REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1923 OF 2008

Kootha Perumal                                         ..Appellant

VERSUS

State Tr. Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption           ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the  

Madras  High  Court,  Madurai  Bench  dated  7th  

March,  2007  in  Criminal  Appeal  (MD)  No.821  of  

1999  by  which  the  High  Court  affirmed  the  

conviction  and  sentence  recorded  by  the  learned  

Special  Judge-cum-Additional  District  Judge-cum-

Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Pudukottai  in  

Spl.C.C.No.1  of  1994.  By  the  aforesaid  judgment,  

the  Special  Judge  convicted  the  appellant  for  

1

offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read  

with      Section  13(1)(d)  of  the  Prevention  of  

Corruption  Act,  1988  (in  short  ‘the  Act’)  and  

sentenced  him  to  undergo  one  year  rigorous  

imprisonment and to pay a fine of    Rs.500/-, in  

default  of  payment  to  undergo  three  months  

rigorous  imprisonment  and  convicted  him for  the  

offence under Section 7 of  the Act and sentenced  

him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment  

and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default of payment  

to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.  

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows :

The  prosecution  case  as  narrated  by  PW2,  the  

complainant,  has  been extensively  noticed  by  the  trial  

court as also by the High Court. For the purposes of this  

appeal, we may very briefly touch upon on the relevant  

facts.  The complainant  PW2, Nayinar  Mohammed,  is  a  

resident of Pudukottai. His father is the owner of house  

property  at  door  No.36,  Mamundi  Madam,  Adappan  

2

Vayal, Pudukottai. Since his father was seriously ill, he  

needed Rs.75,000/- for his treatment. He approached a  

financial institution for a loan. The institution asked him  

to  furnish  property  certificate  and  Municipality  Tax  

Extract  of  the  house  owned  by  his  father.  He  gave  a  

petition through his friend Noorul Ameen on 17th August,  

1993, with the requisite Rs.15/- court stamp affixed on  

the  same  (Ex.P3).  His  friend  paid  Rs.15/-  to  the  

Municipality  and  obtained  a  challan  Ex.P4.  PW4,  who  

was the writer in the record room, knew the accused and  

made the necessary  entry  in  the  ledger  at  page  No.40  

on 19th August, 1994. The application of the complainant  

was  given  as  No.C.A.2650  of  1993.  Similar  entry  was  

made with regard to payment of Rs.15/- on 17th August,  

1993 by  the  cashier  of  Pudukottai  Municipality  (PW6).  

The payment was made through challan No.6789 (Ex.P4).  

Govindrajan,  PW5,  was  a  Junior  Assistant  in  the  

Municipality  compared  the  copy  of  the  tax  extract  

No.2650  with  the  original  and  found  the  same  to  be  

correct and put his signature. Ex.P7 is the signature of  

3

the aforesaid Junior Assistant.  

3. When the complainant enquired about the progress  

of the petition, the appellant informed him that the file  

will  only  come  to  him  on  23rd August,  1993.  He  

demanded  a  sum  of  Rs.50/-  as  a  bribe  from  the  

complainant  for  delivery  of  the  tax  extract  which,  

according to him, was ready for delivery. On that date,  

the complainant did not have any money. In any event,  

he was not inclined to give any bribe to the appellant.  

He, therefore, made a written complaint to the Inspector  

(PW8) Anti Corruption, Rajagopalapuram. The complaint  

is Ex.P5. A case was duly registered by PW8 as Crime  

No.4  of  1993  under  Section  7  of  the  Act.  The  First  

Information  Report  (Ex.P10)  was  duly  signed  by  the  

complainant.  Thereafter,  another  Inspector  in  Anti  

Corruption,  Pudukottai  recorded  the  statements  

of  PW2 and  PW3 on  24th August,  1993.  Similarly  the  

statements  of  PWs.4,  5,  6  and  7  were  also  recorded.  

Information about the registration of  the FIR was duly  

sent to the higher officials.  

4

4. Subsequently,  a  trap  was  arranged,  wherein  one  

Sridhar (PW4) who was working as a Junior Assistant in  

Pudukottai  Public  Works  Department  and  one  

Balakrishnan, Junior Assistant from Water Supply and  

Drainage Board were engaged as trap witnesses.  The FIR  

was got duly verified from the witnesses. Thereafter, the  

complainant  produced  five  ten  rupees  notes  totaling  

Rs.50/-  (M.O.1).  The  notes  were  duly  treated  with  

Phenolphthalein Power. A demonstration was also given  

to the complainant as to how the hands of anybody who  

receives  the  aforesaid  currency  when  washed  in  water  

would  turn  red.  Thereafter,  PW8,  the  Inspector,  

instructed  the  complainant  to  go  to  the  office  of  the  

appellant and hand over the amount.

5. On directions of the police, the complainant along  

with the trap witnesses went to the office of the appellant  

on 23rd August, 1993.  He was directed to hand over the  

money to the appellant and to give a signal by folding his  

shirt.  At about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m., the complainant and  

5

PW4 Sridhar went to the Municipality by cycle, they were  

followed by other jeep.  

6. At about 4 p.m. PWs.2 and 3 entered into the office  

of the appellant and met him. The appellant received the  

amount  and  put  it  in  his  pocket.  At  1610  hrs.,  the  

witness came out from the office and gave the necessary  

signal by folding his shirt, as directed by PW8.  

7. On receipt of the signal, PW8 along with the other  

witnesses and police party went inside the office of the  

appellant.  They  introduced  themselves.  The  appellant  

was found to be nervous and sweating. PW9 prepared the  

Sodium Carbonate  mixture  in  two  glass  tumblers  and  

asked the appellant to dip his two fingers separately into  

the mixture. The mixture turned light red. The mixture  

was  poured into  a  bottle  and duly  labeled  ‘R’  (M.O.3).  

Another sample was similarly prepared with label ‘N’ and  

marked (M.O.2).  

6

8. He thereafter asked the appellant about the money  

he  has  received from PW2 and the  appellant  took the  

currency notes M.O.1 from his pocket and presented it  

before  PW8.  On comparison,  the  numbers  in  the  said  

currency notes recovered from the appellant tallied with  

the  numbers  mentioned  in  the  mahazar  Ex.P7.  The  

appellant  was  thereafter  asked  to  remove  his  shirt  

(M.O.5).  The pocket  of  the  shirt  was also  subjected to  

Sodium Carbonate mixture test, and the solution turned  

into light red colour. The solution was duly sealed in a  

separate  bottle  as  M.O.4  and  given  the  label  ‘S’.  The  

bottle was duly signed by PW8.  

9. On  completion  of  certain  other  formalities,  the  

appellant  was  arrested  and  released  from  bail  

at  1930 hrs.  On completion of the entire investigation,  

the appellant was duly put on trial.  

10. The  trial  court  convicted  the  appellant  and  

sentenced  him  as  noticed  above.  Aggrieved  by  the  

7

judgment of the trial court, the appellant challenged the  

same before the High Court in appeal. The High Court  

upon a  detailed  consideration  of  the  evidence  affirmed  

the findings recorded by the  trial  court.  Consequently,  

the conviction and the sentence were confirmed.  Hence  

the present appeal.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  

12. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  

the entire proceedings were vitiated, as previous sanction  

to  prosecute  the  appellant  was not  legally  obtained as  

required under Section 19 of the Act. The second issue  

raised by the appellant is that there was no demand of  

bribe  made  by  the  appellant.  Thus  the  conviction  

recorded by the courts below is perverse and deserves to  

be set aside.  

13. We  may  first  consider  the  issue  as  to  whether  

sanction was duly obtained prior to the prosecution of  

8

the  appellant.  It  is  the  case  of  the  appellant  that  the  

order  for  sanction of  the  prosecution  produced in  this  

case  is  signed  by  the  Municipal  Commissioner  of  

Pudukottai.  According  to  him,  a  perusal  of  the  same  

would show that it suffers from non application of mind.  

According  to  the  learned  counsel,  the  sanction  order  

must  disclose  that  the  sanctioning  authority  has  duly  

applied  its  mind  and the  same must  be  stated  in  the  

sanction  order.  In  support  of  this  submission,  learned  

counsel  has relied on a judgment of  this  Court  in the  

case  of  Jaswant  Singh Vs.  State  of  Punjab  1  .  

Undoubtedly,  in  the  aforesaid  judgment,  this  court  

observed as follows :-

“The sanction under the Act is not intended to be nor  is an automatic formality and it is essential that the  provisions  in regard to  sanction should be  observed  with  complete  strictness;  Basdeo  Agarwala  v.  King  Emperor (1945) F.C.R. 93. The object of the provision  for sanctions is that the authority giving the sanction  should be able to consider for itself the evidence before  it comes to a conclusion that the prosecution in the  circumstances  be  sanctioned  or  forbidden.  In  Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v.  The King (1948)  L.R.  75  I.A.  30  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council also took a similar view when it observed :  

1 [AIR 1958 SC 124]

9

"In their  Lordships'  view,  to comply with  the  provisions  of  clause  23  it  must  be  proved  that  the  sanction  was  given  in  respect  of  the  facts  constituting  the  offence charged. It is plainly desirable that  the facts should be referred to on the face  of the sanction, but this is not essential,  since  clause  23  does  not  require  the  sanction to be in any particular form, nor  even  to  be  in  writing.  But  if  the  facts  constituting  the  offence  charged  are  not  shown  on  the  face  of  the  sanction,  the  prosecution  must  prove  by  extraneous  evidence  that  those  facts  were  plakhed  before  the  sanctioning  authority.  The  sanction  to  prosecute  is  an  important  matter;  it  constitutes  a  condition  precedent  to  the  institution  of  the  prosecution and the Government have an  absolute  discretion  to  grant  or  withhold  their sanction."  

It should be clear from the form of the sanction that  the  sanctioning  authority  considered  the  evidence  before  it  and  after  a  consideration  of  all  the  circumstances of the case sanctioned the prosecution,  and  therefore  unless  the  matter  can  be  proved  by  other evidence, in the sanction itself the facts should  be referred to indicate that the sanctioning authority  had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of  the  case.  In  Yusofalli  Mulla  Noorbhoy  v.  The  King  (1949)  L.R.  76  I.A.  158  it  was  held  that  a  valid  sanction  on  separate  charges  of  hoarding  and  profiteering was essential to give the Court jurisdiction  to  try  the  charge.  Without  such  sanction  the  prosecution would be a nullity and the trial  without  jurisdiction.”  

14. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it  

would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order  

10

in the present case was not valid.  Ex.P2 with the present  

appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the  

same  would  show  that  the  sanctioning  authority  has  

adverted  to  all  the  necessary  facts  which  have  been  

actually  proved  by  the  prosecution  in  the  trial.  Upon  

examination  of  the  material  facts,  the  sanctioning  

authority has certified that it is the authority competent  

to remove the appellant from the office. It is specifically  

stated that  the  statements  of  the  witnesses have  been  

duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other  

materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official  

documents such as the different mahazars were carefully  

examined.  Upon  examination  of  the  statements  of  the  

witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning  

authority  has  duly  recorded  its  satisfaction  that  the  

appellant  should  be  prosecuted  for  the  offences,  as  

noticed  above.  We,  therefore,  find  no  merit  in  the  

submissions of the learned counsel that the sanctioning  

order to prosecute the appellant was not legal.  

11

15. We may also  notice  here  that  although the  issue  

with  regard  to  the  illegality  attaching  to  the  order  of  

sanction  was  raised  before  the  trial  court,  it  was  not  

raised  before  the  High  Court.  The  trial  court,  on  

examination of the issue, also negated the submission of  

the  appellant  about  any  illegality  attaching  to  the  

sanction order.  Even though we do not have the benefit  

of the opinion of the High Court as the appellant has not  

raised issue with regard to the illegality of the sanction  

order  before  the  High Court,  we  are  satisfied  that  the  

sanction order has been issued in according with law.

16. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  secondly  

submitted that the judgment recorded by both the courts  

below  is  contrary  to  the  evidence  on  record.  We  have  

examined  the  entire  issue.  We  are  of  the  considered  

opinion that  the  trial  court  as  well  as  the  High Court  

have analyzed the entire evidence and clearly held that a  

demand was definitely made by the appellant for delivery  

of the tax certificate. The trial court as well as the High  

12

Court  have  made a reference to  the  evidence given by  

PWs.2  and  3  who  have  categorically  stated  that  the  

demand was made by the appellant. No other point was  

urged before us.

17. We  may  notice  that  the  entire  trap  have  been  

meticulously orchestrated by the prosecution authority.  

We  are  unable  to  discern  any  arbitrariness  or  

inconsistencies  in  the  concurrent  findings  recorded  by  

the courts below. We find no merit in this appeal. The  

appeal is dismissed.     

 ……………………………..J.    [B.Sudershan Reddy]

  ……………………………..J.    [Surinder Singh Nijjar]

New Delhi; December 15, 2010.           

13