P.Parasurami Reedy vs State Of A.P

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 462 OF 2003

P.PARASURAMI REDDY ... Appellant(s)

Versus

STATE OF A.P. ... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

SIRPURKAR, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-

accused who was found guilty by the trial court for the

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)((d) read

with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act

(hereinafter referred to as "The Act").

2. The story of the prosecution in short is as

under:-

The complainant had applied for loan for

digging a community irrigation well in his land and for

that purpose, he was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 23,400/-. The

complainant was paid Rs. 19,240/- on furnishing evaluation

certificates and the remaining balance was due. The

accused-appellant, who was working as Mandal Development

Officer, was dealing with the implementation of the scheme

by allotting necessary amounts from time to time. It is the

2

case of the complainant that when he approached the accused

for the payment of the remaining amount and also for

sanction for installing a electric motor near the well, the

accused demanded Rs. 500/- as bribe. According to the

complainant, this happened on 31.12.1993 at the office of

accused. The complainant again approached the accused on

6.1.1994. However, the demand was again reiterated by

accused. Therefore, on 11.1.1994 the complainant

approached Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Tirupati- PW9 and gave a report to this effect.

Thereupon, PW-9 asked the complainant -PW1 to bring Rs.

500/- which were treated with phenolphthalein powder.

Thereafter, the raiding party reached the office of

accused at 4.50 p.m. However, up to 7.00 p.m. the accused

was not found present in the office. Therefore, not

finding the accused in his office, the raiding party

returned to the office of PW9. The shirt in which the

currency notes were kept was kept in the office of the

Investigating Officer.

3. It is further the case of the complainant

that next day on 12.1.1994, the raiding party started from

the office of PW-9 at about 9 a.m. and reached the office of

accused by 10.00 a.m.. On seeing the complainant, who alone

went to the office of the accused, the accused asked him

as to whether he has brought the bribe amount. On this, the

3

complainant gave the money to accused who took the same

with his right hand and kept the same in his right hip

pocket. The complainant came out of the office and gave the

agreed signal. On getting signal from complainant, raiding

party immediately rushed towards the accused. They noticed

accused also coming out of office room. PW9 then

apprehended the accused. On disclosing the identity by PW9,

the accused threw the currency notes in the open ground

towards the public and shouted "take away, take away". When

the right hand fingers and back side pocket were subjected

to sodium carbonate test, the solution turned pink.

Interestingly, the currency notes of Rs. 200/- found from

the open space, which were claimed by the accused as his

own, were returned to him by PW9.

4. Be that as it may, on this basis, the

investigation started and a charge-sheet was filed against

the accused. The accused claimed that he never demanded and

had never accepted the bribe money.

5. The trial court did not accept the defence of

the accused. He was convicted and sentenced for the

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)((d) read

with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act The

appeal against the conviction was also dismissed by the High

Court. Hence, the appellant is before us.

6. Mr. S. Sunderavardhan, learned senior counsel

4

appearing for the appellant very strenuously urged before

us that this case is full of doubts. He points out that

very strangely, there is nothing on record to corroborate as

to what transpired between the accused and the complainant

when the complainant allegedly approached the accused to

give him the bribe. Learned counsel further points out that

there is no evidence except that of the complainant to

suggest that when the complainant approached the accused, he

actually demanded the money and in pursuance to that demand,

the complainant paid him the money. The counsel urged that

there was no corroboration to the evidence of complainant.

The second contention is that there is enough gap between

the time of bribe demanded and paid. Though the money was

demanded as back as on 31.12.1993, there is nothing on

record to suggest that any time or place to accept the money

was fixed in any manner. Learned counsel further points out

that though the accused was approached by the complainant on

6.1.1994, he never made any disclosure about the bribe.

Learned counsel further points out that on 11.1.1994 when

the complainant along with the raiding party reached the

office of accused, he was admittedly not present in the

office. There was no prior commitment between the accused

and the complainant fixing the time and place for receiving

the bribe. This, according to the learned counsel, is a

suspicious circumstance. He further points out that it is

5

very strange that no one was present to hear as to what

transpired between the accused and the complainant when

bribe was paid and to add further chaos to the prosecution

story, there was no seizure of the treated currency notes

either. Learned counsel wonders as to how it could have

happened that the currency notes, which were given by the

complainant to accused, could not be recovered.

7. Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned senior

counsel appearing for the respondent-State supported the

concurrent judgments of the courts below and contended that

the findings of facts were concluded by the courts below.

Mr. Venkatanarayana points out that there was no reason for

the complainant PW-1 to falsely implicate the accused. In

fact, that was also no reason why the investigating agency,

particularly PWs 4, 6 & 9 should be disbelieved. According

to Mr. Venkatanarayana, the fact that money was accepted by

the accused stands proved on the basis of sodium carbonate

test which was done on the right hand fingers and the back

side pocket of the accused.

8. Considering the overall circumstances, we do

feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove that

the accused had fixed the time and place to receive the

money. The dates 31.12.1993, 6.1.1994 and 11.1.1994

mentioned in the complaint of the complainant are rather

6

speaking. It is further admitted in the evidence of PW1-

complainant that on 11.1.1994, when the accused was tried to

be approached, he was not found present in his office. It

was, therefore, that the accused was approached on the

second day i.e. on 12.1.1994. what surprises us is that when

two panchas were present in the raiding party and if one

of them had accompanied the complainant and noted the

conversation between the complainant and the accused, that

would have given a definite corroboration to the version of

the complainant. But that did not happen. Further even as

per the complainant, when he approached the accused on

12.1.1994, he was driven away by the accused. In his cross

examination, the complainant states as under:

"When I went there the accused on seeing me

became irritated and asked me to go away and

that I need not approach him"

9. Though thereafter the complainant asserted

that the accused demanded bribe from him. It is rather

strange that the complainant was driven out of the room

when he first approached the accused. The complainant then

remained silent as to what happened when he was turned away

by the accused on his first meeting with the accused in his

office. This circumstance, according to us, creates doubt.

If the accused had to accept the bribe, he would never have

7

driven away the complainant when he was approached by the

complainant in his office. When both of them were alone in

the office of accused, that would have been the best

opportunity for the accused to accept the bribe if there was

any such demand on his behalf and if there was any such

transaction. In short, there is no evidence to suggest as

to what transpired between the accused and the complainant

when the accused was first approached by the complainant.

The second circumstance, which is really suspicious, is not

finding of the treated currency notes which were thrown away

by the accused. We cannot imagine that a raiding party

which consisted of nine persons would not be able to recover

the currency notes which were thrown away by the accused in

the open space and which were allegedly taken away by the

members of public. There is absolutely no evidence given by

the investigating officer PW9 as to what efforts he did to

find out the currency notes. The only explanation which has

come out from the evidence of investigating officer is that

it was not possible. In his cross-examination, PW 9 stated

as under:

"We did not surround the people at that place as there was no possibility. I did not subject the amount 200 to any chemical test. It is not true to say that I did not seize Rs. 200 from any vacant space and that the said amount is in the pocket of accused. I returned Rs. 200 as it is his personal money."

8

10. This was rather strange. Learned counsel appearing

for the State very heavily relied on that circumstance.

That circumstance by itself may not be able to establish

that money was demanded and it was accepted as bribe. It

could have been the possibility that the complainant had

touched the currency notes and had shaken hand with the

accused or it could be that any one of the investigating

officer or the member of the raiding party had touched the

fingers of the accused. That circumstance itself cannot be

ruled out.

11. We have seen the judgments of the courts below

wherein the sole evidence of the fingers being soiled in

sodium carbonate turned pink has been relied upon. Both the

courts below seem to have impressed by this situation

alone. We do not feel it sufficient to convict the accused

on this evidence alone and we would choose to give him the

benefit of doubt.

12. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail. His

bail bonds are discharged.

...................J. (V.S.SIRPURKAR)

9

....................J. (T.S.THAKUR)

New Delhi, August 2, 2011.