complaint a trap was arranged on 6th June, 1991

when the accused allegedly accepted the amount from PW.1.

The tainted money was recovered from the appellant and on

the phenolphthalein test, the solution turned pink. On the

completion of the investigation, the accused was charged

under Sections 11 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and brought to trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PWs 1-

6 and put on record Exhibits P.1-P.20 and M.Os. 1-8. Four

witnesses in defence, DWs.1-4, were also examined by the

accused. The trial Judge went through the evidence on record 3 very carefully and in the course of a very elaborate judgment,

discussing all aspects of the case held that the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 was not worthy of credence as it was clear that

the payment of Rs.700/- had been made towards repayment

of a loan which one Prasad, a nephew of PW.1, the

complainant had taken from the accused, and that the record

indicated that the accused and the complainant represented

two different factions of employees union and that was an

additional reason for what could be a case of false implication.

It was further held that as the accused and PW.1 were

residents of the same village it appeared that there was some

rivalry between them inter se. The trial Court also observed

that the very fact of the trap being struck was itself in doubt

as PW.2 who was to give a signal after the money has been

passed over had not made any signal on which the DSP had

sent Constable Satyanarayana to find out whether the money

had been paid, and it was after Satyanarayana reported to the

DSP that the money had in fact been handed over that the

raid had been carried out. The Court concluded that as

Constable Satyanarayan had not been produced as a witness 4 also indicated the falsity of the case. The Court accordingly

acquitted the accused for the offence charged. An appeal was

thereafter taken to the High Court and on the basis of a

casual examination of the evidence and a brief discussion in

one or two paragraphs, the exhaustive judgment of the trial

court has been set aside and the accused convicted. This

matter is before us by way of special leave.

Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for the

appellant, has first and foremost submitted that if the trial

court had taken a decision which could be possible on the

evidence, interference by the High Court in an appeal against

acquittal on the plea that a different view was also possible,

was not called for. He has also pointed out that the cash

recovered was a re-payment of the loan which had been taken

by Prasad and the factum of the loan stood proved not only

from the statement of the defence witnesses but even from the

cross-examination of PW.1 himself. He has also pointed out

that as Satyanarayana, the Constable had not been produced

in evidence, it appeared that the trap had in fact not been 5 struck but the whole matter concocted for the reason that

PW.1 Venugopal have deep animosity towards the appellant.

The learned counsel appearing for the State, Ms. Altaf

Fathima, has, however, pointed out that in addition to the

unimpeachable evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the fact that the

hand wash of the appellant had indicated the presence of the

phenolphthalein powder, the evidence of the mediator

Laxminrayana proved the case beyond any doubt. She further

submitted that PW.1 was one of 23 persons who would have

been the beneficiaries of the amount that was to be disbursed

by the Treasury Department for which they had made an

application which was to be dealt with by the appellant.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and

perused the record. We endorse Mr. Patwalia's submission

that the view taken by the trial Court on a very elaborate and

comprehensive discussion of the entire evidence was not

merely possible but was the correct one. Interference by the

High Court, therefore, by a sketchy and ill-considered

judgment was, therefore, not called for. We find that the trial 6 Court had given very good reasons as to why the prosecution

story did not inspire confidence and that the defence version

represented the true state of affairs. It is significant that the

appellant had, at the very time of his arrest, given a statement

that the money recovered from him was towards the

repayment of the loan that Prasad had taken from him. This

fact finds clear mention in Ex.P.12 the report tendered by the

mediator PW.3. The factum of the loan is admitted even by

PW-1 but the story is further clarified by the testimony of

DW.2 a retired District Treasury Officer, who deposed that

Bhadriah was the brother of PW1 and Prasad the latter's son,

and that he had, in fact, borrowed rupees one thousand from

the appellant towards the medical expenses that he had to

incur for the treatment of his father and that in May 1991 the

brothers of the appellant had demanded the repayment which

had led to a quarrel. He further stated that as all the parties

were living in close proximity to each other, he along with

others, had intervened and assured the brothers that the

amount due from Prasad would be paid in the first week of

June 1991. Significantly, the trap was struck on 6.6.1991. It 7 is also clear from the record that there were 23 persons who

would have been the beneficiaries on the passing of the bill

which had been made over to the appellant, but only PW1, the

complainant, who was also one of the beneficiaries has been

examined by the prosecution. On the contrary, the accused

examined DW1, an Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department,

Warangal who deposed that he was one of the claimants in the

bill but nobody ever told him that any amount was required

from him as his contribution towards the bribe to be paid to

the appellant. He further stated that it was not within the

knowledge of any of the other employees as to whether a

demand of bribe had been made or that PWs.1 and 2 were

doing the follow up towards the payment of the bill. This

statement completely belies the evidence of PW1 who deposed

that after the DSP had asked him to bring the bribe amount to

be passed over during the trap, he had returned to his office

and asked the other employees to make a contribution

towards that fund but they had told him that as they had no

cash in hand, he should advance the amount from his own

resources which would be re-imbursed at a later stage. There 8 is yet another extremely relevant circumstance. As per the

evidence of PW3, PW2 was to give a signal after the money had

been handed over but as this was not done Constable

Satyanarayana had been deputed by the DSP to go to the

office and find out as to what had transpired. Satyanarayna

apparently returned after few minutes and told the DSP that

the money had been passed over and the raid was then

carried out. As noted by the trial court, and completely

ignored by the High Court, Satyanarayana was not even

examined as a witness. There is, in this situation, no witness

other than PW.1 to the passing over of the tainted money.

It also appears from the evidence that there was

apparent rivalry between the parties. As already noted above

PW1 had admitted that Prasad had taken a loan from the

appellant in the month of April 1991 and in the month of May

1991 when the appellant's brothers had demanded the

repayment an altercation had ensued. The matter does not

end here. PW1 admitted that he was a member of the

Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers' Employees Association and

that this association was divided into two groups, one led by 9 Krishnareddy and the other by Sathireddy and whereas he

belonged to the group of the former the appellant belonged to

the latter group. He further testified that elections to the

association had been held in January 1991 i.e. shortly before

this incident when he, along with several other members of his

group, had gone to the appellant and had asked him to

support Krishnareddy which request had been declined by

him and that it was the Sathireddy group which was

successful, with the appellant also being elected the Joint

Secretary. We find from the evidence that the fact that there

seemed to be substantial rancour between PW1 and appellant

is supported by the evidence of PW1 himself. It appears to us

that this was a crucial factor and was the reason for the

concoction of a false story using the excuse of the repayment

of the loan as a means of reaching the appellant on the vital

day.

10

We accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment

of the High Court and restore that of the trial court and order

the appellant's acquittal. The appellant is on bail; his bail

bonds shall stand discharged.

....................................

J. (Harjit Singh Bedi)

.....................................J. ( B.S. Chauhan)

New Delhi, July 23, 2009