REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2009  [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6209 of 2008]

V. Kannan             ... Appellant

Versus

State Represented by The Inspector of Police               ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High  

Court of Madras dated 4.7.2008 delivered in Criminal Appeal  

No.664 of 2002.

3. The  brief  facts  which  are  necessary  to  dispose  of  this  

appeal are recapitulated as under.

4. The complainant, A. Alexander, PW1 was the proprietor  

of M/s. OLOHV Engineering Services and the company was  

doing  contract  work  for  the  Railways.   The  company  had

completed the contract work for Rs.1 crore from 1993 to 1997.  

According to the prevalent rules, the bills could be cleared only  

after the signature of the ‘Site Engineer’ in the measurement  

book.  The contract work was completed in the year 1997 and  

there was a balance of Rs.9 lacs due to the complainant PW1.

5. The appellant was the Site Engineer during the relevant  

period and he had to verify the measurements and make entry  

in the measurement book.  The appellant informed that the  

complainant PW1 had to return the unused materials to the  

Railway department.  The appellant demanded a bribe amount  

of  Rs.5000/-  from  the  complainant  PW1  at  9.30  am  on  

1.4.1998 to clear the final bill.  The appellant also informed  

that the bribe amount be paid during the lunch hour on that  

date.  The complainant PW1 was not willing to give the bribe  

amount and consequently at about 10.30 a.m. on 1.4.1998 he  

filed  a  report  to  the  Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police,  CBI,  

Chennai.   The  report  was  handed  over  to  Prem  Anand,  

Inspector of Police by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and  

at  about  11.30  a.m.  the  above  Inspector  introduced  the  

independent  witnesses  Balachander  and  Prakash.  The  

complainant  PW1  handed  over  the  currency  notes  of  

2

Rs.5000/-  to  the  Inspector  and the Inspector  demonstrated  

the Phenolphthalein test in the presence of the independent  

witnesses.  Subsequently,  the  Inspector  prepared  the  

entrustment  mahazar  and  the  tainted  currency  notes  were  

placed in the shirt  pocket  of  the complainant  PW1 and the  

Inspector informed that the above amount should be given to  

the appellant on demand.  The complainant PW1 was told that  

after  giving  the  bribe  amount on demand he should give  a  

signal by wiping his face with handkerchief.    

6. The above witnesses and the trap team were sent to the  

office  of  the  appellant  at  about  1.00  pm.  The  complainant  

PW1and  Balachander  PW2  also  went  to  the  room  of  the  

appellant and he (the appellant) took them to the room of the  

Deputy General Manager.  The appellant demanded the bribe  

amount and the complainant handed over the bribe amount to  

the appellant.   The appellant  started counting the currency  

notes  and  Balachander  PW2  went  out  and  gave  the  pre-

arranged signal to the trap team.  Immediately thereafter, the  

Inspector entered into the room and introduced himself.    

3

7. The Sodium Carbonate test was conducted on both the  

hands of the appellant and there was a colour change in the  

solution.   The  above  solutions  were  preserved  in  separate  

bottles  and  sealed.   The  appellant  handed  over  the  bribe  

amount to the complainant PW1 and the serial numbers were  

verified with the entrustment mahazar and they tallied.

8. The  prosecution  has  examined  seven  witnesses.  

Balachander  PW2  is  an  independent  witness  and  his  

testimony  is  fully  corroborated  by  the  evidence  of  the  

complainant PW1.  Prem Anand, Inspector, CBI, PW3 arranged  

the trap against the appellant in presence of the independent  

witnesses. Smt. Kasturi Bai PW6 was working as a Scientific  

Assistant  Grade-I  at  the  Forensic  Science  Department,  

Chennai.  She stated in her report that she had received two  

solution  bottles.   On  examination,  the  liquid  contained  

Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate.   

9. The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the  

Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Cr.P.C.) stated that  

as a Site Engineer, his duties were to supervise the erection of  

girders  at  the  work  site  of  MRTS  Project  at  Mylapore,  to  

4

monitor the safety parameters of both men and materials at  

the  site,  to  inspect  whether  the  contract  works  are  being  

carried  out  according  to  the  specifications  and  also  

management of stores under direct supervision of the Project  

Manager (Deputy General Manager).   

10. The  appellant  in  his  defence  stated  that  he  had  

purchased a second hand two-wheeler TVS Champ No.TN-21-

6743 in 1997 from A. Alexander PW1 for a sum of Rs.7000/-.  

The appellant had already paid a sum of Rs.5000/- initially  

and the balance amount of Rs.2000/- was to be paid after he  

was  satisfied  with  the  vehicle.   Since  the  vehicle  had  

mechanical  defects,  therefore,  the  appellant  had  asked  

Alexander PW1 to take back the vehicle and return the money  

(Rs.5000/-).  The appellant further stated that at 1.00 p.m. on  

1.4.1998, when he was working at the site at Mylapore, at that  

time, Alexander PW1  came to return the amount given by him  

towards the purchase two wheeler scooter and Alexander PW1  

told  him  that  his  assistant  Jayakanthan  will  handover  the  

money to him.  Thereafter, he along with the complainant went  

into the room of the Deputy General Manager Vaidyanathan to  

5

discuss about  the  bills  and at  that  time Vaidyanathan had  

gone to the General Manager’s room to attend a STD call.   He  

handed over the money by Jayakanthan.  The appellant stated  

that at that time he immediately asked his kalasi Govindan  

and gave him the table key and asked him to take the vehicle  

key  from  the  table  drawer  and  handover  the  vehicle  to  

Jayakanthan.   At  that  time  Vaidyanathan  came  back  after  

attending the telephone call and all of them went back to his  

room  and  resumed  the  discussion.  The  appellant  further  

stated that when Vaidyanathan asked him what that money  

was, he told him that it was given to him by Alexander PW1  

through Jayakanthan as  he  was  returning  the  two wheeler  

TVS Champ purchased from Alexander PW1 and that he had  

told Govindan to handover the vehicle to Jayakanthan.

11. The appellant also stated that when the CBI people came  

and told him to raise his hands, he told Prem Anand PW3 that  

the money in his hand was for the vehicle transaction money  

and not the bribe money.  The appellant further stated that he  

did not receive any bribe amount.  He stated that it was not  

within his power to prepare the bills for the complainant PW1  

as  the  matter  was  being  dealt  with  at  the  Deputy  General  

6

Manager  level.  The  appellant  also  submitted  that  the  

complainant  PW1 had deliberately  filed  this  false  complaint  

against  him  to  forestall  any  action  by  the  Indian  Railway  

Construction  Company  (IRCON)  as  more  than  Rs.16  lakhs  

could be deducted from his bills.

12. The Trial Court, after a detailed discussion, rejected the  

defence  version of  the  appellant.   The  Trial  Court  held  the  

appellant guilty of the offences under section 7 and 13(1)(d)  

read with section 13(2)  of  the Prevention of Corruption Act,  

1998  (for  short,  the  Act)  and  sentenced  the  appellant  to  

undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the charge under  

section 7 of the Act and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to  

undergo  further  six  months  rigorous  imprisonment.   Two  

years’ sentence was given along with a fine of Rs.2000/- for  

the charge under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the  

Act  and  in  default  of  payment  of  fine,  one  year  rigorous  

imprisonment was given.  Both the sentences were ordered to  

run  concurrently  and  any  period  of  imprisonment  already  

undergone was ordered to be set off under section 428 of the  

Cr.P.C.

7

13. On appeal, the High Court re-examined the matter and  

confirmed  the  findings  of  the  trial  court,  but  reduced  the  

sentence  of  two  years  into  one  year  for  the  offence  under  

section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act.

14. The  appellant  aggrieved  by  the  said  judgment  has  

preferred this appeal.

15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  Mr. Altaf  

Ahmed,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant,  

submitted that in corruption cases demand and acceptance  

are two most important aspects and both, the demand as well  

as  the  acceptance,  must  be  proved by  the prosecution.   In  

absence  of  clear  evidence  of  demand  and  acceptance,  the  

conviction in corruption cases cannot be sustained.  

 16. Reliance  was  placed  on  the  case  of  Subash  Parbat  

Sonvane v. State of Gujarat (2002) 5 SCC 86. In this case  

there was no statement of any prosecution witness by which  

the  demand of any amount from the complainant could be  

proved. In this case when the appellant asked the complainant  

to  come  in  the  evening  and  while  the  accused  was  going  

towards the toilet, the complainant followed him and gave him  

8

something  from  his  pocket  which  the  appellant  put  in  his  

pocket.   The Court took the view that it could not be inferred  

that  the  appellant  had  demanded  any  amount  from  the  

complainant or that he had obtained the same.  

17. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that in  

corruption  cases,  the  prosecution  must  prove  both  the  

demand and acceptance of the bribe amount, but the facts of  

the  present  case  are  altogether  different  and  the  

aforementioned judgment is of no assistance to the appellant  

in the present case.

18. In the instant case, the appellant had clearly demanded  

the amount from PW1.  The relevant portion of the statement  

of the complainant reads as under:

“……He  is  the  Proprietor  of  OLOHV  Engineering  Services and the above company was doing contract  work for the Railways. From the year 1993 to 1997,  he has completed the contract work for Rs.1 Crore.  The  Site  Engineer  will  sign  in  the  measurement  book.  The payment will be made by cheque.  The  contract work was completed in the year 1997 and  there  was  a  balance  of  Rs.9  lacs  due  to  P.W.1.  During  that  period,  the  accused  was  the  Site  Engineer and he has to verify the measurement and  entry  to  be  made  in  the  measurement  book.  The  accused  informed  that  P.W.1  has  to  return  the  unused materials  to  the  Railway  Department.  On  

9

1.4.98, at about 9.30 a.m. the accused demanded a  bribe amount of Rs.5000/- to be paid to clear the  final bill……”

19. According to Balachander PW2, the money was handed  

over to the appellant in his presence.  Immediately after the  

bribe amount was handed over to the appellant,  he started  

counting the currency notes.  At that time Balachander PW2  

came out and gave the pre-arranged signal.  Soon thereafter  

the Inspector and the trap team entered into the above room  

and  the  appellant  was  arrested.   The  Sodium  Carbonate  

solution  was  prepared  and  Phenolphthalein  test  was  

conducted  on  both  the  hands  of  the  appellant  separately.  

There  was  colour  change  in  the  solution  and  they  were  

preserved in separate bottles.    

20. Balachander PW2 is an independent witness and he has  

corroborated the evidence of the complainant PW1.  Therefore,  

in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is difficult to  

accept  the  submission  of  the  appellant  that  there  was  no  

demand and acceptance of the bribe amount.  Both the Trial  

Court and the High Court rejected the defence version of the  

appellant.    

10

21. This Court in State of U.P. v. Dr. G. K. Ghosh (1984) 1  

SCC 254 has aptly  observed that  by  and large  a  citizen  is  

somewhat reluctant, rather than anxious, to complain to the  

Vigilance Department to have a trap arranged even if  illegal  

gratification  is  demanded  by  a  Government  official.    The  

relevant para 9 at page 261 of the judgment reads as under:

“9. By and large a citizen is somewhat reluctant,  rather than anxious,  to complain to the Vigilance  Department  and  to  have  a  trap  arranged  even  if  illegal  gratification is  demanded by a Government  servant.  There  are  numerous  reasons  for  the  reluctance.  In  the  first  place,  he  has  to  make  a  number  of  visits  to  the  office  of  Vigilance  Department and to wait for a number of officers. He  has to provide his own currency notes for arranging  a  trap.  He has to  comply  with several  formalities  and sign several statements. He has to accompany  the officers and participants of the raiding party and  play the main role. All the while he has to remain  away from his  job,  work,  or avocation.  He has to  sacrifice  his  time  and  effort  whilst  doing  so.  Thereafter, he has to attend the court at the time of  the trial from day to day. He has to withstand the  searching cross-examination by the defence counsel  as if he himself is guilty of some fault. In the result,  a citizen who has been harassed by a Government  officer,  has  to  face  all  these  hazards.  And  if  the  explanation offered by the accused is accepted by  the court, he has to face the humiliation of being  considered as a person who tried to falsely implicate  a Government servant,  not to speak of  facing the  wrath  of  the  Government  servants  of  the  department concerned, in his future dealings with  the department. No one would therefore be too keen  or too anxious to face such an ordeal. Ordinarily, it  is only when a citizen feels oppressed by a feeling of  

11

being wronged and finds the situation to be beyond  endurance,  that  he  adopts  the  course  of  approaching the Vigilance Department for laying a  trap.  His  evidence  cannot  therefore  be  easily  or  lightly  brushed  aside.  Of  course,  it  cannot  be  gainsaid that it does not mean that the court should  be  oblivious  of  the  need  for  caution  and  circumspection  bearing  in  mind  that  one  can  conceive  of  cases  where  an  honest  or  strict  Government official may be falsely implicated by a  vindictive  person  to  whose  demand,  for  showing  favours,  or  for  according  a  special  treatment  by  giving a go-bye to the rules, the official refuses to  yield.”

22. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  at  

length and carefully perused the impugned judgment of the  

High Court as well as the judgment of the Principal Special  

Judge for the CBI Cases.  We have also carefully examined the  

evidence and documents on record.  The view which has been  

taken by the courts below seems to be the correct view.  In the  

facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called  

for.   The   appeal  being   devoid   of  any  merit  is accordingly  

dismissed.

.....……....................J.                                 (Dalveer Bhandari)

                 ..……….................... J.

               (P. Sathasivam) New Delhi;

12

August 24, 2009

13