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

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1218 of 2007

PETITIONER: Ganapathi Sanya Naik

RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/09/2007

BENCH: S.B.SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 1218 /2007 (arising out of SLP(CRL) NO.2906/2007

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1.              Leave granted.

2.              This appeal arises out of the following facts.

3.              The accused/appellant was at the relevant time working  as a Village Accountant in Bisalkoppa in Sirsi Taluk in the State of  Karnataka.  PW.6 Nagaraj   had purchased some agricultural land  from Smt. Janaki on which he approached the appellant and  requested him to effect mutation entries in his name and to issue  the requisite record of rights.  The appellant told Nagaraja to come  after a few days and thereafter told him that some objections had  been received with respect to the sale in his favour.  It appears that  an enquiry was also held by the Deputy Tehsildar who passed an  order in Nagaraja’s favour. 4.              Armed with this order, Nagaraja again approached the  appellant requesting him to enter the necessary mutation and to  provide a certified copy of the revenue documents.  The accused  demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- from him for this purpose and  asked for Rs.500/- as an advance,  which was reduced to Rs.450/-.   As Nagaraja was apparently not willing to pay the amount, he  approached the Lok Ayukta and made a written complaint to the  Police on which a case was registered by PW.9 Police Inspector  Shambhulingappa.  The said police officer requested the Asstt.  Director of Agriculture and Asstt. Director of the Employment  Exchange, Karwar to depute a Pancha each to report to him at 6  a.m. on 14.8.1996.  Two Panchas PW.4 Mailarappa Neellappa  Sunkad and R.N.Cholvekar were accordingly deputed by the said  officers.   The Police Officer thereafter informed the two Panchas as  to what had transpired.  Nagaraja also produced MO5, four notes of  hundred rupee denomination, and one note of fifty rupees  denomination.  The Inspector also explained the  phenolphthalein/Sodium Carbonate procedure to the Panchas.   Phenolphthalein powder was then smeared on the currency notes  where were thereafter handed over to PW6. and PW.4 was  instructed to accompany the appellant and he was asked to make a  signal for the raiding party after the money had been handed over.   The party thereafter made its way to the office of the appellant.  The  two PWs. then met the appellant.  PW.6 stood near the table of the  appellant whereas PW4 stood at the door of the office.  On enquiry  from the appellant, PW-6 told him that he had brought the money  on which the appellant demanded the same from him and asked

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

him to put in on the table.  The appellant thereafter took some files  and put them on the currency notes.  PW-6 thereafter came out and  gave a signal to the Police Inspector on which PW9 rushed in and  recovered the money and was told by PW 4 and PW 6 that the  appellant had demanded and received the money.  On completion of  the investigation, the accused/appellant was charged for an offence  punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the  Prevention of Corruption Act.   5.              The trial court observed that the foremost question to be  established by the prosecution was as to the demand for money  from the complainant, PW-6 and the recovery of the money at the  instance of the appellant.  The Court also observed that the  evidence of PW4 and 6 with regard to the recovery of the cash from  the table under the files was not believable and the defence version  that the money had been put on the table surreptitiously and  without the knowledge  of the accused/appellant appeared to be  more plausible and worthy of acceptance.  The trial court  accordingly acquitted the accused.  The State thereafter preferred  an appeal before the High Court .The learned Judge in judgment  dated 31.3.2003, which has been impugned  before us, however set  aside the acquittal and convicted the accused and sentenced him to  rigorous imprisonment  for 6 months and to pay a fine  of  Rs.20,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6  months observing that Nagaraja’s statement as to the recovery had  been corroborated by PW4 an independent witness and that no  doubt could be created in the story merely because the currency  notes had not been touched by the appellant. The Court also  observed that the plea of the appellant that there was no occasion  for the demand of money as the necessary documents had already  been prepared was not acceptable as the possibility that the  documents had been prepared in anticipation of the receipt of the  money, could not be ruled out.  It is in these circumstances that  this matter is before us by way of special leave. 6.              It has been argued by the learned counsel for the  appellant that the High Court had ignored the principle, reiterated  time and again by this Court, that a finding of fact arrived at on a  proper appreciation of the evidence should not be interfered with  merely because the appellate court was of an opinion that a view  different from the one taken by the trial court was possible.  It has  been pointed out that the currency notes had not been touched by  the appellant and the defence version  that they have been  surreptitiously put on the table while the appellant was otherwise   engaged in some activity was a possibility on the evidence and  could not be ruled out.   7.      The Government Advocate has however supported the  judgment of the High Court.   8.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  We find  that the view taken by the trial court was clearly possible on the  evidence in the case.  The Court had observed that the plea of the  defence at the very initial stage was that PW-6 had serious  animosity towards the   appellant and that the currency notes had  been put on the table by the former was a plausible explanation.  It  is in the evidence that the currency notes had not been touched by  the appellant or recovered from his person.  It is also the  prosecution case that the relevant documents had been handed  over to Nagarja immediately after the money had been put on the  table.  The argument therefore that there was no occasion to make  a demand for any bribe is also plausible.  We are thus of the  opinion that in an appeal against acquittal where the High Court’s  interference is in a manner circumscribed, there was no  justification in upsetting the judgment of the trial court.    Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High  Court, and order the appellant’s acquittal.