IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.817 OF 2006

N. RAJA KANTHAM               …….Appellant

Versus  

STATE: INSPECTOR OF POLICE                      ……Respondent

O R D E R

The accused-appellant was, at the relevant time, working  

as  a  Senior  Accountant  in  the  District  Treasury  Office,  

Warangal.  On 4th June,  1991,  a salary bill  pertaining to 23  

employees  of  Irrigation  Division  No.2  amounting  to

Rs.43,178/-  was  submitted  in  the  District  Treasury  Office,  

Warangal.   As  per  the  prosecution  story,  the  very  same  

evening, the complainant Venugopal PW-1 and his colleague  

K. Srinuvas Rao PW-2 approached the accused and enquired  

about the bill.   The accused demanded Rs.700/- as a bribe  

for getting the bill passed.  As the complainant was not wiling  

to pay this amount he approached the DSP, Anti Corruption  

Bureau,  Warangal  and  lodged  a  complaint,  Ext.P.1  On the  

basis of this complaint a trap was arranged on 6th June, 1991  

when the accused allegedly accepted the amount from PW.1.  

The tainted money was recovered from the appellant and on  

the phenolphthalein test,  the solution turned pink.  On the  

completion  of  the  investigation,  the  accused  was  charged  

under Sections 11 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the  

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and brought to trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PWs 1-

6 and put on record Exhibits P.1-P.20 and M.Os. 1-8. Four  

witnesses  in  defence,  DWs.1-4,  were  also  examined  by  the  

accused.  The trial Judge went through the evidence on record  

2

very carefully and in the course of a very elaborate judgment,  

discussing all  aspects  of  the  case  held  that the evidence  of  

PWs.1 and 2 was not worthy of credence as it was clear that  

the payment of Rs.700/- had been made towards repayment  

of  a  loan  which  one  Prasad,  a  nephew  of  PW.1,  the  

complainant  had taken from the accused, and that the record  

indicated that the accused and the complainant represented  

two  different  factions  of  employees  union  and  that  was  an  

additional reason for what could be a case of false implication.  

It  was  further  held  that  as  the  accused  and  PW.1  were  

residents of the same village it appeared that there was some  

rivalry between them inter se.  The trial Court also observed  

that the very fact of the trap being struck was itself in doubt  

as PW.2 who was to give a signal after the money has been  

passed over had not made any signal on which the DSP had  

sent Constable Satyanarayana to find out whether the money  

had been paid, and it was after Satyanarayana reported to the  

DSP that the money had in fact been handed over that the  

raid  had  been  carried  out.   The  Court  concluded  that  as  

Constable Satyanarayan had not been produced as a witness  

3

also indicated the falsity of the case.  The Court accordingly  

acquitted the accused for the offence charged.  An appeal was  

thereafter  taken  to  the  High  Court  and  on  the  basis  of  a  

casual examination of the evidence and a brief discussion in  

one or two paragraphs, the exhaustive judgment of the trial  

court  has  been  set  aside  and the  accused  convicted.   This  

matter is before us by way of special leave.

Mr.  P.S.  Patwalia,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  

appellant,  has first  and foremost submitted  that if  the  trial  

court  had taken a decision which could be  possible  on the  

evidence, interference by the High Court in an appeal against  

acquittal on the plea that a different view was also possible,  

was not  called for.   He  has also pointed out that the cash  

recovered was a re-payment of the loan which had been taken  

by Prasad and the factum of  the loan stood proved not only  

from the statement of the defence witnesses but even from the  

cross-examination of PW.1 himself.  He has also pointed out  

that as Satyanarayana, the Constable had not been produced  

in evidence,  it  appeared that the trap had in fact not been  

4

struck  but  the  whole  matter  concocted  for  the  reason  that  

PW.1 Venugopal have deep animosity towards the appellant.

The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State,  Ms.  Altaf  

Fathima,  has,  however,  pointed  out  that  in  addition  to  the  

unimpeachable evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the fact that the  

hand wash of the appellant had indicated the presence of the  

phenolphthalein  powder,  the  evidence  of  the  mediator  

Laxminrayana proved the case beyond any doubt.  She further  

submitted that PW.1 was one of 23 persons who would have  

been the beneficiaries of the amount that was to be disbursed  

by  the  Treasury  Department  for  which  they  had  made  an  

application which was to be dealt with by the appellant.

We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  and  

perused the record.   We endorse  Mr.  Patwalia’s  submission  

that the view taken by the trial Court on a very elaborate and  

comprehensive  discussion  of  the  entire  evidence  was  not  

merely possible but was the correct one.  Interference by the  

High  Court,  therefore,  by  a  sketchy  and  ill-considered  

judgment was, therefore, not called for.  We find that the trial  

5

Court had given very good reasons as to why the prosecution  

story did not inspire confidence and that the defence version  

represented the true state of affairs. It  is  significant  that  the  

appellant had, at the very time of his arrest, given a statement  

that  the  money  recovered  from  him  was  towards  the  

repayment of the loan that Prasad had taken from him.  This  

fact finds clear mention in Ex.P.12 the report tendered by the  

mediator PW.3.  The factum of the loan is admitted even by  

PW-1  but  the  story  is  further  clarified  by  the  testimony  of  

DW.2  a  retired  District  Treasury  Officer,  who  deposed  that  

Bhadriah was the brother of PW1 and Prasad the latter’s son,  

and that he had, in fact, borrowed rupees one thousand from  

the appellant  towards the medical  expenses  that he  had to  

incur for the treatment of his father and that in May 1991 the  

brothers of the appellant had demanded the repayment which  

had led to a quarrel.  He further stated that as all the parties  

were  living  in  close  proximity  to  each  other,  he  along  with  

others,  had  intervened  and  assured  the  brothers  that  the  

amount due from Prasad would be paid in the first week of  

June 1991.  Significantly, the trap was struck on 6.6.1991.  It  

6

is also clear from the record that there were 23 persons who  

would have been the beneficiaries  on the passing of the bill  

which had been made over to the appellant, but only PW1, the  

complainant, who was also one of the beneficiaries has been  

examined by the prosecution.  On the contrary, the accused  

examined DW1, an Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department,  

Warangal who deposed that he was one of the claimants in the  

bill but nobody ever told him that any amount was required  

from him as his contribution towards the bribe to be paid to  

the appellant.  He further stated that it  was not within the  

knowledge  of  any  of  the  other  employees  as  to  whether  a  

demand of bribe had been made or that PWs.1 and 2 were  

doing  the  follow up towards  the  payment  of  the  bill.   This  

statement completely belies the evidence of PW1 who deposed  

that after the DSP had asked him to bring the bribe amount to  

be passed over during the trap, he had returned to his office  

and  asked  the  other  employees  to  make  a  contribution  

towards that fund but they had told him that as they had no  

cash in hand, he should advance the amount from his own  

resources which would be re-imbursed at a later stage.  There  

7

is  yet  another  extremely  relevant  circumstance.  As  per  the  

evidence of PW3, PW2 was to give a signal after the money had  

been  handed  over  but  as  this  was  not  done  Constable  

Satyanarayana  had  been  deputed  by  the  DSP  to  go  to  the  

office and find out as to what had transpired.  Satyanarayna  

apparently returned after few minutes and told the DSP that  

the  money  had  been  passed  over  and  the  raid  was  then  

carried  out.   As  noted  by  the  trial  court,  and  completely  

ignored  by  the  High  Court,  Satyanarayana  was  not  even  

examined as a witness.  There is, in this situation, no witness  

other than PW.1 to the passing over of the tainted money.

It  also  appears  from  the  evidence  that  there  was  

apparent rivalry between the parties.  As already noted above  

PW1 had  admitted  that  Prasad  had  taken  a  loan  from the  

appellant in the month of April 1991 and in the month of May  

1991  when  the  appellant’s  brothers  had  demanded  the  

repayment an altercation had ensued.  The matter does not  

end  here.  PW1  admitted  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  

Telangana Non-Gazetted Officers’  Employees Association and  

that this association was divided into two groups, one led by  

8

Krishnareddy  and the  other  by  Sathireddy  and whereas  he  

belonged to the group of the former the appellant belonged to  

the  latter  group.   He  further  testified  that  elections  to  the  

association had been held in January 1991 i.e. shortly before  

this incident when he, along with several other members of his  

group,  had  gone  to  the  appellant  and  had  asked  him  to  

support  Krishnareddy  which  request  had  been  declined  by  

him  and  that  it  was  the  Sathireddy  group  which  was  

successful,  with  the  appellant  also  being  elected  the  Joint  

Secretary.  We find from the evidence that the fact that there  

seemed to be substantial rancour between PW1 and appellant  

is supported by the evidence of PW1 himself.  It appears to us  

that  this  was  a  crucial  factor  and  was  the  reason  for  the  

concoction of a false story using the excuse of the repayment  

of the loan as a means of reaching the appellant on the vital  

day.

9

We accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment  

of the High Court and restore that of the trial court and order  

the  appellant’s  acquittal.   The appellant  is  on bail;  his bail  

bonds shall stand discharged.

……………………………… J.                        (Harjit Singh Bedi)

……………………………….J.     ( B.S. Chauhan)

New Delhi, July 23, 2009

10