http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.T. ANANDAN AND ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/01/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.S.M. QUADRI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Nanavati, J.      The State  has filed  this appeal  as the High Court of Kerala acquitted  the respondents  by  setting  aside  their convictions under  Sections 5  (2) and  5  (1)  (d)  of  the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 109 and 120- B of  the Indian  Penal Code. Alongwith the two respondents, two others  were also  tried for  the said  offences in  the court of  the Special  Judge, Trichur,  in Criminal Case No. 18/82.      Smt. Bitchu  - A.2  was the  owner of  M/s. Latex India Ltd. and M/s. Excellent Rubber and Allied Industries. But as a matter  of fact,  both the  industries were managed by her husband Abdulla koya A.3.      The prosecution case was that A.2 and A.3 in conspiracy with  Anandan   -  A.1,  who  was  the  District  Industries officers, and  A.4, who  was a Technical Supervisor, entered into a conspiracy to obtain for A.2 and A.3 more quantity of Titanium dioxide  than what  was really required by them for their industries and pursuant to that conspiracy A.1. issued two Essentiality  Certificates, Ex.  P. 35(a)  and  P.36(a), entitling M/s.  Latex India  Ltd. to  get 300  kilograms  of Titanium Dioxide per month and M/s. Excellent and Rubber and Allied Industries  to get 2000 kilograms of Titanium dioxide per Month.  In substance,  the allegation  against them  was that this much quantity of titanium dioxide was not required by them  and A.1 - Anandan abusing his official position had wrongly  issued  the  two  Essentiality  Certificates  which entitled them to obtain more titanium dioxide which entitled them to  obtain more  titanium dioxide which  could later be sold in the market at a higher price.      The trial  court relied  upon the evidence of PW 4, who was the Deputy Director (Controls), PW 7 - Narayanan Nambiar and PW  17 -  PR Pillai,  the commercial Manager and the two documents -  P.35 (c)  and P.35  (d) and  held that A. 1 had issued the  said Essentiality  Certificates fro  much  lager quantity than  that required by A.2 and A.3.  As A.2 was not taking any  interest in  the management  of the two concerns and  as   A.4  had   not  taken  any  part  in  issuing  the Essentiality certificates,  they were  acquitted but A.1 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

A.3 came to be convicted for the offences mentioned above.      The High  court on reappreciation of the evidence found that there  was nothing  to show that titanium dioxide was a scare commodity  or that  its distribution  and  price  were controlled. it  also came  to the  conclusion that  there is nothing on  the record  to show  that the said two firms did not require  that much  quantity for  their  use.  The  High Court, therefore,  allowed the appeal and acquitted both the respondents.      We have  gone through  the judgments of the trial court and the  High Court  and also the relevant evidence. We find that the  prosecution had not led any evidence to prove that titanium  dioxide   was  a  scarce  commodity  or  that  its distribution and  price were  controlled  by  any  statutory provision or  an administrative order. We also find that the prosecution had  failed to  establish that  in 1969 when the two certificates  were issued, the two factories were either closed or that they did not require the quantity of titanium dioxide  for   which  they  had  obtained  the  Essentiality Certificates. In absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that by  issuing the Essentiality Certificates, Ex. P. 35(a) and Ex.  P. 36(a).  A.1 had  abused its official position in any manner.  The High  court was,  therefore,  justified  in acquitting both the respondents.      We, therefore,  dismiss these  appeals. Bail  bonds are ordered to be cancelled.