13 October 2004
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs KAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY

Bench: D.M.DHARMADHIKARI,A.K. MATHUR
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001406-001406 / 2003
Diary number: 11785 / 2003
Advocates: ANIL KATIYAR Vs BIJAN KUMAR GHOSH


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1406 of 2003

PETITIONER: State of West Bengal

RESPONDENT: Kailash Chandra Pandey

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/10/2004

BENCH: D.M.Dharmadhikari & A.K. Mathur

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

A.K. MATHUR, J.

       This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High  Court of Calcutta dated 9.2.2002 passed in C.R.A. No.192 of 2000   whereby learned Single Judge has reversed the conviction of the  accused-respondent, passed by the Additional  District & Sessions  Judge and Special Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, 24- Parganas (N) in  Special Case No.2 of 1997, whereby  learned Addl.  District &  Sessions Judge & Special Judge convicted the accused under  section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced  him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of  Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month  more.         Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are  as follows. On May 23, 1996, one Shankar Prasad Sengupta, the  proprietor of M/s. Rakshak Security Services lodged a complaint  before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,  Anti Corruption Branch, Calcutta stating that he was awarded a  cleaning contract at  New Domestic Terminal Complex at Netaji  Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Calcutta vide award  letter dated December 3, 1994 for two years with effect from   December 21,1994. As per practice, he was required to submit the  bills in the Office of the Deputy General Manager (Airport) and  thereafter the bills on presentation were processed by the House  Keeping department functioning under the respondent. Accused-  respondent was the final authority for passing of the bills for payment.  It is alleged that the accused- respondent demanded illegal money for   passing the bills  which the complainant- Shankar Prasad Sengupta   (P.W.3) had managed till May 21,1996.  P.W.3 submitted a bill for a  sum of Rs.1,39,000/- on May 23,1996 and made a request to the  accused-respondent to pass the  said bill. Accused-respondent  insisted that unless P.W.3 pays a sum of Rs.5000/- he would not  pass the bill.  Accused-respondent directed P.W.3 to make payment  of Rs.5000/- on May 24, 1996 after lunch hours in his Office. As  P.W.3 had no intention to pay the said amount, he lodged a written  complaint before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Anti Corruption  Department disclosing all the details on the basis of which a  complaint was registered against the accused-respondent for  commission of an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of  Corruption Act, 1988 and Mr.M.S.Hazari, Inspector, C.B.I. was  entrusted with the investigation of the case. P.W. 3 was called by the  Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. in his office for laying a trap. A  pre- trap memo was prepared with necessary particulars.  Pursuant to that  pre-trap, a trap party including P.W.3 left to the Office of the accused- respondent to lay the trap and they were accompanied with two  independent witnesses i.e. P.W.4-Ratan Krishna Das, an employee

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

of Oriental Bank of Commerce and P.W.15- Sanjay Kumar, a Law  Officer of the Bank along with the Investigating Officer. On the fateful  day, the money was handed over by P.W.3 to the accused- respondent and he pocketed the money. Thereafter, the Investigating  Officer accompanied by others entered into the room, seized the  money and arrested the accused-respondent. The sanction was  obtained on December 10,1996 and after the accord of the proper  sanction by the Chairman, Airports Authority of India, charge-sheet  was submitted against the accused-respondent on  January 31,1997.          Accused-respondent denied the charges and pleaded that he  was falsely implicated with ulterior motive. The prosecution in support  of its case examined 16 witnesses and no witness was examined on  behalf of the defence. The trial Judge after considering the matter,  after recording the evidence   and hearing both the sides found the  guilt of the accused established and convicted the accused- respondent under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and  sentenced him as above said.         Aggrieved against that order, the accused-respondent preferred  an appeal before the High Court. Learned Single Judge considering  the matter and hearing the parties, acquitted the accused of all the  charges on the grounds that the currency notes were not sent to the  Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination,  the pyjama which was  given to the accused to wear after taking the pant, the same was not  produced;  that the money was kept in the left hand pocket but the  hand wash was taken of the right hand; the amount covered by the  impugned bills had already been released prior to the alleged tender  of the money  and the envelope containing the alleged money was  not produced. Therefore, on the basis of these infirmities, learned  Single Judge of the High Court acquitted the accused-respondent of  all the charges. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Single  Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, the present appeal has been  filed by the State of West Bengal represented by the C.B.I.,S.P.E.         We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the  records. The main witness in the present case is P.W.3- Shankar  Prasad Sengupta to whom the cleaning contract for  the Calcutta  Airport was sanctioned for a period with effect from December  21,1994 to December 20,1996. He has deposed that the bill amount  for March, 1996 was received by him  late while the bill amount for  the month of April, 1996 was reduced as there was reduction towards  poor performance. At the relevant point of time Shri Kailash Pandey  was the Deputy  General Manager(Airport) at Calcutta Airport.  He  stated that after this deduction he met the General Manager and the  Airport Director, Calcutta but without any relief.  Therefore, again he  approached the Deputy General Manager, Airport and he told him  that he is to be paid Rs.5000/- per month for a permanent relief  against any future deduction from any bill and for getting the payment  in time.  He deposed that he did not agree to the illegal demand and  he approached the C.B.I. for taking their protection. He filed a written  complaint before the concerned Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. at  his Office at  Nizam Palace, Calcutta. It is alleged that he gave a sum  of Rs.5000/- to the Superintendent  of  Police, C.B.I. on May 24,1996  and some chemicals were mixed with the currency notes and were  handed over to him. He along with some C.B.I. Officers went to the  Airport Authority of India, Calcutta and two other outsiders also  accompanied them to the Head Officer and one of them was, Sanjay  Kumar (P.W.15), an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce. The  numbers of the currency notes were noted in a sheet of paper in the  Office of the S.P.,C.B.I. and he put his signature on the said sheet of  papers where numbers of the currency notes were noted down.  All  these currency notes were  produced during the trial and the numbers  of the currency notes tallied  with the aforesaid numbers noted except  item No.10. Thereafter, it is alleged that he went to the chamber of  Deputy General Manager along with Sanjay Kumar and another  person and he introduced the two persons to Mr.Pandey as his friend

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

cum-partners of the business and he told him that he had brought the  money for a total sum of Rs.5000/- and  then he handed over the ten  currency notes of Rs.500/- each for a total amount of Rs.5000/- to  Mr.Pandey  and Mr.Pandey received the said amount and kept the  same in his pocket.  It is alleged that after handing over the said  money to Mr.Pandey he came out of the chambers of Mr.Pandey   where the C.B.I. Officers along with others were already present and  intimated him about the delivery of the notes. Thereafter, Mr.Pandey  was apprehended and currency notes were recovered from the  pocket of Mr.Pandey. The C.B.I. Officers prepared necessary papers  and he put his signature there. Thereafter, the C.B.I. Officer brought  some chemicals in glass bottles and the hands of Mr.Pandey were  washed by the C.B.I. Officers by the chemical  of the said bottle. After  washing the hands of Mr.Pandey  the chemicals were preserved in  another glass bottle. Similarly  pocket of pant  was washed and the  water  was  kept  in  another glass bottle.  All the  bottles were sealed  and labels were pasted on the same  and he put his signature on  those bottles.  The currency notes were wrapped and sealed.  P.W.3  was cross-examined at length. But nothing substantial was brought  out so as to dislodge his testimony.          The next witness in this case is P.W.4-Ratan Krishna Das who  was one of the eye witnesses. He was an Officer of  Oriental Bank of  Commerce, Bowbazar Branch.  On the direction  of his higher  authority he had to go to the Office of the Superintendent of Police,  C.B. I. on May 24, 1996 and he was accompanied with one  Mr.Sanjay Kumar who was the Law Officer of that Bank. It is alleged  that  there he met  Shri R.K.Sarkar who was the Inspector, C.B.I. and  another person named, Shri M.S. Hazari who was also an Inspector,  C.B.I. and he made enquiry as to the reason for calling him and he  was told that one Shankar Prasad Sengupta had filed a written  complaint against some Officer of Airport Authority and they have to  accompany them, as demand raised by accused-respondent ,  Kailash Pandey was unauthorized money in relation to the bill of  Shankar Prasad Sengupta. He deposed that the C.B.I. Officers asked   Shankar Prasad Sengupta to produce the currency notes which were  to be offered to Mr.Pandey.  and thereto Shri Sengupta produced ten  currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and the C.B.I. Officers  coated the same with some powder and handed over the same again  to Shankar Sengupta and advised him to offer the said money to  Mr.Pandey.  It is further deposed that he along with the C.B.I.  Officers, Sanjay Kumar and Shankar Prasad Sengupta left for  Calcutta Airport in a vehicle and Sanjay Kumar was instructed to   remain with Shankar Prasad Sengupta as a witness  before offering  the currency notes to Mr.Pandey and he was asked by the C.B.I.  Officers to wait with them in a corner outside the  chamber of  Mr.Pandey.  It is alleged that before  starting for the Calcutta Airport,  the numbers of the currency notes were also noted down and  signatures were also obtained on the pre-trap memorandum. It is  deposed that before proceeding to Calcutta Airport he was asked to  handle a white paper and thereafter he was asked to wash his hands  with some liquid and after that the liquid became pink colour and the  said pink colour was preserved in the glass bottle and marked "A".   The said bottle was produced in the Court. Shankar Prasad Sengupta  accompanied with Sanjay Kumar went to the Airport in the chamber  of Shri Pandey and they were asked to give a signal by touching their  forehead after coming out of the chamber of Mr.Pandey as  a signal  that the money has been handed over. It is alleged that Shankar  Prasad Sengupta and Sanjay Kumar came out and gave the signal   and the same was noticed by him along with the C.B.I. Officers. On  entering the chamber of Mr.Pandey, the C.B.I. Officers disclosed their  identity and told him that he has received money from Shankar  Prasad Sengupta but Shri Pandey refused the same. Thereafter, the  C.B.I. Officers got the hands of Shri Pandey washed with water in a  pot and it was found that the said water turned into pink colour and  the said water was kept in a glass bottle which was marked "B". Then

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

the C.B.I. officers again asked Shri Pandey to bring out the said  currency notes  and then Shri Pandey himself brought out the money  from the left pocket of his pant and handed over the same to the  C.B.I. Officers.  The pant of Shri Pandey was grey colour and Shri  Pandey was asked to change his pant there and he was given a  pyjama to wear.  Subsequently, the left pocket of the pant  of Shri  Pandey  was  washed  and  the  said  washed water also turned pink.  The said water was also preserved in a glass bottle marked as "C".   Thereafter, the currency notes were seized and seizure list was  prepared and his signature was obtained on it.  The glass bottles  which contained the hand wash of Shri Pandey that turned pink  as  well as the pink colour liquid obtained after washing of the left pocket  of the pant of Shri  Pandey were sealed, and labels were affixed on  the same and his signature was obtained. It is alleged that the trouser  i.e. the pant of Shri Pandey was also seized.          The next witness in this connection is P.W.15, Shri Sanjay  Kumar. He was a Law Officer of  Central Bank of India. At the  relevant time, he was posted at Oriental Bank of Commerce,  Regional Office, Calcutta as a Law Officer.  The Regional Manager  directed him to go to  C.B.I. Office at Nizam Palace, Calcutta and he  went there and he was called at the S.P.’s Chamber. There he was  introduced by the C.B.I. Officers with one Mr.Sengupta and he was  told that a trap was being arranged at the International Airport at  Calcutta in respect of bribe being given to some Officer as he  demanded money from Shri Sengupta. He was explained as to how  the trap was to be laid. Currency notes were given and their numbers  were noted by the C.B.I. Officers. Thereafter, some chemical power  were  put on the currency notes. He further deposed that he was told  that when this powder coated notes were touched by any person and  his hand is washed in water, the water would turn pink  and a  demonstration was given there.  Thereafter, he along with others  proceeded to the Calcutta Airport and they were instructed that Shri  Sengupta would hand over the money to the concerned officer in his  room and signal was to be given by touching the head by right hand  and that would signal that the money has been accepted. It is alleged  that he and Shri Sengupta thereafter entered into the room of Shri  Pandey and at that time a person was also standing there.  It is  alleged that  meanwhile that person left at that time. Shri Sengupta  had some conversation with  Shri Pandey and thereafter, he handed  over the currency notes to Shri Pandey  and Shri Pandey put the  money in his trouser pocket and then both of them came out. After  coming out of the room a signal was given by Shri Sengupta. All the  C.B.I. Officers standing in the corridor, then rushed to the Office of  Shri Pandey and trapped him by stating that he had taken the money  and he was asked to bring the same out which he first denied to have  received the currency notes  and on much persuation all the currency  notes were brought out from his trouser pocket.  The trouser pocket  of Shri Pandey was washed in a tap flowing water and the colour of  the water turned pink.  The pink colour water was preserved in a  glass bottle by the C.B.I. Officers and the same was duly sealed.  A  paper was pasted on the glass bottle  and the signature obtained.  Currency notes  were tallied with the numbers noted by the C.B.I.  Officers and the numbers tallied. The pant which was worn by the  D.G.M. was also seized and  on seizure memo  his signature was  obtained  and that trouser was identified by this witness in the  Court   and the same is marked as  Mat. Ext.V.  It is also deposed that the  currency notes, numbers of which were noted  at the C.B.I. Office  tallied with the notes which were recovered  and there was only one  mistake in respect of item No.10. It is also clarified that in the list of  the currency notes there is only a discrepancy with regard to one  currency note which is written as CA though it is actually CE  but the  number of the notes tallied with the notes which were seized. It is  alleged that after the trap operation a trap memorandum was  prepared by the C.B.I. Officer and his signature was obtained.  He  was   also   cross-examined  at length  and  he  was  confronted  that

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

whether he was offered any entry pass for entering into the airport  or  not. He admitted that he did not take any entry pass as he was  accompanied along with the C.B.I. Officials. He admitted that when  they entered into the chamber of the Deputy General Manager,  Airport, he was having conversation  with some other person. But that  person left immediately after he entered the chamber. He also  admitted that after they came out they signaled to the C.B.I. Officials  that the money has been delivered The D.G.M., Shri Pandey also  came out of his chamber as he rushed to the chamber for  conference. He also deposed that  after receipt of the money he  walked in the corridor before the C.B.I. Officers who were waiting in  the corridor and entered the conference room. He denied  the  suggestion that no trouser was seized from the accused-respondent  at the time of trap. He was also put to lengthy cross-examination.         P.W.16-Manoranjan Singh Hazari is the Inspector, C.B.I. He  deposed that on written complaint he registered a case against Shri  K.Pandey  and requisitioned two witnesses from the Oriental Bank of  Commerce, Regional Office at Calcutta and on his requisition these  two witnesses i.e. Shri R.K.Das and Shri Sanjay Kumar  were called.  They were all explained about the trap procedure and the numbers of  currency notes which were given by Shri Sengupta, were also noted  and a list was prepared.  The currency notes were put to  phenolphthalein powder. Then the trap memorandum was prepared.  All the currency notes were given to Shri Sengupta  and they were  asked to deliver the currency notes to the accused. Thereafter, they  gave a signal that in fact the notes were handed to Shri Pandey. On  signal they went there and the currency notes were recovered and  the hands of accused-respondent were washed in the soda water  which was already missed with soda. The colour of the water turned  into pink and the said water was kept in a glass bottle.  That bottle  was sealed and that was marked as Ext."B" and signatures of the  persons were obtained.  Thereafter, the money was brought out and  seized from the left side pocket of the full pant worn by Shri Pandey.   The number of the said currency notes was compared with the  numbers noted in the pre-trap memo in presence of the witnesses.  Thereafter, a search cum seizure list was  prepared, currency notes  were sealed, signature of the witnesses were also appended.   Subsequently, post trap memorandum was prepared. Thereafter, a  pyjama was arranged  and the accused was asked to take out his  pant and pyjama was handed over to him. Thereafter, the full pant  was handed over and the pocket in which the trap money was kept  was washed in another bowl of water and accordingly, the colour of  the water also turned pink and the said bowl water was kept in  another bottle which was duly sealed and labelled. The trouser of the  accused was also seized.  Thereafter,  the three sealed bottles  containing pink colour solution to the C.F.S.L., Calcutta and their  report was received. After necessary formalities the challan was filed.         This is how the prosecution has substantiated its case with  reference to oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. The  Personal Assistant of the accused was also examined as P.W.5 i.e.  Debarta Munshi. He deposed that he was at the relevant time in his  chamber and came to know about the trap arranged against the  D.G.M.  He had no occasion to go through the bills. He deposed that  it is not possible to state whether the bill of M/s. Rakshak Security  Services for the month of April, 1996 was attached with any  forwarding letter. He deposed that Shri Sengupta never came to him  to ascertain the position of his bills. He also  supported that at the  time Shri Sengupta came, a representative of Singapore Airlines was  inside the chamber of D.G.M. He has also narrated about the incident  which has happened.  P.W.6, Ambar Kr.Mondal was Deputy Manager  (Finance) Indian Airlines. P.W.7 is Mortyajit Pal, He has deposed that  he was Accounts Manager and the bills are presented by the  contractors. He deposed that the bills of M/s.Rakshak Security  Services  i.e. of Shri Sengupta for the period from September, 1995  to March, 1996 were seized by the C.B.I. P.W.8 is A.G.II, F.C. at the

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Airport Authority and he used to prepare the bills on the endorsement  of the Accounts Manager as per the Rules. He deposed that he did  not know Shri Shankar Prasad Sengupta as being one of the  contractors. He admitted that in the bill for the month of April, 1996,  Rs.1,03,316/- was claimed for labour charges while Rs.8,701/- was  claimed in respect of payment to the supervisors and he cannot say  whether in the wage sheet the disbursement of Rs.96, 822.85 p. was  done in total in respect of payment to labourers and supervisors  He  deposed that the same needs arithmetical calculation and since the  said wage sheets do not contain in running  total of each page, he  cannot say whether there is a fraudulent claim of Rs.15,194.15 P.   P.W.9 was the House Keeping staff of  Airport.  He deposed that  cleaning operation was being done under his supervision.  P.W.10 is  the Additional General Manager (G.F.S.). He deposed that he was  the Vigilance Officer and he did not receive any complaint against   Shri Kailash Pandey. P.W.11 is the Assistant Law Manager of  Calcutta Airport. P.W.12 is U.R.Khaledkar, Senior Manager in the  Airport. P.W.13, is  Prasun Kr.Mitra who was Inspector, C.B.I. He  deposed about the formalities done at the trap stage.  He deposed  that he was summoned in the chambers of Shri R.K.Sarkar,  the then  D.S.P., C.B.I.,and he came to  know about the trap. He also narrated  about the  handing of the currency notes by  Shri Sengupta and  the  said notes were coated with the phenolphthalein powder which turned  pink on wash, about the  pre-trap  and how the hands of the  witnesses were also washed  and all other details which have already  been deposed by other witnesses.

Therefore, a survey of this evidence shows that a trap was laid  and how the currency notes were seized from the accused. On this  evidence, the trial court convicted the accused but the appellate court  i.e. the learned Single Judge reversed the finding for  the reasons  mentioned above.  We will examine each of the reasons given by  learned Single Judge of High Court to find out whether they are   substantial or not so as to render the prosecution story  improbable.  The first reason given  by Learned Single Judge was that no  signature of the accused  was taken on the seizure list. It has been  stated by the prosecution witnesses i.e. by the Investigating Officers  that the accused refused to sign on the seizure list. No accused can  be forced to put his signature  and the prosecution cannot force him  to append his signature on the seizure memo if he refused to sign.  Therefore, just because the accused did not append the signature on  the seizure memo that cannot be a ground to improbablise the  prosecution story. Similarly, another reason assigned by the learned  Single Judge was that the currency notes and pant of the accused  were not sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination.  When the currency  notes which were mixed with the phenolphthalein powder were  handled by the accused the hands of the accused was washed in a  water bowl, the colour of the water  turned  pink. Likewise, the pant  pocket of the accused  was also washed and the colour of the water  turned into pink and the hand and pant wash which was kept in  bottles were sent for chemical examination, that is sufficient to  connect  the accused with the commission of the crime. Just because  the notes were not sent for F.S.L. examination, it cannot be a ground  to disbelieve the prosecution story. The pant of the accused was  produced and exhibited in the Court and the pant has been identified  by P.W.15, Sanjay Kumar as Ext.V.  It is very strange that the pyjama  which was given to the accused to wear that was not required to be  seized or produced before the Court because the accused could not  be permitted to go naked without wearing anything since his pant was  already seized. Therefore, non-seizure of the pyjama is not fatal to  the prosecution. Another  ground has been given that when the  money was allegedly received by the right hand of the accused, how  it was kept in the left hand pocket but hand wash was taken of the  right hand only. This is no reason to disbelieve the entire prosecution  story when a man accepts anything in the right hand in normal course

7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

of human conduct and if he has kept the money in the left hand  pocket the prosecution cannot be held responsible. The accused  has  received the currency notes  and  the hand wash of the water turned  into pink and the left hand pocket of the trouser was also washed and  the colour of the water also turned into pink, therefore, putting these  two evidence together, there remains no doubt about the prosecution  case.  It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the  bills of the complainant for the period in question have already been  passed and payments made. That may be so, but this is not a ground  to disbelieve the prosecution case.  In fact, the objections were raised  & deductions were made in bills and money was being demanded  from Shri Sengupta so that his bills are not objected or delayed and  no deduction be made in future. The money was paid to the accused  for the safe passage of his bills.  Therefore, nothing turns on this  ground that the bills were passed prior to the tendering of the money  to the accused.  It was only meant to facilitate smooth release of the  money as per the bills. Therefore, it is not a ground to disbelieve the  prosecution story that the bills in question were passed prior to the  alleged tender of the money to the accused. Lastly, a very vague  ground has been given by learned Single Judge that the envelope  which contained the currency notes had not been produced. Nothing  turns on non-production of the envelope. What is material is the  acceptance of money by the accused which is more than apparent  from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the money was  recovered from the accused and the accused’s hand which accepted  the currency notes  was washed and the hand wash turned in to pink  colour water  and likewise the accused’s pant pocket  which was  washed, the water also turned into pink.  Therefore, from the chain of  circumstances, the prosecution story stands fully substantiated.          Learned counsel for the accused- respondent has tried to show  some minor discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses that  whether the money was handed over in presence of one  representative of Singapore Airline and he has not been produced.  P.W.5- Debarata Munshi (P.A.)   says that he did not know whether  these persons met the accused in his chamber or not. It is alleged  that the bills were passed earlier and later on the trap was arranged  on the basis of the complaint by Shri Sengupta and the  complainant  was inimically motivated. The complainant  was interested in trapping  the accused. All these cosmetic contradictions cannot improbablise   the prosecution story. A similar attempt was made to highlight such  trifle contradiction in written submissions. The fact of the matter is  that the money was accepted by the accused  from the complainant  and  it was recovered by the Investigating Officer  and the money was  paid primarily for an illegal purpose i.e. to facilitate the passing of the  bills  of P.W.3, Shankar Prasad Sengupta and not to deduct  amount  from the bills. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of  not correct.         Our attention was also invited to the decisions of this  Court in  the case of  Som Parkash v. State of Punjab reported in 1992   Supp.(1) SCC 428; in the case of  G.V.Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi  Admn.)  reported in AIR 1987 SC 2402; in the case of  State of U.P.  v. Jagdish Singh Malhotra reported in (2001) 10 SCC 215 and in the  case of  State of Maharashtra  v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla  reported in 1987 (Supp.) SCC 379.  All these cases are  distinguishable on the facts as in all the cases some peculiar facts  were  found which improbablises the case of the prosecution.  But in  the present case, after examining the whole case we are convinced  that there was no improbabilities in the prosecution case. The  prosecution has led sufficient and cogent evidence to substantiate the  allegation against the accused but unfortunately the learned Single  Judge of the High Court took a very easy approach and picked a   small hole in the prosecution story so as to improbablise the same  which, in our opinion, was not correct. We are satisfied that   sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence is available on record which

8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

fully established the guilt of the accused.         It is needless to reiterate that the appellate court should be slow  in reappreciating  the evidence. This Court time and again has  emphasized that the trial court which has the occasion to see the  demeanour of the witnesses and it is in a better position to appreciate  it, the appellate court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation  done by the trial court except for cogent reasons. In this connection,   a reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of   The State of Punjab  v. Hari Singh & Anr. reported in AIR 1974 SC  1168, wherein Their Lordships have observed as follows:

               "Supreme Court’s power of interference  under Article 136 with judgments of acquittal is  not exercised on  principles which are different  from those adopted by it in dealing with  convictions. It is a principle, common to all  criminal appeals by special leave, that the  Supreme Court will refrain from substituting its  own  views about the appreciation of evidence if  the judgment of the High Court is based on one  of two alternative views each of which was  reasonably open to the High Court to accept. If,  however, the High Court’s approach is vitiated   by some basically erroneous apparent  assumption or it adopts reasoning which, on the  face of it, is unsound, it may become the duty of  the Supreme Court, to prevent a miscarriage of  justice, to interfere with an order whether it be of  conviction or of acquittal."

Similarly, in the case of  Khem Karan & Ors. v. The State of U.P. &  Anr. reported in AIR 1974 SC 1567 it was observed as follows:

" Further, neither mere possibilities nor remote  probabilities nor mere doubts which are not  reasonable can, without danger to the  administration of justice, be the foundation of the  acquittal of an accused person, if there is  otherwise fairly credible testimony.  If a trial  court’s judgment verges on the perverse, the  appellate court has a duty to set the evaluation  right and pass a proper order."

Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani & Anr.   reported in (2003) 7 SCC 291, the appellate court reversed the  finding of the trial court without considering and taking into account  the testimony of eyewitnesses. Their Lordships after appreciation of  the evidence reversed the order of the High Court and maintained the  order of conviction of the trial court.  Their Lordships observed that  notwithstanding the inconsistencies, exaggerations or  embellishments, the eyewitnesses account has to be accepted that   clinches the case of the prosecution.

       In the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Jaspal Singh reported in  (2003) 10 SCC 586,  Their Lordships  reversed the order of acquittal  passed by the High Court and convicted the accused on the basis of  clinching, truthful and cogent evidence proving that  a co-accused  was a party to the common design of  other accused who stood  convicted by the court below and Their Lordships held that the  confession of the co-accused is satisfactorily corroborated by the  witnesses.

9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

       In view of the discussions made above,  we allow this appeal  and set aside the judgment and order dated December 9,2002  of  learned Single Judge of the High Court passed in C.R.A. No.192 of  2000 and affirm the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.  The accused- respondent is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and  he is directed to surrender  to serve out the sentence and in case, he  fails to surrender  within one month from today, then it will be open to  the Superintendent, C.B.I. to arrest him and to send him to jail to  serve out the remaining part of the sentence.