Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 621 OF 2013

C. CHANDRASEKARAIAH         …. Appellant

Versus

STATE OF KARNATAKA              …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1.      This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order  

dated 13.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore  

in Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2007 setting aside the judgment of  

acquittal rendered by the trial court and convicting the appellant under  

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

Corruption  Act,  1988  (the  Act,  for  short)  and  sentencing  him  to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year on each of the  

aforesaid  two  counts  and  also  to  pay  fine  of  Rs.5,000/-  and  

Rs.10,000/-  on  the  aforesaid  two  counts  respectively,  in  default

Page 2

whereof  to  undergo  further  simple  imprisonment  for  periods  of  2  

months and 3 months respectively.  The sentences were ordered to run  

concurrently.

2.    This matter arises out of complaint Ext. P -8 lodged by PW-3  

Basavraju at 3:00 p.m. on 3.12.2005 with Lokayukta Police Station.  It  

is the case of the prosecution that the Complainant and three others  

were  granted  anticipatory  bail  by  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  

Mandya and in connection therewith he had gone to Malavalli  Rural  

Police Station for executing the bail bond.  The appellant who was  

then  working  as  Sub  Inspector  of  Police  allegedly  demanded  

Rs.1,000/- from each of those persons in order to permit them to sign  

the  bail  bonds  and  avail  the  facility.   It  was  alleged  that  said  

Complainant  had  gone  to  the  Police  Station  along  with  surety  

Siddaraju and met the appellant but the appellant refused to permit  

him to execute the bail bond.  On 1.12.2005, at the insistence of the  

Complainant  bail  bond  was  prepared  by  writer  Rajendra  but  the  

appellant  shouted at  him why it  was prepared without  asking him.  

The  Complainant  thereafter  approached  Circle  Police  Inspector  

Ganagadhar  Swami and sought  his  assistance  but  was  told to  take  

2

Page 3

necessary  steps  open  to  him,  whereafter  the  complainant  lodged  

complaint Ext. P-8.

3.    After recording the complaint, PW-6 D. Jairamu, Police Inspector  

working in Mysore Lokayukta Police Station took necessary steps to  

lay  the  trap.   Two  independent  witnesses  namely  PW-1  K.L.  

Umashankar and PW-2 B.K. Nagaraju both working in the office of  

the Joint Director of Horticulture, Mandya, were associated with the  

trap proceedings as Panchas.  After giving necessary instructions, two  

currency  notes  of  Rs.500/-  each  given  by  the  complainant  were  

applied Phenolphthalein powder and their numbers were also noted.  

The party then proceeded to Malavalli Rural Police Station.  However,  

since the appellant was not in the Police Station, the proceedings were  

deferred.   The  next  day  being  a  holiday,  the  concerned  persons  

assembled  in  Lokayukta  office  on  5.12.2005  at  8:00  a.m.  The  

Currency Notes were again checked and powder was applied.  PW-3  

Complainant was given a Micro Phone Recorder and was instructed to  

switch it on as he would enter the Police Station.   PW-3 Complainant  

was to be accompanied by PW-1 Umashankar while the other Panch  

PW-2 Nagaraju was to be with the raiding party.

3

Page 4

4. PW-3 Complainant and PW-1 Umashankar entered the Police  

Station and found the appellant  sitting there.   It  is  the case  of  the  

prosecution that pursuant to the demand made by the appellant, PW-3  

complainant  made over  those  two currency notes  of  Rs.500-  each.  

The appellant received the Currency Notes in his right hand and kept  

the same in the hip pocket of his trouser.  PW 3 Complainant and PW-

1 Umashankar came out of the Police Station and gave requisite signal  

whereafter  the  raiding  party  came  inside  and  apprehended  the  

appellant.   Upon chemical examination, his right hand turned pink.  

The money was recovered from the possession of the appellant under  

a panchnama.  The appellant on being asked, gave his explanation in  

writing Ext. P-3 to the effect that the money was thrust into his pocket  

forcibly.   After  due  investigation,  the  appellant  was  tried  for  the  

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

Act.

5. The  prosecution  examined  seven  witnesses  including  two  

Panchas  as  PW-1  and  PW-2,  the  complainant  as  PW-3  and  the  

investigating officer as PW-6.  One Basavraju Assistant Sub Inspector  

working in Malavalli  Police Station  was  examined as PW-5 who  

testified that the right hand of the appellant turned pink upon chemical  

4

Page 5

examination.  During  the  trial  the  appellant  did  not  stand  by  the  

statement given in his explanation Ext. P-3 and chose to remain silent  

and pleaded false implication. No evidence was led by him by way of  

examining any defence witnesses.

6.    The Trial Court found as many as 21 inconsistencies in the case  

of  the  prosecution.   It  was  observed  that  the  signatures  of  the  

complainant as well as his surety Sidharajau were obtained in the Bail  

Bond Register on 1.12.2005 itself and therefore no work pertaining to  

PW-3 Complainant was pending with the appellant and as such there  

was no scope or occasion for the appellant to demand or to accept  

illegal gratification.  It further held that there was no corroboration on  

material particulars and therefore it would not be proper to proceed  

with the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. Finding the alleged  

demand on 3.12.2005 or at any time after 1.12.2005 being doubtful, it  

extended  the  benefit  of  doubt  and  acquitted  the  appellant  of  the  

charges leveled against him.

7.        The State being aggrieved preferred Crl. Appeal No. 1501 of  

2007 before the High Court. After analyzing the entire evidence on  

record, the High Court found that the demand and acceptance stood  

5

Page 6

fully  established.  It  also  noted  that  the  initial  theory  as  set  out  in  

explanation  Ext.  P-3  was  not  established  at  all.    The  High Court  

further found that the prosecution had established the case beyond any  

doubt  and  that  the  trial  court  had  not  considered  the  evidence  of  

material  witness  in  proper  perspective.   The  High  Court  therefore  

allowed the appeal and convicted the appellant as stated above.  The  

appellant being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal by Special  

Leave. It may be noted that because of medical condition the appellant  

was granted exemption from surrender by this court which order has  

continued during the pendency of the appeal.

8.  Mr. P. Vishwanath  Shetty, learned Senior Advocate appearing  

for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had detailed out 21  

reasons pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in the case of  

the prosecution, that pre trap proceedings were vitiated, that the tape  

recorder  which  was  with  PW-3 complainant  was  not  produced  on  

record, that there were inconsistencies between the versions of PW-3  

complainant and PW-1 Umashankar as regards the alleged demand  

made by the appellant, that both the Panchas were from Govt. office  

and thus amenable to pressure from Lokayukta police.  It was further  

submitted that the view taken by the Trial Court was a plausible view  

6

Page 7

and as such the High Court in an appeal against acquittal ought not to  

have interfered in the matter.   Appearing for  the State Ms.  Anitha  

Shenoy, learned advocate submitted that the alleged inconsistencies  

between the versions of PW-1 and PW-3 were not on material aspects,  

that the demand and acceptance were completely established in the  

matter,  that  the  theory  of  thrusting  of  currency  notes  into  the  hip  

pocket of the complainant as stated in Ext.P-3 was given a complete  

go by and there was no evidence which could point against invocation  

of  presumption under Section 20 of the Act.

9.  We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  and  have  gone  

through the record. The signature of surety Sidharaju was obtained in  

the Bail Bond Register on 1.12.2005 but that of PW-3 complainant  

was not allowed to be taken.  Such signature was taken only after the  

exchange of  money as stated by PW-3 and PW-1.   Moreover,  no  

entry  was  made  in  the  Station  Diary  Ext.  P-5  as  stated  by  PW-6  

Investigating Officer as well as PW-5 Basavraju.  The Trial Court was  

therefore not justified in concluding that everything stood completed  

on 1.12.2005 itself. We have also scanned the evidence of the relevant  

witnesses and found the following:-

7

Page 8

(i) Though there is variation in their version as regards the  actual  words  uttered  by  the  appellant,   both  PWs  1  and  3   are  consistent that such demand was made ,

(ii) Both are again consistent that money was made over by PW-3  

complainant which was received in right hand by the appellant,

(iii) that the money was kept by the appellant in the hip pocket of  the trouser,

(iv) that  thereafter  the  Bail  Bond  Register  was  placed  by  the  appellant in front of PW-3 complainant,

(v) that  thereafter  the  complainant  signed  in  the  Bail  Bond  Register,

(vi) that thereafter they came out of the Police Station

(vii) and the requisite signal was given by them,

(viii) that  they again entered the Police Station along with raiding  party.

(ix) and that the right hand of the appellant upon being dipped in the  solution turned pink, whereas his left hand did not.

As  regards  these  facets  of  the  matter,  there  is  complete  

consistency between PW-1 Umashankar and PW-3 complainant and  

as regards other features of the matter i.e. after the raiding party had  

entered the Police Station, they also stand corroborated by the other  

witnesses.

10. The immediate explanation offered by the appellant  was that  

the money was thrust into his pocket but this was given up and the  

8

Page 9

appellant remained silent. In the absence of any evidence offered by  

the  appellant  to  explain  the  circumstances,  the  presumption  under  

Section 20 of the Act was not in any way rebutted and the prosecution  

case stood completely established.

11.   The  High  Court  was  conscious  that  it  was  considering  the  

appeal against acquittal but it was justified in interfering in the matter  

and reversing the acquittal.    We find no infirmity in the view taken  

by  the  High  Court.   The  appeal  thus  being  devoid  of  merit  is  

dismissed.   We are alive to the fact that the appellant  has medical  

condition,  but  since  he  has  been  given  the  minimum sentence,  no  

variation is permissible.   We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and direct  

the  appellant  to  surrender  immediately  to  undergo  the  sentence  

awarded to him.

………………………..J. (Madan B. Lokur)

………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, April 13, 2015

9