03 September 2004
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF A.P. Vs K.PUNARDANA RAO

Bench: K.G.BALAKRISHNAN,B.N. SRIKRISHNA
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000408-000408 / 1998
Diary number: 140 / 1998
Advocates: Vs D. MAHESH BABU


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  408 of 1998

PETITIONER: State of A.P.                                                            

RESPONDENT: K. Punardana Rao                                                         

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/09/2004

BENCH: K.G.Balakrishnan &  B.N. Srikrishna  

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

K.G. Balakrishnan, J.

       This is an appeal preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the  acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by the Special Judge for SPE and  ACB cases, Nellore, for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with  Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  The respondent was  working as a Commercial Tax Officer at Naidupet from 13.7.1991 to 22.8.1992.    The de-facto complainant Badri Audhiseshaiah was the proprietor of two firms,  by name, Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill & Company and Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders at  Gudur.  The complainant received notices from the respondent asking him to  submit ’C’ Forms and affidavits and other account books relating to his  firm,  Sri  Bharatha Lakshmi Traders.  The prosecution case is that on 8.8.1992 at about  7.00 A.M., the complainant went to the house of the  respondent and sought for a  month’s  time for submission of accounts and other documents.  The respondent  refused to grant time and threatened that the complainant would be visited with  penalty in case he failed to submit the books of accounts and other documents in  time.  Complainant made repeated requests and then the respondent agreed to  extend the time provided  the complainant paid him Rs. 25,000/- as bribe. The  complainant said that the amount demanded was a huge amount and, therefore,  the respondent reduced the amount to Rs. 20,000/- and wanted the complainant  to pay the amount on the next day.  The complainant on 8.8.1992 itself  approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau office at Nellore and gave a statement  before the Deputy Superintendent of Police,  who registered a case and decided  to lay a trap.  On 9.8.1992, at about 8.00 A.M., the complainant went to the  house of the respondent and gave him Rs. 20,000/-.  Trap party immediately  intervened and Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from the possession of the  respondent Officer.  On being  subjected to chemical test, the fingers of the  respondent were found positive and the pyjama allegedly worn   by the  respondent -Officer was also found to be positive on chemical test.  On the side  of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined and Exhs. P1 to P25 and M.Ps. 1  to 10 were marked.  The complainant was examined as PW 1.  He deposed that  he had met the respondent on 8.8.1992  when the latter demanded Rs. 25,000/-  and on his request the amount was reduced to Rs. 20,000/’- and that  he paid  that amount  to the respondent on the next day.  On the side of defence, DW 1 to  DW 5 were also examined.  The evidence of PW 1 was accepted by the Special  Judge.   

       The High Court in appeal rejected the evidence of PW 1 and held that it  was suspicious.  The defence of the respondent was that on 8.8.1992, he  was  not  at Nellore and  that he had gone to Chirala and attended the Panchayat at  the instance of DW 3 Major D. Samuel in Chirala.  The respondent also  contended that on chemical test his fingers were found to be positive only as he  had shaken hands with PW-1 and his pyjama pockets were also contaminated  with chemical substance as a mediator  of the trap party had  searched his  pockets for the tainted money.

       The learned Single Judge held that there were certain discrepancies in the

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

evidence of PW 1.  It was noted that the complainant received notice in respect  of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill & Company whereas the assessment was in respect  of M/s. Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders.  PW 1 claimed that he was the proprietor  of the M/s. Bharatha Lakshmi Traders as well as Shri Lakshmi Oil Mill &  Company.  Admittedly, the notices were issued by the respondent to the  complainant.  Whether the assessment related to M/s. Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill &  Company or M/s Bharatha Lakshmi Traders  is inconsequential, as the  assessment of both these concerns had to be finally settled by the respondent  Officer.  The High Court also was of the view that the turnover of M/s. Sri  Bharatha Lakshmi Traders was only Rs. 1,55,750/-;  therefore, the tax payable  was only Rs. 6000/- or Rs. 7000/- and  the complainant could not have agreed to  pay Rs. 20,000/- as bribe.  But it has come in evidence that the total  annual  turnover of M/s. Bharatha Lakshmi Traders, which was also a concern of the  complainant, was  Rs. 30-40 lakhs.  The whole question was whether the  evidence of PW 1 could be relied on.  According to the respondent, the  complainant had visited his house in the early morning of 9.8.1992 for some work  and sought time for submitting account books and the respondent asked him to  come to his office.  Thereafter, his servant DW-4 found a bundle of notes lying on  the sofa set.  DW-4 immediately told the respondent  about the same whereupon  the  respondent  instructed DW-4 to go and find out whether the complainant had  gone and to give him back the money he had left.  DW-4 went out and found that  the complainant had already left the place and, therefore,  he gave the money to  the  respondent who kept the same underneath the pillow in his bedroom.  The  explanation offered by the respondent is highly improbable.  DW-4 gave  evidence in support of the defence set up by the respondent.  But his evidence  was not at all reliable and even the High Court found that the evidence of DW-4  did not inspire confidence.

       In this case, it is proved by satisfactory evidence that PW 1 went to the  house of the respondent and the  trap party was able to recover the money from  the possession of the respondent.  The phenolphthalein test conducted on the  hands, pyjama and bed cover of the respondent proved to be positive.  The  explanation of the respondent that he shook  hands with  PW-1 and thus his  hands got contaminated with chemical substance,  is highly improbable.  

       According to the respondent, he had no prior appointment with PW 1 and  how Rs. 20,000/- happened to be in his possession  is not satisfactorily  explained.  The defence version supported by the evidence of DW-4 is highly  improbable and no court of law can accept such improbable version.    The alibi  set up by the respondent that on 8.8.1992, he was not in Naidupet, also is not  free from suspicion.  The examination of railway officials proved that the  respondent had travelled from Naidupet to Chirala in Hyderabad Express.  The  respondent  had no reservation tickets and he stated that he had produced two  tickets with certain specified number.  How he could have remembered the  number of tickets creates some doubt.  Moreover, there is nothing on record to  show that  the  respondent had availed leave on 7.8.1992, the day on which he is  alleged to have left Naidupet.  DW-4 gave the evidence to the effect that he had  received a leave letter from the respondent to be handed over to an employee  working in his office,  but in fact  he did not hand over any such letter.  It is  important to note that there was no enmity alleged against PW-1.  He is an  independent witness having two business concerns and the matters relating to  tax on the said two firms  come within the jurisdiction of the respondent Officer.

       The High Court committed  a serious error by rejecting the evidence of  PW 1 and the evidence of the accompaning witnesses of the trap party.  The  recovery of the tainted money from the respondent coupled with the evidence of  PW 1 clearly establishes that the respondent did receive  a  bribe and thus  committed the offence under section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  The defence evidence adduced by the  respondent was not able to cast  any suspicion on  the prosecution case.

       We are quite aware that this being an appeal against acquittal, this Court  would be slow in reversing the acquittal, when the High Court has taken a  reasonable view of the evidence as adduced by the prosecution;   but if there is  perverse appreciation of evidence and serious miscarriage of justice, the

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

acquittal of the accused is to be reversed.  This is one such case where the High   dCourt failed to appreciate the evidence in the correct perspective.  Minor flaws  in the prosecution evidence were given undue importance and the impeccable  evidence which unmistakably proved the guilt of the respondent was ignored.    Therefore, we are of the view that the acquittal of the accused was clearly  erroneous and the same is reversed.  We find the respondent guilty of the  offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.  On each count, the appellant is sentenced to  undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.  The sentence on both counts  shall run concurrently.  The cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- recovered during the  course of investigation shall be returned to PW 1.

       The appeal is  allowed  accordingly.