Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.593 OF 2012
L. Laxmikanta V State by Superintendent of Police,
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Dated;February 5, 2015.
This criminal appeal is filed by the accused
against
the
judgment
and
final
order
dated
24.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in
Criminal Appeal No.1792 of 2004.
2.
By
impugned
judgment,
the
High
Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (accused)
and confirmed the judgment of the trial court which
convicted the appellant for the offences punishable
under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13
(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for
short “the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo two
years’ RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in respect of
conviction for the offence punishable under Section 7
and to undergo four years’ RI and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- in respect of conviction for the offences
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13 (2)
of the Act with respective default clauses therein to
suffer further imprisonment. Both the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
3.
The question which arises for consideration in
this appeal is whether the Courts below were justified
in
convicting
and
awarding
sentences
to
the
appellant for the offences specified above?
4.
In order to appreciate the grievance of the
appellant, relevant facts, which lie in a narrow
2
Page 2
compass, need mention infra.
5.
The appellant was working as a Warden of a
hostel of college known as "Medical and Engineering
College (SC/ST) Hostel at Banashankari I Stage,
Bangalore”. The Hostel is run by the Social Welfare
Department of the State. The complainant (PW-3)
was the student of B.E. Course during 1999-2000 and
was occupying one room in the hostel. He failed in
second semester and, therefore, appeared in the
examination and was declared pass in 2001. This
enabled him to join the third semester. However, the
complainant was required to apply afresh to seek re-
admission in the hostel because he could not clear
the examination as provided in the Hostel Rules. The
complainant, therefore, made a fresh application to
the Hostel Authorities
seeking re-admission and
allotment of a room. His application was to be
forwarded to
appellant after
the
District
getting
Officer
through
countersigned
the
from
the
3
Page 3
Principal of the College. The appellant did not provide
hostel facilities to the complainant and compelled
him to frequently visit his office to clear his file. The
accused
also
told
the
complainant
that
he
(complainant) would get re-admission in the hostel
only after paying to him (appellant) Rs. 2000/- as
illegal gratification.
6.
The complainant finding that he would not get
re-admission in the hostel unless he pays Rs. 2000/-
to the appellant by way of illegal gratification, went
to the Office of Lokayukta and lodged complaint (Ex-
P-9) about this incident against the appellant. The
Lokayukta officials found substance in the appellant's
complaint and
accordingly registered the complaint
for giving effect to it. Four currency notes of Rs.500/-
denomination (total Rs. 2000/-) were, accordingly,
prepared by smearing sodium carbonate on each
note and were given to the complainant by CW-3.
The complainant was asked to keep four notes in his
pocket by CW-14. The complainant and raiding party
sleuths (CW-2, CW-3 and CW-14) went to the Hostel
in Lokayukta’s Police Jeep on 03.12.2001 at around
4.15 p.m. At about 6.30 p.m, the appellant came in
the office. The appellant entertained the complainant
and shadow witness (PW-4) and first took them to his
chamber and then told them to go to room No. 5 and
wait
in
the
room.
The
appellant
then
around
7.00/7.15 p.m. came in the room and demanded the
amount from the complainant. The complainant then
gave the currency notes of Rs. 2000/- to the
appellant, which were smeared with the solution. The
appellant took the notes in his right hand and then
kept them in the left hand side pocket of his trouser.
The raiding party then arrived and trapped the
appellant. His hands were immersed in the chemical
solution, which on being dipped, turned into pink
colour. The appellant's paint was also immersed in
the solution, which also turned into pink colour (MO-
2).
7.
The raiding party then prepared the panchnama
(Ex-P-18) and after completing the investigation and
obtaining necessary sanction, filed charge-sheet (Ex-
P-4) against the appellant for his prosecution in
relation to the offences punishable under Sections 7,
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The prosecution
examined 8 witnesses, whereas the appellant, in his
defense, examined 6 witnesses. His statement was
also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
8.
The trial court, by judgment dated 16.12.2004,
held that mandatory requirements of Section 7 read
with
Section
13
namely;
demand
of
illegal
gratification and its acceptance were proved against
the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt by the
prosecution and hence, the appellant was liable to be
convicted for the offences in question. He was,
accordingly, convicted and directed to undergo
6
Page 6
sentences as mentioned above.
9.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal
before the High Court. The High Court by impugned
judgment, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
conviction and sentence awarded by the Sessions
Court. It is against this judgment; the accused felt
aggrieved and filed this appeal by special leave.
10. Learned
assailing
impugned
counsel
the
for
legality
judgment
the
and
appellant
correctness
contended
that
while
of
the
twin
requirements of Section 7 namely; demand of illegal
gratification and its eventual acceptance by the
appellant from the complainant were not proved
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and
hence, the conviction of the appellant is bad in law.
Learned counsel urged that the Courts below should
have believed the defence version which was more
plausible.
Learned
counsel
elaborated
these
submissions by taking us through the evidence on
7
Page 7
record. Learned counsel lastly submitted that since
the High Court decided the appeal on merits in the
absence of appellant's counsel, hence the case be
remanded to the High Court for rehearing of the
appeal on merits afresh.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent,
in reply, contended that no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment as according
to him twin mandatory requirements of Section 7,
namely; demand of gratification and its acceptance
by the appellant from the complainant were made
out by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and
hence the appeal deserves dismissal.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no
merit in any of the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant.
13. With a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether a
case
of
demand
and
acceptance
of
illegal
8
Page 8
gratification which are
sine qua non for sustaining
conviction under Section 7 read with Section 13 ibid
of the accused are made out, we perused the entire
evidence. Having so perused, we are also of the view
that twin requirements of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification were rightly held proved against
the appellant by the Courts below and hence, no fault
can be found in the findings of the Courts below on
this material issue for upholding the conviction of the
appellant.
14. On perusal of evidence of complainant (PW-3)
and the shadow witness (PW-4), we find that it is
consistent on the issue of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification from the complainant and is
without any contradiction. There is, therefore, no
reason
to
disbelieve
the
testimony
of
PW-3
(complainant) when he deposed that the appellant
made a demand of Rs. 2000/- from him for allotment
of a room in the hostel. It is not in dispute that PW-3
9
Page 9
was staying in the Hostel, and had applied for re-
admission for allotment of room in the hostel. It is
also not in dispute that appellant being the Warden
of the hostel knew the complainant. It is also not in
dispute that four currency notes (each Rs. 500/-
denomination) were given to the appellant which he
kept in his trousers’ pocket and they changed their
colour (pink) when mixed in solution along with his
hands and trousers’ pocket.( Ex-P-18 ). PW-7 a police
inspector (I.O.) of Lokayukta, who investigated the
case, duly proved the articles. We have not been able
to find any evidence of the defense to discard the
evidence of prosecution on this material issue.
15. We are not inclined to believe the defence
version of DW-1 and DW-2 as, in our considered view,
the
Courts below, rightly did not believe their
version. DW-1 is the student who was occupying one
room in the hostel. According to him, when he was
coming out from the bathroom, he saw
that
10
Page 10
complainant and his friend were forcing the appellant
to accept the money, which the appellant was
refusing to accept while standing in the passage. He
further deposed that he does not know as to what
happened thereafter because he went to his room.
So far as DW-2 is concerned, he is also the student
like DW-1. He deposed that he saw appellant along
with the complainant and one person standing in the
passage where complainant was seen
offering
money to the appellant. He said that he then
proceeded to his room and did not see what had
happened thereafter.
16.
This evidence, in our considered view, does
not help the appellant in any manner for more than
one reason.
Firstly, there is nothing in the defence
version which deserves acceptance to acquit the
appellant
of
the
charges
leveled
against
him.
Secondly, the story that complainant was forcing the
appellant to accept the money and which he was not
11
Page 11
accepting is unbelievable in the light of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution because the trap was
arranged in room No.5 and not in the passage.
Thirdly, both the students (DW-1 and 2) were
the
chance witnesses who came forward to help the
appellant and lastly, even according to appellant, he
did not dispute that money was recovered from his
body. It was not the case of appellant that there was
some previous lawful money transaction between
him and complainant pursuant to which complainant
repaid the said money to appellant.
So far as the
evidence of other defence witnesses is concerned,
we
have
perused
their
evidence
and
find
no
relevancy in their evidence. None of these witnesses
have
witnessed
the
incident
and
hence
their
evidence does not in any way help the appellant.
17. The two Courts below, therefore, rightly rejected
the defence version being totally devoid of any merit.
We concur with the reasoning of the Courts below on
12
Page 12
this issue and accordingly uphold the same.
18. It is a settled principle in law laid down by this
Court in a number of decisions that once the demand
and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification
knowing it to be the bribe are proved by evidence
then conviction must follow under Section 7 ibid
against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements
are sine qua non for proving the offence under
Section 7 ibid. (See- C.M. Sharma vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 15 SCC 1].
19. In the light of our own re-appraisal of the
evidence
and
keeping
in
view
the
above-said
principle in mind, we have also come to a conclusion
that twin requirements of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- were proved on the
basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution against
the appellant and hence the appellant was rightly
convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable
under Section 7 read with and Section 13 (1)(d) read
13
Page 13
with Section 13 (2) of the Act.
20. Coming now to the last argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the appeal should be
remanded to the High Court for its rehearing afresh
because no one appeared for the appellant in the
High Court
at the time of hearing of appeal which
caused prejudice to the appellant. In our view, the
High Court in such circumstances should have
appointed any lawyer as amicus curie on behalf of
the appellant to argue appellant’s case
instead of
proceeding to decide the appeal ex parte on merits.
Indeed,
in
our
considered opinion,
it was
the
appropriate course which the High Court should have
followed for deciding the appeal finally on merits to
meet such eventuality.
21. Be that as it may and keeping in view the
aforesaid infirmity noticed in the case, we considered
it proper and in the interest of justice to undertake
the exercise of appreciating the entire evidence in
14
Page 14
our appellate jurisdiction. We, therefore, do not find
any necessity or ground to remand the case to the
High Court for its fresh hearing.
22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find
no merit in this appeal. It fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed. Since the accused is on bail, he be taken
into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of
his sentence.
.............................................................J.
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA]
...........................................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi,
February 5, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment