THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   1165        OF 2010 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CRL.)NO.7689 OF 2009)  

BILLA NAGUL SHARIEF            …. APPELLANT

   Versus

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH           ... RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

C.K. PRASAD, J.

1. The  petitioner,  being  aggrieved  by  the  judgment  and  

order dated 25.06.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of the  

Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.378  of  

2002,  affirming  the  judgment  and  order  of  conviction  and  

sentence  passed  by  the  Special  Judge  SPE  &  ACB  Cases,  

Vijayawada,  has  preferred  this  petition  for  grant  of  special  

leave to appeal.

2. Leave granted.

3. The  appellant  was  put  on  trial  for  commission  of  an  

offence  punishable  under  Section  7  and  13(2)  read  with  

Section  13(1)(d)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988  

(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). He was found guilty by  

the trial court by its judgment and order dated 4th April, 2002  

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period  

of  one  year  under  each  count  and  also  to  pay  fine  of  

Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a  

period  of  three  months  under  each  count.  The  aforesaid  

judgment  and  order  of  conviction  and  sentence  has  been  

upheld by the High Court in appeal.

4. According  to  the  prosecution  the  appellant-Billa  Nagul  

Sharief at the relevant time was posted as Junior Assistant in  

the office of the District  Supply Officer,  Guntur and thus a  

public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.  

He  was  incharge  of  works  pertaining  to  grant  of  composite  

licence to deal with scheduled grains. PW.1, P.Rama Krishna,  

de facto complainant, a resident of village Pedaravuru within  

Block  Tenali  in  the  District  Guntur  possessed  a  house  in  

Sivalayam Street  of  the  village  and had constructed  R.C.C.  

2

godown in the vacant portion of the house with an intention to  

carry  on business in scheduled  commodities;  like  Redgram,  

Blackgram etc.   For that he obtained registration certificate  

and  C.S.T.  Form  from  Assistant  Commercial  Tax  Officer,  

Tenali.   De facto complainant PW.1,  P.  Rama Krishna  was  

required to obtain composite licence from the District Supply  

Officer, Guntur for carrying on the business.  Accordingly, on  

19.12.1996 he went to the office of the District Supply Officer  

and submitted an application for grant of composite licence.  

The District  Supply Officer  forwarded the application to the  

Deputy  Tahsildar  for  enquiry  and  report,  who  in  turn  

inspected  the  godown,  recorded  the  statement  of  de  facto-

complainant   on  22.12.1996  and  submitted  his  report  on  

23.12.1996.

5. According  to  the  prosecution  on 30.12.1996,  de  facto-  

complainant went to the office of the District Supply Officer  

and enquired about the licence.  The appellant asked PW.1 to  

deposit  Rs.1,000/-  National  Savings  Bond,  pledged  in  the  

name of the District Supply Officer. As directed PW.1 obtained  

the  same  and  handed  over  to  the  appellant.  The  appellant  

3

demanded  from  de  facto-complainant;  i.e,  PW.1,  P.  Rama  

Krishna  to  pay  the  bribe  of  Rs.3,000/-  for  issuing  the  

composite  licence.  The  de  facto-complainant  showed  his  

inability to pay the amount and again met the appellant on  

6.1.1997 at 11 a.m. and made enquiry about the licence. The  

appellant made it clear that the licence shall be given to the de  

facto-complainant only when he pays the  bribe of Rs.3,000/-.  

On  de  facto-complainant’s  repeated  request  the  appellant  

agreed to deliver the composite licence on payment of reduced  

amount of bribe of Rs.2,500/- with further stipulation that the  

said amount be paid within two days. De facto-complainant  

pretended to pay the said amount to the appellant but in fact  

he  was  not  willing  to  pay  the  bribe.  Hence,  de  facto-

complainant met PW.4, J.B. Haskarna Rao, on 6.1.1997 at 7  

p.m., who was working as Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption  

Bureau,  Guntur  and  lodged  a  report.  De  facto-complainant  

was asked to come on 8.1.1997 along with the bribe amount.  

As instructed, on 8.1.1997 de facto-complainant went to his  

office  where  PW.3,  M.V.  Mallikarjuna  Lingam  and  other  

members of the trap party were present. De facto-complainant  

4

produced 25 currency notes of  100 rupees each. The serial  

numbers  of  the  currency  notes  were  noted  and  

phenolphthalein powder was applied over the currency notes.  

De  facto-complainant  was  instructed  not  to  touch  the  

currency notes and to hand over the same to the appellant,  

only when he makes such a demand.  

6. Prosecution case further is that thereafter, the trap party  

consisting  of  the  de  facto-complainant,  PW.3  and  PW.5,  

D.V.S.S. Murthy went to the office of District Supply Officer  

where de facto-complainant met the appellant at 12.20 p.m.  

and  enquired  about  his  licence.  The  appellant  asked  as  to  

whether he had brought the bribe amount demanded by him  

and when told that he had come with the amount, appellant  

took  him  outside  the  room,  stopped  at  the  curve  of  the  

staircase  and  demanded  the  amount.  At  this  de  facto-

complainant took out the currency notes from his shirt pocket  

and gave it to the appellant who counted the same with both  

hands  and  kept  it  in  the  left  side  of  his  trouser  pocket.  

Thereafter both of them went inside the office, appellant took  

out the file from almirah, removed the licence granted in the  

5

name of  Ramakrishna Traders  and gave  it  to  the  de  facto-

complainant  after  obtaining  the  acknowledgment.  As  

instructed,  de  facto-complainant  came  out  and  gave  the  

signal.   Immediately  the  trap  party  entered  into  the  office,  

apprehended  the  appellant  and  conducted  phenolphthalein  

test on his both hands which turned pink.  According to the  

prosecution the appellant removed the money from his pant  

pocket  and  gave  it  to  PW.5,  D.V.S.S.  Murthy,  the  Deputy  

Superintendent of Police.

7. After usual investigation chargesheet was submitted and  

the appellant was put on trial and  charged for commission of  

the  offence  under  Section  7  and  Section  13(2)  read  with  

13(1)(d)  of  the Act.  The appellant denied to have committed  

any offence and claimed to be tried.  From the  trend of  the  

cross-examination and the witnesses examined on his behalf  

his defence is of false implication and alibi.

8. In  order  to  bring  home  the  charge  the  prosecution  

altogether examined five witnesses out of whom PW.1 happens  

to be the de facto-complainant himself.   PW.2,  P.  Sivarama  

Krishna was working as the Superintendent in the office of the  

6

District Supply Officer and had proved the application (Ex.P-5)  

given by de facto-complainant for grant of composite licence.  

He had also detailed various steps taken for grant of licence  

and also proved the composite licence dated 6.1.1997, which  

was  delivered  to  the  de  facto-complainant.  PW.3,  M.V.  

Mallikarjuna  Lingam,  is  a  member  of  the  trap  party  and  

witness to the recovery of the money from the appellant and  

the colour of the solution getting pink when his fingers were  

rinsed with it. PW.4, J.B. Haskarna Rao, at the relevant time  

posted as Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau and to whom  the  

de facto-complainant met for the first time and narrated his  

grievance.   He  conducted  discreet  enquiries  and  made  

recommendation.  He  was also  a  member  of  the  trap  party.  

PW.5, D.V.S.S. Murthy, was posted as Deputy Suprintendent  

of Police in Anti Corruption Bureau and in his evidence, gave  

details  of  pre-trap  proceedings.  He  is  also  witness  to  the  

recovery  of  the  bribe  money  from  the  appellant.  He  has  

deposed in detail the steps which he had taken leading to the  

trap and also recorded the statement of the appellant.

7

9. Appellant in order to prove his innocence has examined  

five  witnesses.  DW.1,  K.  Amma  Mohana  Rao,  is  a  clerk  

working with the Rice Millers Association and has stated that  

at  the  request  of  the de facto-complainant  he  had filed his  

application  for  doing  pulses  business  in  the  office  of  the  

District Supply Officer. He has also stated that the appellant  

on perusal of the application informed him that the de facto-

complainant is required to deposit National Savings Bond and  

he  accordingly  informed  the  de  facto-complainant.  DW.2,  

Uppu Nagaratana Raju, at the relevant time was working as  

Deputy Tahsildar in the office of District Supply Officer and  

has  stated  about  the  altercation  said  to  have  taken  place  

between  the  appellant  and  de  facto-complainant  on  

30.12.1996 in the office.  Besides DW.2,  DW.3, P. Mohana  

Krishna and DW.4, Devarakanda Nagar Raju Rao who were at  

the relevant time working as Junior Assistants in the office of  

the  District  Supply  Officer  have  also  stated  about  the  

altercation which had taken place between the appellant and  

the  de  facto-complainant  on  30.12.1996  between  3.15-3.30  

p.m. DW.5, D.V. Ranga Rao,  a Deputy Tahsildar working in  

8

the  office  of  the  District  Supply  Officer  had  brought  the  

Treasury Book maintained by the District Supply Officer for  

the  financial  year  1996-97.  According  to  him the  appellant  

was  authorized  to  present  five  bills  on 30.12.1996 and the  

appellant  was  further  authorized  to  present  two  bills  on  

6.1.1997.  According  to  him the  appellant  must  have  spent  

three and a half hours in treasury  on both the dates.

10. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court came to the  

conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case  

beyond  reasonable  doubt  and  accordingly  convicted  and  

sentenced the appellant as above. The appeal preferred by the  

appellant has been dismissed by the High Court.

11. Mr. A.T.M. Ranga Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel,  

appears on behalf of the appellant and submits that according  

to DW.1, K. Amma Mohana Rao, the application for grant of  

composite licence was filed by him and, therefore, the story  

put forth by the prosecution that it was filed by the de facto-

complainant is false.  According to the learned counsel once  

this story is disbelieved the entire prosecution case fails and  

the appellant  deserves to  be acquitted.  We do not  find any  

9

substance  in  the  submission  of  Mr.  Ranga  Ramanujam.  

De facto-complainant in his evidence has clearly stated that it  

was he who had filed the application for grant of composite  

licence. In his cross-examination he had denied the suggestion  

that any body else presented the application in the office of the  

District Supply Officer.  In any view of the matter, we are of  

the  opinion  that  the  gravamen  of  the  charge  against  the  

appellant  being  of  taking  bribe  for  giving  the  composite  

licence,  who presented the application for grant of composite  

licence is not of much consequence.   It is to be borne in mind  

that discrepancy in regard to the part of the story itself does  

not go to the root of the case but discrepancy in regard to the  

material  facts  only  has  bearing  to  test  the  veracity  of  the  

prosecution case.   Here in the present case, there is ample  

evidence on record that for the purpose of grant of composite  

licence the appellant demanded bribe, which was paid to him  

and recovered from his possession.

12. Mr. Ranga Ramanujam, then submits that according to  

the prosecution the composite licence was ready on 6.1.1997  

and had the appellant demanded bribe for giving the same to  

10

the de facto-complainant, he ought to have made a complaint  

to the District Supply Officer.  His failure to do the same and  

approaching the Anti Corruption Bureau, in his submission, is  

absolutely unnatural. This submission has only been noted to  

be rejected. The contention that grievance can remedied by the  

superior  officer  in  the  hierarchy  of  the  system  of  the  

department concerned, if  accepted, perhaps there shall be no  

case in which the demand for bribe can be made. The feeling  

of a common man that when the work is enshrined to different  

persons bribe is  demanded by  one of  them, when all   are  

invariably  in  collusion,  cannot  be  lost  sight  of.  If  Senior  

Officers ensure that the works of the citizens are done without  

payment of bribe, Junior Officers and employee may abandon  

the  demand  and  this  country  would  not  have  prominently  

figured as one of the most corrupt nations of the World, as it is  

widely accepted that the corruption flows from the top. Here  

de  facto-complainant,  was  entitled  to  have  the  composite  

licence  but  he  was  not  willing  to  pay  the  bribe  demanded,  

accordingly  he  had approached the Anti  Corruption Bureau  

and we do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of the  

11

de facto-complainant.

13. Mr.  Ranga Ramanujam has referred to the evidence of  

the defence witnesses and contended that from their evidence  

it is evident that the appellant was falsely implicated as the de  

facto  complainant  had  quarrelled  with  the  appellant  a  few  

days earlier to the date of occurrence.  He also points out that  

the  defence  witnesses  have  also  deposed  that  on  6th of  

January, 1997 when the appellant demanded the bribe money  

and on 8th of January, 1997 when the trap was laid and the  

bribe paid, the appellant was assigned the duty of presenting  

bills in the treasury and, therefore, his presence on both the  

dates is doubtful.  He also refers to the evidence of the defence  

witnesses  wherein  it  has  been  stated  that  the  money  was  

thrust  in  the  pocket  of  the  appellant.   All  these  facts,  

according  to  Mr.  Ranga Ramanujam lead to  the  conclusion  

that  the  prosecution  has  not  been  able  to  prove  its  case  

beyond all reasonable doubt.   

14. We have considered all these submissions and they do  

not commend us.  Defence witnesses have clearly stated that  

the time which one may spend for presenting the bills could be  

12

maximum three  and a  half  hours.  They  have  not  stated  in  

their deposition that the appellant or for that matter anybody  

presenting  the  bills  have  to  remain  in  the  treasury  

continuously for three and a half hours.  In the face of the  

evidence  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  that  the  appellant  

demanded  bribe  on  6.1.1997  and  received  the  same  on  

8.1.1997 cannot be doubted on the ground that for few hours  

the appellant was assigned the duty of presenting the bills in  

the treasury. The alleged quarrel  between the appellant and  

the  de  facto-complainant  on  30.12.1996  is  also  of  no  

consequence in view of  the specific  and consistent  evidence  

about  the  demand  and  payment  of  bribe  unfolded  by  the  

prosecution witnesses. The plea put forth by the appellant that  

the money was thrust on his pocket is not fit to be believed in  

the  face  of  the  categorical  and  consistent  evidence  of  the  

prosecution witnesses.

13

16. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and  

it is dismissed accordingly.

………………………………….J.                                        ( G.S. SINGHVI )

………………………………….J.                                        ( C.K. PRASAD )

New Delhi, July 6, 2010.

14