Paka Saroja vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

2023INSC844 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2173 OF 2011

P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD)

THROUGH LR PAKA SAROJA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. The original appellant P. Sarangapani son of

Laxmaiah (accused no.1) having expired pending the

present Appeal, his wife Paka Saroja was permitted

to proceed further with the Appeal as per the order

passed by the court on 31st August, 2023. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

2. The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment SNEHA DAS Date: 2023.09.21 16:37:25 IST Reason:

and order dated 21st March, 2011 passed by the High

1 Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal

Appeal No.54 of 2005, whereby the High Court had

dismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant-accused

no.1 and confirmed the judgment and order dated

06.01.2005 passed by the Principal Special Judge for

SPE and ACB Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge City

Civil Court Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as

the Trial Court) in CC No.08 of 1994. The Trial

Court had convicted the appellant accused no.1

P.Sarangapani for the offences under Section 7 and

Section 13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the PC Act) and

sentenced him to imprisonment for one year and pay a

fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for three months for the offence under

Section 7 and to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for

two years and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default,

to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months for the

offence under Section 13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the P.C.

Act.

2

3. The chargesheet for the alleged offences was laid by

the Investigating Officer, Deputy Superintendent of

Police Shri P.L. Raju, Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Warangal Range, Warangal against the appellant

accused no.1 P.Sarangapani and one another accused

P.Vasudev son of Mallaiah. The said accused

P.Vasudev having expired pending trial, the

appellant accused alone was tried by the Trial

Court. The defacto-complainant Sri Immadi Laxmaiah

also had expired prior to commencement of the trial

and therefore he could not be examined by the

prosecution.

4. The case of prosecution in nutshell was that the

appellant accused Sri Sarangapani while discharging

his duty as the Sub Registrar, Cooperative Societies

had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.1500/- as

gratification other then legal remuneration from the

defacto-complainant Sri Immadi Laxmaiah on

27.03.1993, for himself and for the accused no.2

P.Vasudev, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative

3 Societies in the office of Divisional Cooperative

Khammam, as a motive or reward for showing an

official favour, in allowing the complainant to

continue as the President of the Society, and

thereby both the accused had committed the offence

under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)r/w 13(2) of the

PC Act.

5. To prove the charges levelled against the appellant-

accused, the prosecution had examined PW-1 Shri Dana

Pullaiah to prove the contents of the RC No.1496/92-

C. The PW-2 Sri M. Laxmi Narsu, one of the mediators

(panch witness) working as Agricultural Officer, in

the office of Joint Director Agriculture Khammam was

examined to prove the pre-trap and post-trap

proceedings. The PW-3 Sri K.L.N. Krishna Kumar was

examined to prove the Sanction orders relating to

the accused, accorded by the then Secretary of

Agriculture Cooperative – II Department. The PW-4

was Sri B. Pulla Reddy, working as the President of

Lachannagudem Village, who succeeded the Vice

4 President of the society, on the previous Vice

President B. Pulla Reddy having been suspended. The

PW-5 was Sri V. Vengalaiah, Inspector of Police ACB,

a member of raiding party; and lastly PW-6 Sri P.L.

Raju, the then DSP Warangal Range, was examined as

he was the trap laying officer cum investigating

officer. The prosecution had also adduced

documentary evidence in support of its case.

6. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the

appellant-accused P.Sarangapani was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he had denied the

allegations levelled against him and had stated that

he was falsely implicated. He also had filed a

written statement contending inter alia that he

never demanded and accepted any illegal

gratification from the complainant as alleged. The

appellant accused had also examined DW-1 Sri K.

Venkateshwarlu, resident of Chintakani Mandal of

Khammam District, to substantiate his defence.

5

7. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well

as the documentary evidence adduced by the

prosecution, held that the prosecution had proved

the charges levelled against the appellant/ accused

beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellant

was convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

In the Appeal preferred by the appellant before the

High Court, against the said judgment of conviction

and sentence, the High Court reappreciated the

evidence on record and confirmed the conviction and

sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently

submitted that both the courts had committed gross

error of law in misappreciating evidence on record

and in holding the appellant guilty of the alleged

charges, though the prosecution had miserably failed

to prove the demand of illegal gratification

allegedly made by the appellant. Placing reliance on

the decision of this Court in case of B. Jayaraj v.

State of Andhra Pradesh1, he submitted that it was 1 (2014) 13 SCC 55 6 required to be proved by the prosecutor beyond

reasonable doubt that the accused had voluntarily

accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe, and in

absence of proof of demand for illegal

gratification, presumption under Section 20 could

not be drawn against the accused. According to him

in the instant case, the complainant having expired

before the commencement of trial, could not be

examined and hence the very allegation of demand of

money as bribe was not proved by the prosecution.

The learned counsel for the appellant placed

reliance on the statement of complainant recorded

before the Additional I-Class Magistrate under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. to submit that the

complainant himself had stated therein that he had

paid the amount to the accused towards the Audit

fees of the society and that the accused was falsely

implicated by the former President of the society

Pulla Reddy, who had a grudge against the accused. 7

9. In our opinion, there is no substance in any of the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant. It is well settled proposition of law

that the death of the complainant or non-

availability of the complainant at the time of trial

could be said to be fatal to the case of

prosecution, nor could it be said to be a ground to

acquit the accused. It is always open for the

prosecution to prove the contents of the complaint

and other facts in issue by leading other oral or

documentary evidence, in case of death of or non-

availability of the complainant. Recently, the

Constitution Bench in case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State

(Government of NCT of Delhi)2, has held that: -

“88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns “hostile”, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does 2 (2023) 4 SCC 731 8 not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.”

10. In the instant case the appellant/ accused in his

explanation under Section 313 had accepted the

receipt of alleged amount. The court therefore was

required to appreciate the evidence laid by the

prosecution in the light of the said explanation and

to consider as to whether the said amount was an

illegal gratification other than the legal

remuneration or not. It cannot be gainsaid that if

the accused offers reasonable and probable

explanation based on the evidence that the money was

accepted by him other than as illegal gratification,

the benefit of doubt should be granted to the

accused. It is also true that the accused is not

required to establish his defence beyond reasonable

doubt as the prosecution, and can establish the same

on the preponderance of probability. However, the

court cannot be oblivious to the statutory

presumption permissible to be raised under Section

9 20 of PC Act with regard to the motive of the

accused. Section 20 reads as under: -

“20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage. — Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11.”

11. In view of the above, once the undue advantage i.e.,

any gratification whatever, other than the legal

remuneration is proved to have been accepted by the

accused, the Court is entitled to raise the

presumption under Section 20 that he accepted the

undue advantage as a motive or reward under Section

7 for performing or to cause performance of a public

duty improperly or dishonestly. No doubt, such 10 presumption is rebuttable. The Constitution Bench in

Neeraj Dutta (supra), also had dealt with the issue

of presumption under Section 20 of the Act and held

as under: -

“88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.”

12. In the instant case the pre-trap and post-trap

proceedings were duly proved by the prosecution by

examining the concerned witnesses, who had duly

supported the case of prosecution. Both the courts

below have recorded the findings that the

prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt the

conscious acceptance of the tainted currency by the

accused and also the recovery of tainted currency

from the appellant. Therefore, the burden had

shifted on the appellant to dispel the statutory 11 presumption under Section 20 of the said Act, and

prove that it was not accepted as a motive or reward

for the performance of his public duty, which the

appellant had failed to dispel. The explanation

offered by the appellant did not tally with the

statement of the complainant recorded under Section

164 of Cr.P.C. The High Court had also recorded that

the defence taken by the appellant that the

acceptance of tainted currency by him was towards

the Audit fees of the Society was not proved by him

in as much as there was nothing on record to show

that the amount paid by the complainant Immadi

Laxmaiah to the appellant was out of the funds of

the Society.

13. Both the courts have appreciated the evidence on

record threadbare in the right perspective and have

found the appellant guilty for the offence under

Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC

Act. We do not see any valid ground to interfere

12 with the well considered findings recorded by both

the courts below.

14. In that view of the matter, the criminal appeal

being devoid of merits is dismissed.

.…………………………………………. J.

[BELA M. TRIVEDI]

…………………………………………. J.

[DIPANKAR DATTA] NEW DELHI;

September 21st, 2023

13