“REPORTABLE”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261 OF 2007

The State rep. by CBI, Hyderabad …. Appellant

Versus

G. Prem Raj …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. In this Appeal, the judgment of the High Court, allowing the appeal  

of  the  respondent  herein  and  acquitting  him of  the  offence  punishable  

under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of  the  

Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) is in  

challenge, at the instance of the State.

2. The  respondent,  at  the  relevant  time,  was  working  as  a  Senior  

Engineer in MIDHANI at Hyderabad during the year 1998.  One Preetpal  

Singh Sodhi of  M/s Hardeep Industries was awarded a contract for the  

1

construction of Structural Steel Sheds for VSSC stores at MIDHANI.  He  

was  accordingly  informed  to  contact  the  respondent-accused  for  

preparation of detailed programme of work schedule, as also for signing  

the original agreement.  Accordingly, he met the respondent-accused and  

requested  him  to  prepare  a  detailed  programme  of  work  schedule  for  

enabling him to sign the agreement.  This was in the last week of May,  

1998.  The respondent-accused demanded a bribe of  Rs.50,000/-  or at  

least to pay Rs.5,000/- as first installment by 27.5.1998, failing which the  

respondent-accused  showed  his  reluctance  to  prepare  the  detailed  

programme of  work.   Being  aggrieved by  this  illegal  demand,  the  said  

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (hereinafter called PW-1) lodged a complaint against  

G.Prem  Raj  (respondent-accused)  with  SP,  CBI,  Hyderabad.   It  was  

alleged that there was a telephonic conversation between Preetpal Singh  

Sodhi  (complainant  -  PW-1)  and  the  respondent-accused,  according  to  

which the complainant was called at the Taj Mahal Hotel, Narayanguda,  

Hyderabad on 27.5.1998 for  signing the agreement,  as well  as,  for the  

demand of bribery.  After the complaint was registered, a trap was led by  

one R.M. Khan, Inspector, CBI (PW-7), wherein two witnesses were called  

and the usual demonstration of  the use of phenolphthalein powder  was  

shown.   The notes were soiled with the phenolphthalein powder.   They  

were handed over to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) with the usual  

instructions that he would go to Taj Mahal Hotel along with M.N. Sampath  

2

Kumar  (PW-2)  while  the  other  Panch,  H.  Ramakrishna  Murthy  (PW-4)  

would be reaching with the trap party.  Specific instruction was given that  

unless  the  bribe  was  demanded  by  the  respondent-accused,  Preetpal  

Singh Sodhi (complainant) would not touch the notes kept in his pocket.  

Accordingly, Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) along with the trap party  

reached the hotel, where at about  6 O’clock the respondent-accused also  

arrived on a scooter and parked the scooter in the parking area.  Then  

Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (complainant-PW-1)  and  the  respondent-accused  

went inside the hotel followed by M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2).  Preetpal  

Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and the respondent-accused occupied one table in the  

hotel and the next table was occupied by M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2).  

The agreements (Exhibits P-5 to P-8) were signed in Taj Mahal Hotel but  

the  respondent-accused did  not  hand over  the  agreements  to  Preetpal  

Singh Sodhi (complainant).  The complainant and the respondent-accused  

came out of the hotel, who were followed by M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2).  

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) and the respondent-accused reached  

near  the  scooter  of  the  respondent-accused  where  the  respondent-

accused  demanded  the  bribe  money  for  handing  over  the  copy  of  the  

agreement.   Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (PW-1)  gave  money  which  the  

respondent-accused accepted and kept  the  same in  the scooter’s  bag.  

The  respondent-accused  handed  over  the  copy  of  the  agreement  to  

Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (complainant).   In  the  meanwhile,  M.N.  Sampath  

3

Kumar (PW-2), who was watching the whole scenario, gave a signal to the  

trap  party.   The  trap  party  reached  immediately  and  apprehended  the  

hands of the respondent-accused.  The usual demonstrations were done in  

Taj Mahal Hotel itself, which showed that the fingers of the respondent-

accused  were  soiled  and  they  were  dipped  in  the  Sodium  Carbonate  

solution.  The said solution turned pink.  The respondent-accused removed  

the  currency  notes  from  the  bag  and  the  same  were  seized.   The  

Panchnama was executed there and a search was conducted in the house  

of the respondent-accused, but nothing incriminating was found.  On this  

basis, the sanction was obtained for the prosecution which was granted  

vide Exhibit P-15 by Shri A.K. Taneja, the Sanctioning Authority (PW-8),  

and on that basis, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

3. In  support  of  its  claim,  the  prosecution  examined Preetpal  Singh  

(PW-1), M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) and other seven witnesses including  

R.M. Khan (PW-7), the Investigating Officer, as also, PW-8, Sanctioning  

Authority.  The documents were also presented and were proved and on  

that basis, the trial proceeded.  The defence of the respondent-accused  

was that of denial.  He examined himself as DW-1 and contended that he  

was  framed,  more  particularly,  by  his  superior  officers.   He  particularly  

pleaded that there were many discrepancies including the discrepancy in  

the timing of the First Information Report (FIR).  He also pleaded that there  

4

was no question of his preparing the detailed programme and in fact, the  

said programme was to be prepared by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), the  

contractor  himself  and  there  was  no  question  of  his  obliging  the  

complainant by preparing the said programme.  He pointed out that there  

was no question of obliging by signing the contract because the contract  

was already awarded in favour of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant).  He,  

therefore,  described the whole  prosecution case as false.   The learned  

Trial  Judge,  however,  found  the  respondent  herein  guilty  and  he  was  

convicted for the offence charged.   

4. The respondent-accused, therefore, filed an appeal before the High  

Court  and the  High  Court  acquitted  the respondent-accused.   It  is  this  

acquittal which is challenged before us in the present case.

5. Shri Naresh Kaushik, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the  

appellant urged that the High Court has erred in allowing the appeal even  

when it  was proved that the amount of bribe has passed from Preetpal  

Singh Sodhi (complainant) to the respondent-accused and the respondent-

accused had accepted the same.  The Learned Counsel pointed that the  

High Court would have raised the presumption under Section 20 of the Act  

and  it  should  have  been  further  noted  by  the  High  Court  that  the  

respondent-accused had not  explained as to why he had accepted the  

amount, which was not his lawful deliberation.  It is further argued by the  

5

Learned  Counsel  that  while  allowing  the  appeal,  the  High  Court  had  

nowhere shown as to how the Trial Court had gone wrong.  The Learned  

Counsel further urged that the respondent-accused had no business to go  

to Taj Mahal Hotel for doing an official work of getting the signatures of the  

complainant (PW-1) and that it was strange that the official work should  

have been done at Taj Mahal Hotel.  The Learned Counsel further urged  

that  it  was  clinchingly  proved  by  the  prosecution  that  the  bribe  was  

demanded by the respondent-accused, who was a public servant and in  

pursuance of the demand, he also accepted the bribe of Rs.5,000/-.  It was  

pointed out that the witnesses had absolutely no reason to speak against  

the respondent-accused and their disinterested testimony was bound to be  

accepted and was rightly accepted by the Sessions Judge and yet even  

without finding any fault with the evidence, the High Court chose to acquit  

the respondent-accused on imaginary grounds.

6. As against this, Shri G. Prakash Rao, Learned Counsel appearing  

on behalf of the defence supported the judgment of the High Court and  

pointed out that the story of the prosecution was extremely unnatural.  He  

also  pointed  out  that  L.N.  Das  (PW-5)  was  inimical  towards  the  

respondent-accused, therefore, he was framed.  He further pointed out that  

there was  absolutely  no reason for  the respondent-accused to demand  

bribe,  as the contract  was already awarded in favour of  Preetpal  Singh  

6

Sodhi (complainant) and the only remaining formality was the preparation  

of  the  programme,  which  had  to  be  done  by  Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  

(complainant) himself.  In such circumstances, there was no occasion for  

demanding any bribe as the respondent-accused was not in a position to  

oblige  Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (complainant)  in  any  manner.   Learned  

Counsel urged that there was no question of raising the presumption under  

Section 20 of the Act, as such, presumption could not be raised where the  

respondent-accused  was  charged  with  the  offence  punishable  under  

Section  13 (1)  (d)  of  the Act.   Lastly,  the Learned Counsel  urged that  

where two views are possible, the Court should be slow in upsetting the  

judgment of acquittal.

7. The High Court proceeded initially on the basis of the story that the  

agreement had to be got signed by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant-

PW-1), the Contractor within 19 days and, therefore, L.N. Das (PW-5) had  

asked the respondent-accused to take the signatures of  Preetpal  Singh  

Sodhi (PW-1) on the agreement before that date.  The High Court further  

noted  that  initially  the  respondent-accused  was  hesitant  to  approach  

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), but later on, he agreed to do so.  According  

to the High Court, L.N. Das (PW-5) had admitted in his cross-examination  

that  since  the  time  of  contract  was  likely  to  expire,  he  requested  the  

respondent-accused to get it signed and as such, there was pressure on  

7

the part of the management to get the agreement signed within time.  In  

our opinion, this theory of pressure was of no consequence and could not  

be viewed as helpful to the defence.  Even if the contract was to be got  

signed  by  Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (PW-1),  the  fact  remains  that  for  the  

purpose of contract,  ultimately,  the respondent-accused had to give the  

detailed programme of work.  The signatures of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-

1) could have been obtained on the agreement and at that time, it  was  

necessary that the work schedule was ready, which was to be prepared by  

the respondent-accused and it was for that purpose that the respondent-

accused demanded the money.  It must be noted here that after putting the  

signatures of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) on the agreement and  

after preparation of the work schedule, the contract would be complete and  

the complainant would get the benefit of huge contract worth about Rs.35  

lakhs.   The  bribe  was  for  this  purpose.   The  signing  of  the  contract,  

preparation of the work schedule were mere formalities.  The High Court  

has not properly viewed at this position that the bribe was demanded for  

completing the contract, worth about Rs.35 lakhs.

8. The High Court  further  committed an  error  in  presuming that  the  

amount of Rs.5,000/-, which was the first installment of Rs.50,000/- was to  

be paid for signing the agreement and it was to be paid at Taj Mahal Hotel,  

Narayanguda, Hyderabad.  It has clearly come in the evidence of Preetpal  

8

Singh  Sodhi  (PW-1)  that  he  did  not  want  to  part  with  the  amount  of  

Rs.5,000/-  and it  was,  therefore,  he made a complaint  (Exhibit  P-3)  on  

27.5.1998.  The evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) clearly suggests  

that question of payment of Rs.50,000/- as bribe money arose only after  

the letter dated 3.4.1998 (Exhibit P-1) was written, informing him that he  

was  awarded  the  contract.   Admittedly,  the  respondent-accused  was  

working  as  a  Senior  Engineer  (Civil)  and  was  in  charge  of  the  work  

mentioned in letter  dated 3.4.1998 (Exhibit  P-1).   This was followed by  

letter dated 18.5.1998 (Exhibit  P-2),  wherein the value of the work was  

mentioned.  It was only after this that Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) met the  

respondent-accused and at that time, the respondent-accused suggested  

that the site where the work was to be executed was not available, yet he  

asked the complainant to cooperate with him and demanded Rs.50,000/-  

as bribe.   The signing was to be done by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1)  

and if the amount was demanded only for purposes of signing, there was  

no question because Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) would have been keen  

to get the contract.  However, at the time of signing, the detailed schedule  

of programme was also to be prepared by or with the cooperation of the  

complainant  and  the  respondent-accused.  It  was,  therefore,  that  the  

amount was demanded.   Even the place that was fixed for payment of  

amount  was  Taj  Mahal  Hotel.   Now,  one  wonders  as  to  why  the  

responsible senior officer like the respondent-accused would chose to go  

9

to Taj Mahal Hotel for doing official work of getting the contract signed.  He  

could have easily called Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) to his office  

and got the agreement signed.  However, that did not happen and they  

mutually agreed to meet at Taj Mahal Hotel in its dining room. This is the  

first circumstance that the respondent-accused had failed to explain and  

has also remained to be considered by the High Court. The movement of  

the respondent-accused out of his office and going to Taj Mahal Hotel after  

office hours at 6’O clock raises accusing finger towards the intentions of  

the respondent-accused.

9. When  Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (complainant)  was  waiting  for  the  

respondent-accused at Taj Mahal Hotel and when the respondent-accused  

came  to  the  Hotel,  the  respondent-accused  asked  as  to  whether  the  

complainant had got the money.  This could not be said to be a demand,  

but was merely an assurance that the money was available.  It must be  

noted here that it took almost 3-4 hours for them to prepare the agreement  

and work schedule and to get the signatures.  What has to be noted is that  

even after the signatures, the agreement was not handed over to Preetpal  

Singh Sodhi (PW-1), and instead, the respondent-accused took it near the  

scooter and it was there that the demand for money was made.  There is  

undoubtedly some mix-up as to where the demand was made because it  

has not  come specifically  in the Examination-in-Chief  of  Preetpal  Singh  

10

Sodhi (PW-1) that the respondent-accused demanded the money near the  

scooter.  The Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused tried to take  

advantage of this situation.  However, we are not impressed by this at all,  

as the respondent-accused had already demanded the money and even  

this witness mentioned about the demand of money as soon as he met the  

respondent-accused.  The High Court, without going into the details of the  

evidence, has merely come to the conclusion that no demand was made.  

Now, if no demand was made, there was no reason for the respondent-

accused  to  accept  the  money  offered  by  the  complainant.   The  

respondent-accused cannot deny that the money was actually touched by  

him.  There is absolutely no cross-examination on the fact that when he  

dipped his finger in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, same turned pink,  

which  was  clear  indication  that  he  touched  the  money  and  handled  it.  

There is no explanation,  whatsoever,  of  this second fact as to how the  

fingers of the respondent-accused were soiled with phenolphthalein.  This  

is the second circumstance, which was a very major circumstance, that the  

High Court has failed to note and explain, which shows that the High Court  

has taken a very casual attitude.  We have scanned the judgment of the  

High Court  very  carefully  and find  that  the High Court  has not,  in  any  

manner, considered the factum of solution of Sodium Carbonate turning  

pink when the fingers of the respondent-accused were dipped.  In fact, that  

was  a  major  circumstance  and  the  most  important  incriminating  

11

circumstance,  which  was  bound  to  be  explained  by  the  respondent-

accused.

10. At this juncture, we must also express as to how the presumption  

was  completely  ignored  by  the  High  Court.   Section  20  of  the  Act  

provides:-

20. Presumption  where  public  servant  accepts  gratification  other than legal remuneration:-

(1) Where  in  any  trial  of  an  offence  punishable  under  Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of  sub-Section  (1)  of  Section  13,  it  is  proved  that  an  accused  person  has  accepted  or  obtained  or  has  agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or  for any other person, any gratification (other than legal  remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it  shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that  he  accepted  or  obtained  or  agreed  to  accept  or  attempted  to  obtain  that  gratification  or  that  valuable  thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such  as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be,  without  consideration  or  for  a  consideration  which  he  knows to be inadequate.”

(2) Not relevant.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Sections (1)  and (2), the Court may decline to draw the presumption  referred  to  in  either  of  the  said  sub-Sections,  if  the  gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial  that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.”

It  was  argued,  though  feebly,  that  the  presumption  could  not  be  

drawn  as  the  charge  in  this  case  was  under  Section  13(2)  read  with  

Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.  It was pointed out by the Learned Counsel for  

12

the  respondent-accused  that  Section  13(1)(d)  did  not  attract  the  

presumption under Section 20 of the Act.  What is being ignored by the  

Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused is that the charge was not  

only under Section 13(1)(d), but also under Section 7 of the Act.  Section 7  

of the Act is as under:-

7. Public  Servant  taking  gratification  other  than  legal  remuneration in respect of an official act:- Whoever,  being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains  or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for  himself  or  for  any other  person,  any  gratification  whatever,  other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing  or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing  to  show,  in  the  exercise  of  his  official  functions,  favour  or  disfavour  to  any  person  or  for  rendering  or  attempting  to  render  any  service  or  disservice  to  any  person,  with  the  Central Government or any State Government or Parliament  or  the  Legislature  of  any  State  or  with  any  local  authority,  corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c)  of  Section 2,  or with  any public servant,  whether named or  otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall  be not  less than six  months,  but  which may extend to  five  years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Now,  there  can  be no dispute  that  prosecution  in  this  case was  

alleging  that  the  respondent-accused  had  accepted  or  obtained  from  

Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant), gratification, which was other than the  

legal remuneration as a motive or reward for signing the contract or, as the  

case may be, for providing the schedule of work, so as to complete that  

contract.  Therefore, there was no question of the presumption not being  

there, once it was proved that the respondent-accused had accepted the  

13

illegal gratification.  Now, the evidence is very clear that firstly, the fingers  

of the respondent-accused were found to be soiled, which could not have  

been  so  soiled  had  he  not  touched the  currency  notes  offered  by  the  

complainant;  and secondly,  it  was found that those very currency notes  

were kept in the bag attached to the scooter.  Lot of criticism was made  

that the scooter and/or the bag were not seized, ultimately from where the  

money was recovered.  Now, in this behalf, the evidence of Preetpal Singh  

Sodhi (PW-1) is clear.  He specifically deposed:-

“As agreed, I paid M.O. 1 to the accused.”

Now,  the  words  “as  agreed”  in  the  deposition  of  the  PW-1  

(complainant) are extremely important, as the same signify that there was  

an agreement between the respondent-accused and the complainant that  

the complainant had agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- as bribe for the contract, its  

signing and for providing the schedule of work.  The complainant further  

goes on to say that “the accused kept the money in the front bag of the  

scooter”.   Now, when  we  see the cross-examination  of  Preetpal  Singh  

Sodhi (PW-1), it  is clear that nothing has been asked in respect of this  

version.  It was feebly suggested to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) that no  

amount was paid before executing Exhibits P-5 to P-8 or that it was not  

paid inside the hotel soon after the agreement.  The witness had clarified  

on this situation that the amount was paid in the parking area.  He very  

14

specifically  mentioned in  his  cross-examination that  he gave Rs.5,000/-  

with his right hand and the respondent-accused accepted the money with  

his right hand.  It has also come out in the evidence that the amount of  

Rs.5,000/- was taken out of the front bag of the scooter only after the hand  

wash test was completed.  Some minor insignificant omissions have been  

brought, which were of no consequence.  In the whole cross-examination,  

the story of demand of the respondent-accused prior to the contract and  

the acceptance by the respondent-accused near the scooter stand, has not  

at  all  been demolished.   This,  the  High  Court  has  completely  ignored.  

Once this story becomes acceptable, there is no other go, but to raise a  

presumption  under  Section  20  of  the  Act.   This  important  provision  of  

Section 20 was also ignored by the High Court. This was again not a case  

falling under Section 20(3) of the illegal gratification from being trivial, so  

as not to raise presumption – inference of corruption.  It was a substantial  

amount.  Therefore, Section 20 of the Act could not have been ignored.  

The  High  Court  has  committed  an  error  in  ignoring  this  provision  and  

ignoring the fact that the presumption had to be raised, and on that basis, it  

was up to the respondent-accused to explain as to how the amount came  

in his possession.  In our opinion, this amounts to a perverse appreciation  

of evidence.  This is the third aspect, on which the High Court has faltered.  

15

11. The  evidence  of  Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (complainant)  was  fully  

corroborated by the evidence of M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2), who was a  

Panch witness and who was to accompany the complainant.  Even this  

witness  specifically  says  that  after  the  signatures  were  obtained  on  

Exhibits P-5 to P-8, the respondent-accused collected the books and came  

to the parking place, where his scooter was parked and he was followed by  

the complainant and that when Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) asked for a  

copy  of  the  agreement  book  already  signed,  the  respondent-accused  

demanded money from Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and Preetpal Singh  

Sodhi (PW-1) removed M.O. 1, i.e., money from his left hand pocket.  The  

respondent-accused collected the money and handed over the copy of the  

agreement through his right hand.  The respondent-accused placed the  

money in the scooter bag and the complainant (PW-1) gave pre-arranged  

signal.  It can be said that there is some discrepancy about the hand, by  

which the respondent-accused accepted the amount, but that goes into the  

backdrop  on  account  of  the  clear  evidence  of  R.M.  Khan  (PW-7),  the  

Investigating Officer.  R.M. Khan (PW-7), in his evidence, has referred to  

the earlier demonstration, going of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and M.N.  

Sampath Kumar (PW-2) to the Taj Mahal Hotel, the instructions given to  

the  complainant  (PW-1)  and  the  witness  and  the  coming  of  the  

respondent-accused  at  about  6’O  clock.   This  officer  was  all  through  

watching  the happenings.   He also then proceeds to  say that  Preetpal  

16

Singh Sodhi (PW-1) removed the currency notes from his pant pocket and  

the same were given to the respondent-accused, who took the same and  

kept it in the scooter bag and then the respondent-accused gave a copy of  

the  agreement  to  Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (PW-1).   On  the  signal  being  

received from M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2), the respondent-accused was  

caught  and  the  money  was  recovered  after  the  demonstration  of  the  

Sodium Carbonate solution.  The cross-examination of this witness, though  

lengthy,  is  perfunctory  and  serves  no  purpose.   His  basic  story  has  

remained unshaken.  Some insignificant contradictions as to who gave the  

signal were brought in the evidence of this witness, but those would not  

affect the otherwise credible evidence of this witness.  Therefore, this was  

a case where the evidence of Preetpal  Singh Sodhi (PW-1) was totally  

corroborated by the evidence of M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) and R.M.  

Khan (PW-7).  All this has been totally lost sight of by the High Court.

12. Much  was  said  about  the  scooter  or  the  scooter  bag  not  being  

seized.  We do not see as to how that would have helped, once it was  

proved that  the  respondent-accused had  accepted  the  money.   Merely  

because  it  was  kept  in  the  scooter  by  the  respondent-accused,  in  our  

opinion, was an insignificant circumstance.  The fact of the matter is that  

the money was recovered from the scooter bag.  It would have certainly  

been better had the scooter and scooter bag been seized, however, in our  

17

opinion,  the  non-seizure  of  the  bag  and  scooter  will  not  affect  the  

prosecution case.   

13. Much was made of  the evidence of  L.N.  Das (PW-5).   The High  

Court has gone to the extent of saying that it was at the instance of L.N.  

Das (PW-5) that the respondent-accused was falsely implicated.  We have  

scanned  the  evidence  of  L.N.  Das  (PW-5)  very  carefully,  but  we  find  

nothing in the evidence of this witness to suggest the inference drawn by  

the High Court.  The witness merely gave the background, in which the  

respondent-accused  was  asked  to  get  the  signatures  and  he  also  

undoubtedly has said that one B. Ashok Kumar was kept for this work,  

however, since the respondent-accused was made in charge of the work,  

the respondent-accused was asked to collect the signatures, so as to get  

the contract completed.  We do not find anything in the evidence or the  

cross-examination of this witness to suggest that it was at the instance of  

this  witness  that  the  respondent-accused  was  falsely  implicated.   The  

inference  drawn  by  the  High  Court  has  absolutely  no  basis  and  only  

suggests that the High Court has read something in his evidence, which  

was not there at all.  Evidence of A.K. Taneja (PW-8) is merely formal and  

nothing has been addressed to us as regards his evidence.  He had given  

the sanction for prosecution.  In fact, no arguments were addressed on the  

question of sanction.

18

14. The evidence of the respondent-accused is also perused by us, as  

much was made by the High Court  of  that  evidence.  The High Court,  

without even discussing the evidence in details, has gone to the extent of  

saying that the evidence of G. Premraj (respondent-accused & DW-1) has  

the  effect  of  establishing  the  defence  of  the  respondent-accused  by  

preponderance of probabilities.  The respondent-accused admits here in  

his evidence that on 27.5.1998, Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) telephoned  

him at about 1’O clock, asking him to come to Taj Mahal Hotel for signing  

the agreement.  One wonders as to why the respondent-accused chose to  

accept  this  suggestion on the part  of  the Preetpal  Singh Sodhi  (PW-1)  

even  if  it  is  held  to  be  true.   Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (PW-1),  however,  

disowns  telephoning the respondent-accused.   The respondent-accused  

has raised a theory that when he returned to his scooter for proceeding  

after  the  signatures  were  obtained,  Preetpal  Singh  Sodhi  (PW-1)  

approached him and forcibly thrust the amount in his hands.  Now, we fail  

to follow as to what could prompt Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) to thrust  

the money into the hands of the respondent-accused.  In our opinion, his  

evidence was nothing, but a poor attempt to explain the change of colour  

of the Sodium Carbonate solution after his fingers were dipped in it.  Such  

theory of thrusting the notes cannot be believed at all.

19

15. The Sessions Judge in this case, after discussing the evidence, has  

given  cogent  findings.   In  Para  17  of  his  judgment,  he  asked  a  right  

question  as  to  whether  the  amount  was  accepted  by  the  respondent-

accused or was thrust in the hands of the respondent-accused.  He has  

also addressed himself  about  the other  contentions.   He has,  after  the  

discussion, chosen to believe the evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-

1), M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) and R.M. Khan (PW-7) and has come to  

the conclusion that the amount was accepted.  He has rightly stated that  

there  was  a  meeting  of  minds  between  the  respondent-accused  and  

complainant to meet at Taj Mahal Hotel.  The Sessions Judge has rightly  

held that there was no question of anybody having any enmity with the  

respondent-accused,  much  less  on  the  part  of  the  complainant  and,  

therefore, there was no reason for these persons to falsely implicate the  

respondent-accused.  As regards the discrepancy in the First Information  

Report (FIR), the Sessions Judge has rightly attributed this to the failure of  

memory, as the witness has deposed after 3 years.  The Sessions Judge  

has  also  noted  that  the  respondent-accused  had,  at  no  point  of  time,  

complained to anybody that the amount was thrust in his hand.  We find  

that the judgment of the Trial Court was quite reasonable and even without  

raising the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, the Trial Court had  

inferred  that  the  respondent-accused  had  committed  offence  under  

Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.   

20

16. We  do  not  find,  in  comparison,  any  reasons,  much  less,  good  

reasons, having been given by the High Court for its disagreeing with the  

judgment of the Trial Court.

17. We are quite alive to the fact that unless the judgment of acquittal  

tends  to  be  perverse  or  unless  the  inferences  drawn  in  the  acquitting  

judgment were not at all reasonable, possibly the acquittal should not be  

upset.  However, in this case, as we have already pointed out, there was  

no scope for recording of finding of acquittal.   

18. For all  these reasons, we are unable to agree with the impugned  

judgment of the High Court.  We would, therefore, choose to set aside the  

same and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.

19. Last, but not the least, we are extremely surprised to read the last  

portion of the judgment of  the High Court,  wherein,  the High Court has  

honourably acquitted the accused and directed his reinstatement as senior  

most  Civil  Engineer,  Civil  Department,  MIDHANI  with  all  usual  retiral  

monetary benefits inclusive of restoration of seniority etc. with immediate  

retrospective effect.  We wonder as to under what powers, the High Court  

has acted.  This was certainly not the jurisdiction on the part of the High  

Court, which had only to find whether the respondent-accused was guilty  

or not of the offence alleged against him.  It has come in evidence that a  

21

full-fledged  departmental  enquiry  was  conducted  against  the  accused,  

wherein he was found guilty.  We are shocked to see the step taken by the  

High Court in straightaway writing off the findings in departmental enquiry  

without  any justification.   This  aberration on the part  of  the High Court  

speaks of its wholly incorrect approach.

………………………………..J. [V.S. SIRPURKAR]

.………………………………..J. [DEEPAK VERMA]

New Delhi; November 19, 2009.

22