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

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  709 of 1999

PETITIONER: V. RADHAKRISHNA REDDY                        

RESPONDENT: STATE OF A.P.                                

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/01/2005

BENCH: B.P. SINGH & ARUN KUMAR     

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

B.P.Singh,J.

       Delay condoned.         Application for substitution is allowed.         In this appeal by special appeal the judgment and order of the High Court of  judicature of Andhra Pradesh  at Hyderabad dated 20th November, 1998 in Criminal Appeal  No.196/94 has been challenged.           The High Court by its impugned judgment and order affirmed the conviction of the  appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrupt ion  Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’).  The High Court upheld the sentence of one  year  rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the Act but reduced the sentence of one and a half  years under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Act to one year rigorous  imprisonment.         The facts of the case are that at the relevant time the appellant was In-charge  General Manager of the District Industries Centre at Ongole.  His co-accused was an Attender  in  the District Industries Centre.          The case of the prosecution is that PW-1 Samapathkumar wanted to set up a small  scale industry and for that purpose he was required to apply for registration of the industr y as a  small scale industry.  On 29.7.1991 at 10.00 A.M. he met the appellant in his office, who  demanded a sum of Rs.200/- for granting him the requisite certificate.  On the persuasion of  PW- 1 he reduced the amount to Rs.150/-.  Similarly, the co-accused who was a Attender in the sa me  office initially demanded Rs.30/- and later reduced the sum to Rs.20/- for getting the certi ficate  signed and issued from the office. On the very next day i.e. 30th July, 1991 the complainant PW-1 went to the Deputy  Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch and lodged a report, but the same was not  registered immediately.  On the following day, however, i.e. on July 1, 1991 a first informa tion  report was registered and a trap was arranged by DSP,ACB PW-5.  Thereafter, PW-1 went to  the office of the appellant and after handing  over the marked currency notes to the appella nt as  well as to the co-accused gave a signal pursuant to which  DSP,ACB PW-5 who was waiting  outside for a signal, entered the room of the appellant and recovered tainted currency notes  from  the right side pocket of his trousers.  In fact, the appellant himself took out the currency  notes  and handed them over to PW-5.  Similarly, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the   co-accused.  At that time the appellant gave the explanation that the amount had been paid t o  him towards payment of challan.  It is stated before us that every application  made for the

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

 registration of a  small scale industrial unit has to be accompanied with a challan of Rs.50 /- being  the fees payable on such application.         The appellant as well as co-accused A-2 were put up for trial before the Special  Judge for SPE &ACB Cases, Nellore.  The trial court after considering the evidence of witnes ses  produced by the prosecution including the evidence of PW-1 Samapathkumar  and the   DSP,ACB PW-5 found the appellant guilty of the offences with which he was charged and  sentenced him to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of for Rs.500/-  under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.  In default of payment of fine, he was  to  undergo imprisonment for one month.  Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the A ct,  the appellant was sentenced to undergo one and a half years rigorous imprisonment and to pay   fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month’s imprisonment.  The trial court, however,  acquitted the co-accused A-2 of the charges levelled against him.         The State of Andhra Pradesh as well as appellant herein preferred appeals before  the High Court.  The High Court by its impugned judgment and order affirmed the conviction o f  the appellant while reducing the sentence to one year under Section 13(1)(d) read with Secti on  13(2) of the Act.  The appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of A-2 was reject ed.           In this appeal, it was contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant that PW-1 Samapathkumar is in fact, a journalist.  He was not a bona fide applican t  interested in setting up a small scale industry.  He only wanted to get the appellant involv ed in a  criminal case out of personal grudge.  It was submitted that another journalist namely, one  Prasad had misbehaved with one Chander Shekhar, who was working in the office of the Distric t  Industrial Centre and since the aforesaid Chander Shekhar had reported the matter to the  appellant herein, the appellant had forwarded his complaint to the police for registration o f a  case.  For this reason  PW-1 bore a grudge against the appellant and he got him falsely invo lved  in this case.  Learned counsel also drew our attention to the explanation offered by the app ellant  in the course of investigation as also his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.   The explana tion  furnished by the appellant was that PW-1 had indeed approached him for filing an application   for registration of the unit which he intended to set up as a small scale industry.  He had  not  demanded any amount from him by way of illegal gratification.  On the date and time in  question he had given him three currency notes of Rs.50/- each.  The amount payable by way o f  challan was only Rs.50/- for one application.   However, PW-1 left his office leaving the th ree  currency notes on his table stating that he shall be making two more applications and that h e  shall come back within half an hour with those two applications.  So saying PW-1  Samapathkumar left his chamber and thereafter re-entered his chamber along with  DSP,ACB  PW-5.  He has also explained that since the amount had been kept on a corner of the table, i t fell  on the ground and he picked up the currency notes and put them in his pocket.         It thus appears that the appellant had not denied the fact that PW-1 gave him a sum  of Rs.150/- which was recovered from his pocket by PW-5.         The only question which arises for consideration is whether the amount was paid to  him by way of illegal gratification or it was paid for any other lawful purpose.  The sole q uestion,  therefore,  is whether the explanation offered by the appellant can be accepted.         We do not attach much importance to the fact that PW-1 may not be a genuine

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

applicant for registration of a small scale industrial unit.  That fact is wholly immaterial  in  judging the guilt of the appellant.  PW-1 has stated that he had met the appellant on 29.7.1 991 at  10.00 A.M. and the appellant had made the demand.  On the next day, he had reported the  matter to the police and thereafter, on 31st July, 1991 a trap was arranged and the amount w as  recovered from him.         The explanation offered by the appellant is most unconvincing.  If an applicant is  required to pay a sum of Rs.50/- by way of fee on the application for registration of a smal l scale  industrial unit, the same has to be paid in the treasury under a challan.  It is unbelievabl e that an  applicant would go to the General Manager of the District Industrial Centre and pay him in c ash  the amount which is required to be deposited in the treasury with a challan.  Apart from thi s, the  fact remains that the sum recovered  is Rs.150/- and not Rs.50/- which was the fee payable f or  one application.  The explanation of the appellant is that Rs.100/- had been paid to him in  advance for two applications which were yet to be made.  The explanation is wholly  unconvincing and there appears to be no special reason for the appellant to show such a favo ur  to the complainant PW-1.  In normal course it was expected that the applicant would deposit  the  amount in the treasury and file a receipted challan with his application for registration of  his  small scale industrial unit.         We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the explanation offered by the  appellant as has been done by the courts below.  We, therefore, find no reason to set aside  the  conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.         It was stated before us that the appellant died on 17th May, 2004 and his legal  representatives have been brought on record.  Since the result of this appeal may affect the   payment of dues to the family of the appellant, the legal representatives have pursued this  appeal  before this Court.               In the result, this appeal is dismissed.         We may, however, observe that no counsel appeared for the State of Andhra  Pradesh in this matter to oppose the appeal.