Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2001

Krishna Ram                             .....           Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan                     .....       Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh   Panta  , J.   

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated

22.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at

Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 1999 by which

the learned Single Judge of the High Court has set aside the

order  of  acquittal  of  the  accused  and  convicted  him  for

offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short “P.C. Act,

1988”] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for  one  year  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.500/-.   In  default  of

payment  of  fine,  the  accused  shall  suffer  further  simple

imprisonment for two months.

2. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as

under:-

2.1] Krishna  Ram  –  accused-appellant  herein  in  the  year

1991 was posted as Patwari  and was Incharge of the Revenue

Circle 84 RBB Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

On 20.03.1991, Gurmukh Singh-complainant [PW-2], resident

of  85,  RB  visited  the  Rajasthan  State  Investigation  Bureau

(SB) Ganganagar Post and submitted an application to Hazari

Lal [PW-8], Inspector Chowki Incharge in which he stated that

he was holder of land measuring 10 bighas 5 biswas in  Chak

85 RB and land measuring 12.5 bighas in Lakha Tiba on the

basis of temporary cultivation lease.  He wanted to convert his

temporary lease into permanent lease for which purpose  he

filled  in  the  requisite  application  form  (Exhibit  P7)  and

presented  the  same  before  Shri  Jagmal  Singh  [PW-9],  the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, who in turn marked it

to the  Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar and handed over the original

2

application to the complainant.  The Tehsildar in turn marked

the application to the Patwari concerned.  

2.2] On 18.03.1991, PW-2 approached the appellant (Patwari)

and presented the application (Ex.-P-7) to him for giving his

report  thereon.   The complainant alleged that the appellant

had demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe money for giving

favourable  report  in  his  (complaints)  favour  in  regard  to

allotment  of  the  lands  to  him on  permanent  lease  holders

rights.  PW-2 pleaded to the appellant that he did not possess

enough money to meet his demand whereupon the appellant

asked the complainant to come to his house with an amount

of Rs.500/- instead of Rs.1,000/- as demanded by him on an

earlier occasion.  It was also stated by the complainant that he

was not willing to pay the bribe money to the appellant and

wanted to get him apprehended by the police for demanding

illegal gratification and it  was with that sole object  that the

complaint (Ex.-P-13) came to be presented to PW-8 Hazari Lal-

Inspector,  Bureau  Incharge  of  Chowki,  Ganganagar.   On

receipt of the complaint of the complainant, PW-8 summoned

Askaran  (PW-1)  and  Raje  Ram  (PW-3)  employees  of  UIT,

3

Ganganagar,  who  were  introduced  to  the  complainant  and

they were apprised of complete gist of the complaint.  Both the

witnesses  had  voluntarily  agreed  to  participate  in  the  trap

proceedings proposed to be laid against the appellant.  Four

currency  notes  of  Rs.100/-  denomination  and two notes  of

Rs.50/- denomination, i.e. total amounting to Rs.500/-, were

arranged  by  the  complainant  for  payment  to  the  appellant.

The Bureau employees then treated the currency notes with

phenolphthalein  powder  which  were  kept  in  the  left  side

pocket of the complainant’s shirt who was instructed not to

touch the money any more and the same shall be handed over

to the appellant on his demand.  The complainant was asked

to give  a signal  to the  members  of  the  trapping party soon

after payment of money to the appellant by putting his hand

on his turban.  The witnesses were also instructed to stand

close  by  to  the  complainant  to  enable  the  police  party  to

apprehend the appellant red handed.  Thereafter, the trapping

party reached near Gulbadiwali Haveli at Raisinghnagar where

the appellant was residing.  The appellant at that time was

sitting  with  two  or  three  persons  in  his  house,  but  the

4

complainant asked him to come outside the room on the first

floor  of  the  house  and  the  members  of  the  trapping  party

remained standing downstairs.  Thereafter, upon signal being

received from the complainant, the members of the trapping

party immediately reached near to the appellant where PW-8

questioned him in the presence of the witnesses present there

if  he had accepted                  Rs.500/-  as bribe  from

complainant Gurmukh Singh.  The appellant’s first stand was

that Gurmukh Singh had given him                 Rs.500/- for

making a favourable report on his application for allotment of

land  to  him,  but  then  hesitatingly  he  turned  around  and

replied that Rs.500/- was paid to him as loan amount.  The

complainant reiterated and reasserted that on demand made

by  the  appellant,  he  had  given  Rs.500/-  as  an  illegal

gratification to the appellant for doing his work.   He stated

that  the  appellant had  accepted  the  amount  and  after

counting  the  currency  notes  he  pocketed  them in  left  side

pocket of his bushirt. The police constable immediately held

both the wrists of  the appellant and that appellant’s  hands

turned pink when dipped in sodium carbonate solution, as a

5

result  whereof  the  solution  also  turned  pink  colour.   The

appellant was asked to take out the money from the pocket of

his  bushirt  and  on  counting  the  currency  notes  they  were

found to be the same which were paid by the complainant to

the appellant.  On personal search of the appellant, a sum of

Rs.227/- was also found in his pocket, besides Rs.500/- the

bribe money.  The bushirt of the appellant was dipped in the

solution  of  sodium  carbonate  which  also  turned  into  pink

colour and was taken into possession as an evidence.   The

relevant  record  was  also  taken  in  possession  from  the

appellant.  Site Plan was prepared after conducting search of

the room occupied by the appellant.  The materials seized as

evidence  were  kept  in  the  Malkhana.   FIR  (Ex.P-16)  was

prepared  and  registered  against  the  appellant  in  the  police

station at Head Office at Jaipur.  The sample bottles were sent

to Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur, and on receipt of the report

(Exhibit  P-17)  and  after  completion  of  all  the  required

formalities, charge sheet was presented against the appellant

in the court.

6

2.3]   The appellant during the trial denied the charges and

claimed to be tried.  The prosecution examined as many as ten

witnesses  and  produced  19  documents  and  12  articles  as

exhibits.   The  appellant  in  his  statement  recorded  under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 denied

his involvement in the commission of the offence.  He pleaded

that there was some dispute regarding felling of a tree from

the field of one Gorai which on spot inspection of the appellant

was found lying in the field of the complainant and, therefore,

it was in this background that an attempt was made by the

complainant  to  involve  the  appellant  in  a  false  case.   He,

examined  Ramchandra  (DW-1)  in  his  defence  and  got  two

documents exhibited as D-1 and D-2.

3. Learned trial  judge,  on analysis  of  the  entire  oral  and

documentary  evidence  on  record,  found  the  appellant  not

guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with

Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly acquitted

him.

4. The  State  of  Rajasthan,  being  dissatisfied  with  the

acquittal of the appellant, preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No.

7

673  of  1999  in  the  High  Court  of  Rajasthan  at  Jodhpur

Bench. By judgment and order dated 22.12.2000, a learned

Single Judge of the High Court has set aside the order of the

trial  court  and  held  the  appellant  guilty  of  offences  under

Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C.

Act of 1988 and imposed the aforesaid sentence upon him.  

5. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us by way of

this appeal.

6. Mr.  Manoj  Prasad,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,

contended that the judgment of the High Court reversing the

well-reasoned order of acquittal  passed by the trial  court is

erroneous in law being against the well-established principles

with regard to interference in appeal under Section 378 of the

Criminal  Procedure  Code.   In  support  of  the  contentions,

reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court in  Kalyan

Singh  v..  State  of  M.P. [(2006)  13  SCC  303]  and  T.

Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401].  We have

gone through the said decisions.  There cannot be any quarrel

with the settled propositions of law that if on appraisal of the

evidence and on considering relevant attending circumstances

8

it is found that two views are possible one as held by the trial

court for acquitting the accused and the other for convicting

the accused, in such a situation, the rule of prudence should

guide  the  High  Court  not  to  disturb  the  order  of  acquittal

made by the trial  court.   It  is also equally  well-settled that

where the material on record leads to a sole and inescapable

conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal

will call for interference by the appellate court.

7. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  next  contended

that  the  prosecution  has  miserably  failed  to  prove  beyond

reasonable doubt that the appellant had made any demand of

bribe from the complainant as alleged by him and therefore,

the presumption as contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C.

Act, 1988 has wrongly been applied by the High Court against

the appellant and in favour of the prosecution.  In support of

this submission, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court

in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401].  This

Court in the above cited case, while considering the case of

the accused for offences under Section Ss. 5(1)(d)  read with

Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, has held

9

that  the  accused  had  offered  reasonable  and  probable

explanation  based  on  the  evidence  that  the  money  was

accepted  by  him  as  lease  rent  arrears  and  not  illegal

gratification.  

8. In the light of the above settled propositions of law, we

have  made  independent  scrutiny  of  the  evidence  in  the

present  case  to  find out  whether  the  High Court’s  order  of

conviction of the appellant can be sustained or not.   

9. Gurumukh  Singh  (PW-2)  has  proved  on  record  that  on

demand  of  the  appellant,  he  had  paid  Rs.500/-  to  him as

illegal  gratification,  for  recording  favourable  report  on  the

application marked to the appellant by Tehsildar for allotment

of permanent lease to the complainant.  Four currency notes

of Rs.100/- denomination and two currency notes of Rs.50/-

denomination were handed over to the appellant by PW-2 on

the  day  of  the  incident,  which  before  giving  to  him  were

treated by the  trapping party  with phenolphthalein powder.

The trapping party on search of the pocket of bushirt of the

appellant  recovered  those  currency  notes  from his  personal

possession.  At the first instance, the appellant had admitted

10

his  guilt,  but  recovering  swiftly  he  changed  his  stand  and

stated to the Investigating Officer that the money was handed

over to him by the complainant as loan amount on behalf of

DW-1.  It is the evidence of DW-1 that except the money in

question no money transaction ever took place between him

and the appellant.  Thus, it is proved that a sum of Rs.500/-

was recovered by the officials of Anti-Corruption Bureau [for

short “ACB”] from the bushirt pocket of the appellant on the

day  of  incident.   Once  it  is  proved  that  the  money  was

recovered from the possession of the appellant, the burden of

presumption as contemplated  under  Section  20 of  the  P.C.

Act, 1988 shifts upon the appellant, which he could not rebut

through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by

adducing reliable and convincing evidence to prove that DW-1

advanced  Rs.500/-  as  loan  to  the  appellant  through  the

complainant.  DW-1 Ram Chandra, has not given any reason

why  he  chose  the  complainant  alone  to  deliver  a  sum  of

Rs.500/-  to  the  appellant  on  the  day  when  he  was

apprehended  by  the  Anti  Corruption  Team.   In  these

circumstances, the High Court has rightly concluded that the

11

explanation  given  by  the  appellant  was  not  probable  and

reasonable.   The currency notes of Rs.500/- were recovered

from the possession of the appellant which were got treated

with phenolphthalein powder  by PW Hazari  Lal-Inspector in

the presence of the witnesses.  The members of the trapping

party  alongwith  complainant  went  to  the  house  of  the

appellant  at  Raisingh  Nagar  where  the  bribe  money  was

handed  over  to  the  appellant  by  the  complainant.  PW-8

introduced himself to the appellant and asked him if he had

accepted  bribe  money  from  the  complainant,  the  appellant

replied that it was not bribe money but the amount of loan

repayment.  The complainant has categorically stated that it

was  not  loan  amount  but  bribe  money  demanded  by  the

appellant  from him.    The  appellant  took out  the  currency

notes of Rs.500/- from the pocket of his bushirt in presence of

the  witnesses.   The  numbers  of  the  notes  recovered  had

matched with the numbers noted in the ACB office before the

complainant handed over them to the appellant.  The bushirt

worn  by  the  appellant  was  washed  in  sodium  carbonate

solution and same turned into pink colour.  The evidence of

12

the complainant is found to be consistent  and impeachable

regarding the demand of Rs.500/- by the appellant as bribe

money for giving favourable report  in regard to the grant of

permanent lease holder rights of the land to the complainant.

His  evidence  is  supported  by  contemporaneous  documents

prepared  by the  Investigating  Officer  before  the  money  was

delivered  to  the  appellant.   The  complainant  empathetically

denied the suggestion of the appellant that Rs.500/- was sent

to the appellant by DW-1 as repayment of the loan amount.

The complainant, the Investigating Officer and other witnesses

who were present when the appellant was caught red handed

by  the  Anti  Corruption  Team have  been  cross-examined  at

length by the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted

from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are

not truthful witnesses.   They have given reliable and consistent

version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence.

10. In  State  represented  by  Inspector  of  Police,

Pudukottai, T.N. v. A. Parthiban [(2006) 11 SCC 473] this

Court has held that every acceptance of illegal  gratification,

whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by

13

Section  7  of  the  Act.   But,  if  the  acceptance  of  an  illegal

gratification  is  in  pursuance  of  a  demand  by  the  public

servant, then it would also fall under Section 13(1)(d) of the

P.C. Act.

11. Having regard to the entire evidence discussed above and

having carefully and closely considered the judgments of the

trial court and the High Court, it appears that the view taken

by the trial court drawn on the evidence on record is found to

be unreasonable and perverse and the High Court has rightly

interfered  with  the  order  of  acquittal  and  convicted  the

appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13

(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

12. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, instead of

imposing  separate  sentence  upon  the  appellant  under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, has in his wisdom

imposed sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment with a

fine of            Rs. 500/- upon the appellant under Section 13

(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, the

appellant  shall  undergo  two  months  further  simple

imprisonment.   

14

13. No other point has been raised by the appellant.   We,

thus, find no merit and substance in any of the submissions

made on behalf of the appellant.

14. In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no merit

in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. The accused appellant is on bail, granted by this Court by

order dated 30th March, 2001.  He shall be taken into custody

forthwith  to  serve  out  the  remaining  part  of  the  substantive

sentence.

........................................J.                                                    (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

........................................J.                                                    (B. Sudershan Reddy) New Delhi, March 17, 2009.

15

16