The State Rep.By Cbi, Hyderabad vs G.Prem Raj

"REPORTABLE"

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2007

The State rep. by CBI, Hyderabad .... Appellant

Versus

G. Prem Raj .... Respondent

JUDGMENT

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. In this Appeal, the judgment of the High Court, allowing the appeal

of the respondent herein and acquitting him of the offence punishable

under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called "the Act" for short) is in

challenge, at the instance of the State.

2. The respondent, at the relevant time, was working as a Senior

Engineer in MIDHANI at Hyderabad during the year 1998. One Preetpal

Singh Sodhi of M/s Hardeep Industries was awarded a contract for the 2

construction of Structural Steel Sheds for VSSC stores at MIDHANI. He

was accordingly informed to contact the respondent-accused for

preparation of detailed programme of work schedule, as also for signing

the original agreement. Accordingly, he met the respondent-accused and

requested him to prepare a detailed programme of work schedule for

enabling him to sign the agreement. This was in the last week of May,

1998. The respondent-accused demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- or at

least to pay Rs.5,000/- as first installment by 27.5.1998, failing which the

respondent-accused showed his reluctance to prepare the detailed

programme of work. Being aggrieved by this illegal demand, the said

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (hereinafter called PW-1) lodged a complaint against

G.Prem Raj (respondent-accused) with SP, CBI, Hyderabad. It was

alleged that there was a telephonic conversation between Preetpal Singh

Sodhi (complainant - PW-1) and the respondent-accused, according to

which the complainant was called at the Taj Mahal Hotel, Narayanguda,

Hyderabad on 27.5.1998 for signing the agreement, as well as, for the

demand of bribery. After the complaint was registered, a trap was led by

one R.M. Khan, Inspector, CBI (PW-7), wherein two witnesses were called

and the usual demonstration of the use of phenolphthalein powder was

shown. The notes were soiled with the phenolphthalein powder. They

were handed over to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) with the usual

instructions that he would go to Taj Mahal Hotel along with M.N. Sampath 3

Kumar (PW-2) while the other Panch, H. Ramakrishna Murthy (PW-4)

would be reaching with the trap party. Specific instruction was given that

unless the bribe was demanded by the respondent-accused, Preetpal

Singh Sodhi (complainant) would not touch the notes kept in his pocket.

Accordingly, Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) along with the trap party

reached the hotel, where at about 6 O'clock the respondent-accused also

arrived on a scooter and parked the scooter in the parking area. Then

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant-PW-1) and the respondent-accused

went inside the hotel followed by M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2). Preetpal

Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and the respondent-accused occupied one table in the

hotel and the next table was occupied by M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2).

The agreements (Exhibits P-5 to P-8) were signed in Taj Mahal Hotel but

the respondent-accused did not hand over the agreements to Preetpal

Singh Sodhi (complainant). The complainant and the respondent-accused

came out of the hotel, who were followed by M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2).

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) and the respondent-accused reached

near the scooter of the respondent-accused where the respondent-

accused demanded the bribe money for handing over the copy of the

agreement. Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) gave money which the

respondent-accused accepted and kept the same in the scooter's bag.

The respondent-accused handed over the copy of the agreement to

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant). In the meanwhile, M.N. Sampath 4

Kumar (PW-2), who was watching the whole scenario, gave a signal to the

trap party. The trap party reached immediately and apprehended the

hands of the respondent-accused. The usual demonstrations were done in

Taj Mahal Hotel itself, which showed that the fingers of the respondent-

accused were soiled and they were dipped in the Sodium Carbonate

solution. The said solution turned pink. The respondent-accused removed

the currency notes from the bag and the same were seized. The

Panchnama was executed there and a search was conducted in the house

of the respondent-accused, but nothing incriminating was found. On this

basis, the sanction was obtained for the prosecution which was granted

vide Exhibit P-15 by Shri A.K. Taneja, the Sanctioning Authority (PW-8),

and on that basis, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

3. In support of its claim, the prosecution examined Preetpal Singh

(PW-1), M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) and other seven witnesses including

R.M. Khan (PW-7), the Investigating Officer, as also, PW-8, Sanctioning

Authority. The documents were also presented and were proved and on

that basis, the trial proceeded. The defence of the respondent-accused

was that of denial. He examined himself as DW-1 and contended that he

was framed, more particularly, by his superior officers. He particularly

pleaded that there were many discrepancies including the discrepancy in

the timing of the First Information Report (FIR). He also pleaded that there 5

was no question of his preparing the detailed programme and in fact, the

said programme was to be prepared by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), the

contractor himself and there was no question of his obliging the

complainant by preparing the said programme. He pointed out that there

was no question of obliging by signing the contract because the contract

was already awarded in favour of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant). He,

therefore, described the whole prosecution case as false. The learned

Trial Judge, however, found the respondent herein guilty and he was

convicted for the offence charged.

4. The respondent-accused, therefore, filed an appeal before the High

Court and the High Court acquitted the respondent-accused. It is this

acquittal which is challenged before us in the present case.

5. Shri Naresh Kaushik, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant urged that the High Court has erred in allowing the appeal even

when it was proved that the amount of bribe has passed from Preetpal

Singh Sodhi (complainant) to the respondent-accused and the respondent-

accused had accepted the same. The Learned Counsel pointed that the

High Court would have raised the presumption under Section 20 of the Act

and it should have been further noted by the High Court that the

respondent-accused had not explained as to why he had accepted the

amount, which was not his lawful deliberation. It is further argued by the 6

Learned Counsel that while allowing the appeal, the High Court had

nowhere shown as to how the Trial Court had gone wrong. The Learned

Counsel further urged that the respondent-accused had no business to go

to Taj Mahal Hotel for doing an official work of getting the signatures of the

complainant (PW-1) and that it was strange that the official work should

have been done at Taj Mahal Hotel. The Learned Counsel further urged

that it was clinchingly proved by the prosecution that the bribe was

demanded by the respondent-accused, who was a public servant and in

pursuance of the demand, he also accepted the bribe of Rs.5,000/-. It was

pointed out that the witnesses had absolutely no reason to speak against

the respondent-accused and their disinterested testimony was bound to be

accepted and was rightly accepted by the Sessions Judge and yet even

without finding any fault with the evidence, the High Court chose to acquit

the respondent-accused on imaginary grounds.

6. As against this, Shri G. Prakash Rao, Learned Counsel appearing

on behalf of the defence supported the judgment of the High Court and

pointed out that the story of the prosecution was extremely unnatural. He

also pointed out that L.N. Das (PW-5) was inimical towards the

respondent-accused, therefore, he was framed. He further pointed out that

there was absolutely no reason for the respondent-accused to demand

bribe, as the contract was already awarded in favour of Preetpal Singh 7

Sodhi (complainant) and the only remaining formality was the preparation

of the programme, which had to be done by Preetpal Singh Sodhi

(complainant) himself. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for

demanding any bribe as the respondent-accused was not in a position to

oblige Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) in any manner. Learned

Counsel urged that there was no question of raising the presumption under

Section 20 of the Act, as such, presumption could not be raised where the

respondent-accused was charged with the offence punishable under

Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act. Lastly, the Learned Counsel urged that

where two views are possible, the Court should be slow in upsetting the

judgment of acquittal.

7. The High Court proceeded initially on the basis of the story that the

agreement had to be got signed by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant-

PW-1), the Contractor within 19 days and, therefore, L.N. Das (PW-5) had

asked the respondent-accused to take the signatures of Preetpal Singh

Sodhi (PW-1) on the agreement before that date. The High Court further

noted that initially the respondent-accused was hesitant to approach

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), but later on, he agreed to do so. According

to the High Court, L.N. Das (PW-5) had admitted in his cross-examination

that since the time of contract was likely to expire, he requested the

respondent-accused to get it signed and as such, there was pressure on 8

the part of the management to get the agreement signed within time. In

our opinion, this theory of pressure was of no consequence and could not

be viewed as helpful to the defence. Even if the contract was to be got

signed by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), the fact remains that for the

purpose of contract, ultimately, the respondent-accused had to give the

detailed programme of work. The signatures of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-

1) could have been obtained on the agreement and at that time, it was

necessary that the work schedule was ready, which was to be prepared by

the respondent-accused and it was for that purpose that the respondent-

accused demanded the money. It must be noted here that after putting the

signatures of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) on the agreement and

after preparation of the work schedule, the contract would be complete and

the complainant would get the benefit of huge contract worth about Rs.35

lakhs. The bribe was for this purpose. The signing of the contract,

preparation of the work schedule were mere formalities. The High Court

has not properly viewed at this position that the bribe was demanded for

completing the contract, worth about Rs.35 lakhs.

8. The High Court further committed an error in presuming that the

amount of Rs.5,000/-, which was the first installment of Rs.50,000/- was to

be paid for signing the agreement and it was to be paid at Taj Mahal Hotel,

Narayanguda, Hyderabad. It has clearly come in the evidence of Preetpal 9

Singh Sodhi (PW-1) that he did not want to part with the amount of

Rs.5,000/- and it was, therefore, he made a complaint (Exhibit P-3) on

27.5.1998. The evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) clearly suggests

that question of payment of Rs.50,000/- as bribe money arose only after

the letter dated 3.4.1998 (Exhibit P-1) was written, informing him that he

was awarded the contract. Admittedly, the respondent-accused was

working as a Senior Engineer (Civil) and was in charge of the work

mentioned in letter dated 3.4.1998 (Exhibit P-1). This was followed by

letter dated 18.5.1998 (Exhibit P-2), wherein the value of the work was

mentioned. It was only after this that Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) met the

respondent-accused and at that time, the respondent-accused suggested

that the site where the work was to be executed was not available, yet he

asked the complainant to cooperate with him and demanded Rs.50,000/-

as bribe. The signing was to be done by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1)

and if the amount was demanded only for purposes of signing, there was

no question because Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) would have been keen

to get the contract. However, at the time of signing, the detailed schedule

of programme was also to be prepared by or with the cooperation of the

complainant and the respondent-accused. It was, therefore, that the

amount was demanded. Even the place that was fixed for payment of

amount was Taj Mahal Hotel. Now, one wonders as to why the

responsible senior officer like the respondent-accused would chose to go 10

to Taj Mahal Hotel for doing official work of getting the contract signed. He

could have easily called Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) to his office

and got the agreement signed. However, that did not happen and they

mutually agreed to meet at Taj Mahal Hotel in its dining room. This is the

first circumstance that the respondent-accused had failed to explain and

has also remained to be considered by the High Court. The movement of

the respondent-accused out of his office and going to Taj Mahal Hotel after

office hours at 6'O clock raises accusing finger towards the intentions of

the respondent-accused.

9. When Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) was waiting for the

respondent-accused at Taj Mahal Hotel and when the respondent-accused

came to the Hotel, the respondent-accused asked as to whether the

complainant had got the money. This could not be said to be a demand,

but was merely an assurance that the money was available. It must be

noted here that it took almost 3-4 hours for them to prepare the agreement

and work schedule and to get the signatures. What has to be noted is that

even after the signatures, the agreement was not handed over to Preetpal

Singh Sodhi (PW-1), and instead, the respondent-accused took it near the

scooter and it was there that the demand for money was made. There is

undoubtedly some mix-up as to where the demand was made because it

has not come specifically in the Examination-in-Chief of Preetpal Singh 11

Sodhi (PW-1) that the respondent-accused demanded the money near the

scooter. The Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused tried to take

advantage of this situation. However, we are not impressed by this at all,

as the respondent-accused had already demanded the money and even

this witness mentioned about the demand of money as soon as he met the

respondent-accused. The High Court, without going into the details of the

evidence, has merely come to the conclusion that no demand was made.

Now, if no demand was made, there was no reason for the respondent-

accused to accept the money offered by the complainant. The

respondent-accused cannot deny that the money was actually touched by

him. There is absolutely no cross-examination on the fact that when he

dipped his finger in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, same turned pink,

which was clear indication that he touched the money and handled it.

There is no explanation, whatsoever, of this second fact as to how the

fingers of the respondent-accused were soiled with phenolphthalein. This

is the second circumstance, which was a very major circumstance, that the

High Court has failed to note and explain, which shows that the High Court

has taken a very casual attitude. We have scanned the judgment of the

High Court very carefully and find that the High Court has not, in any

manner, considered the factum of solution of Sodium Carbonate turning

pink when the fingers of the respondent-accused were dipped. In fact, that

was a major circumstance and the most important incriminating 12

circumstance, which was bound to be explained by the respondent-

accused.

10. At this juncture, we must also express as to how the presumption

was completely ignored by the High Court. Section 20 of the Act

provides:-

20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration:-

(1) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13, it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate."

(2) Not relevant.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Sections (1) and (2), the Court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-Sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn."

It was argued, though feebly, that the presumption could not be

drawn as the charge in this case was under Section 13(2) read with

Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. It was pointed out by the Learned Counsel for 13

the respondent-accused that Section 13(1)(d) did not attract the

presumption under Section 20 of the Act. What is being ignored by the

Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused is that the charge was not

only under Section 13(1)(d), but also under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7

of the Act is as under:-

7. Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act:- Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months, but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."

Now, there can be no dispute that prosecution in this case was

alleging that the respondent-accused had accepted or obtained from

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant), gratification, which was other than the

legal remuneration as a motive or reward for signing the contract or, as the

case may be, for providing the schedule of work, so as to complete that

contract. Therefore, there was no question of the presumption not being

there, once it was proved that the respondent-accused had accepted the 14

illegal gratification. Now, the evidence is very clear that firstly, the fingers

of the respondent-accused were found to be soiled, which could not have

been so soiled had he not touched the currency notes offered by the

complainant; and secondly, it was found that those very currency notes

were kept in the bag attached to the scooter. Lot of criticism was made

that the scooter and/or the bag were not seized, ultimately from where the

money was recovered. Now, in this behalf, the evidence of Preetpal Singh

Sodhi (PW-1) is clear. He specifically deposed:-

"As agreed, I paid M.O. 1 to the accused."

Now, the words "as agreed" in the deposition of the PW-1

(complainant) are extremely important, as the same signify that there was

an agreement between the respondent-accused and the complainant that

the complainant had agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- as bribe for the contract, its

signing and for providing the schedule of work. The complainant further

goes on to say that "the accused kept the money in the front bag of the

scooter". Now, when we see the cross-examination of Preetpal Singh

Sodhi (PW-1), it is clear that nothing has been asked in respect of this

version. It was feebly suggested to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) that no

amount was paid before executing Exhibits P-5 to P-8 or that it was not

paid inside the hotel soon after the agreement. The witness had clarified

on this situation that the amount was paid in the parking area. He very 15

specifically mentioned in his cross-examination that he gave Rs.5,000/-

with his right hand and the respondent-accused accepted the money with

his right hand. It has also come out in the evidence that the amount of

Rs.5,000/- was taken out of the front bag of the scooter only after the hand

wash test was completed. Some minor insignificant omissions have been

brought, which were of no consequence. In the whole cross-examination,

the story of demand of the respondent-accused prior to the contract and

the acceptance by the respondent-accused near the scooter stand, has not

at all been demolished. This, the High Court has completely ignored.

Once this story becomes acceptable, there is no other go, but to raise a

presumption under Section 20 of the Act. This important provision of

Section 20 was also ignored by the High Court. This was again not a case

falling under Section 20(3) of the illegal gratification from being trivial, so

as not to raise presumption - inference of corruption. It was a substantial

amount. Therefore, Section 20 of the Act could not have been ignored.

The High Court has committed an error in ignoring this provision and

ignoring the fact that the presumption had to be raised, and on that basis, it

was up to the respondent-accused to explain as to how the amount came

in his possession. In our opinion, this amounts to a perverse appreciation

of evidence. This is the third aspect, on which the High Court has faltered. 16

11. The evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) was fully

corroborated by the evidence of M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2), who was a

Panch witness and who was to accompany the complainant. Even this

witness specifically says that after the signatures were obtained on

Exhibits P-5 to P-8, the respondent-accused collected the books and came

to the parking place, where his scooter was parked and he was followed by

the complainant and that when Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) asked for a

copy of the agreement book already signed, the respondent-accused

demanded money from Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and Preetpal Singh

Sodhi (PW-1) removed M.O. 1, i.e., money from his left hand pocket. The

respondent-accused collected the money and handed over the copy of the

agreement through his right hand. The respondent-accused placed the

money in the scooter bag and the complainant (PW-1) gave pre-arranged

signal. It can be said that there is some discrepancy about the hand, by

which the respondent-accused accepted the amount, but that goes into the

backdrop on account of the clear evidence of R.M. Khan (PW-7), the

Investigating Officer. R.M. Khan (PW-7), in his evidence, has referred to

the earlier demonstration, going of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and M.N.

Sampath Kumar (PW-2) to the Taj Mahal Hotel, the instructions given to

the complainant (PW-1) and the witness and the coming of the

respondent-accused at about 6'O clock. This officer was all through

watching the happenings. He also then proceeds to say that Preetpal 17

Singh Sodhi (PW-1) removed the currency notes from his pant pocket and

the same were given to the respondent-accused, who took the same and

kept it in the scooter bag and then the respondent-accused gave a copy of

the agreement to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1). On the signal being

received from M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2), the respondent-accused was

caught and the money was recovered after the demonstration of the

Sodium Carbonate solution. The cross-examination of this witness, though

lengthy, is perfunctory and serves no purpose. His basic story has

remained unshaken. Some insignificant contradictions as to who gave the

signal were brought in the evidence of this witness, but those would not

affect the otherwise credible evidence of this witness. Therefore, this was

a case where the evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) was totally

corroborated by the evidence of M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) and R.M.

Khan (PW-7). All this has been totally lost sight of by the High Court.

12. Much was said about the scooter or the scooter bag not being

seized. We do not see as to how that would have helped, once it was

proved that the respondent-accused had accepted the money. Merely

because it was kept in the scooter by the respondent-accused, in our

opinion, was an insignificant circumstance. The fact of the matter is that

the money was recovered from the scooter bag. It would have certainly

been better had the scooter and scooter bag been seized, however, in our 18

opinion, the non-seizure of the bag and scooter will not affect the

prosecution case.

13. Much was made of the evidence of L.N. Das (PW-5). The High

Court has gone to the extent of saying that it was at the instance of L.N.

Das (PW-5) that the respondent-accused was falsely implicated. We have

scanned the evidence of L.N. Das (PW-5) very carefully, but we find

nothing in the evidence of this witness to suggest the inference drawn by

the High Court. The witness merely gave the background, in which the

respondent-accused was asked to get the signatures and he also

undoubtedly has said that one B. Ashok Kumar was kept for this work,

however, since the respondent-accused was made in charge of the work,

the respondent-accused was asked to collect the signatures, so as to get

the contract completed. We do not find anything in the evidence or the

cross-examination of this witness to suggest that it was at the instance of

this witness that the respondent-accused was falsely implicated. The

inference drawn by the High Court has absolutely no basis and only

suggests that the High Court has read something in his evidence, which

was not there at all. Evidence of A.K. Taneja (PW-8) is merely formal and

nothing has been addressed to us as regards his evidence. He had given

the sanction for prosecution. In fact, no arguments were addressed on the

question of sanction.

19

14. The evidence of the respondent-accused is also perused by us, as

much was made by the High Court of that evidence. The High Court,

without even discussing the evidence in details, has gone to the extent of

saying that the evidence of G. Premraj (respondent-accused & DW-1) has

the effect of establishing the defence of the respondent-accused by

preponderance of probabilities. The respondent-accused admits here in

his evidence that on 27.5.1998, Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) telephoned

him at about 1'O clock, asking him to come to Taj Mahal Hotel for signing

the agreement. One wonders as to why the respondent-accused chose to

accept this suggestion on the part of the Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1)

even if it is held to be true. Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), however,

disowns telephoning the respondent-accused. The respondent-accused

has raised a theory that when he returned to his scooter for proceeding

after the signatures were obtained, Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1)

approached him and forcibly thrust the amount in his hands. Now, we fail

to follow as to what could prompt Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) to thrust

the money into the hands of the respondent-accused. In our opinion, his

evidence was nothing, but a poor attempt to explain the change of colour

of the Sodium Carbonate solution after his fingers were dipped in it. Such

theory of thrusting the notes cannot be believed at all. 20

15. The Sessions Judge in this case, after discussing the evidence, has

given cogent findings. In Para 17 of his judgment, he asked a right

question as to whether the amount was accepted by the respondent-

accused or was thrust in the hands of the respondent-accused. He has

also addressed himself about the other contentions. He has, after the

discussion, chosen to believe the evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-

1), M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) and R.M. Khan (PW-7) and has come to

the conclusion that the amount was accepted. He has rightly stated that

there was a meeting of minds between the respondent-accused and

complainant to meet at Taj Mahal Hotel. The Sessions Judge has rightly

held that there was no question of anybody having any enmity with the

respondent-accused, much less on the part of the complainant and,

therefore, there was no reason for these persons to falsely implicate the

respondent-accused. As regards the discrepancy in the First Information

Report (FIR), the Sessions Judge has rightly attributed this to the failure of

memory, as the witness has deposed after 3 years. The Sessions Judge

has also noted that the respondent-accused had, at no point of time,

complained to anybody that the amount was thrust in his hand. We find

that the judgment of the Trial Court was quite reasonable and even without

raising the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, the Trial Court had

inferred that the respondent-accused had committed offence under

Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 21

16. We do not find, in comparison, any reasons, much less, good

reasons, having been given by the High Court for its disagreeing with the

judgment of the Trial Court.

17. We are quite alive to the fact that unless the judgment of acquittal

tends to be perverse or unless the inferences drawn in the acquitting

judgment were not at all reasonable, possibly the acquittal should not be

upset. However, in this case, as we have already pointed out, there was

no scope for recording of finding of acquittal.

18. For all these reasons, we are unable to agree with the impugned

judgment of the High Court. We would, therefore, choose to set aside the

same and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.

19. Last, but not the least, we are extremely surprised to read the last

portion of the judgment of the High Court, wherein, the High Court has

honourably acquitted the accused and directed his reinstatement as senior

most Civil Engineer, Civil Department, MIDHANI with all usual retiral

monetary benefits inclusive of restoration of seniority etc. with immediate

retrospective effect. We wonder as to under what powers, the High Court

has acted. This was certainly not the jurisdiction on the part of the High

Court, which had only to find whether the respondent-accused was guilty

or not of the offence alleged against him. It has come in evidence that a 22

full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted against the accused,

wherein he was found guilty. We are shocked to see the step taken by the

High Court in straightaway writing off the findings in departmental enquiry

without any justification. This aberration on the part of the High Court

speaks of its wholly incorrect approach.

......................................J. [V.S. SIRPURKAR]

.......................................J. [DEEPAK VERMA]

New Delhi;

November 19, 2009.