1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal  No(s).  1580 OF 2011

KANNAN                                             Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE      Respondent(s)

WITH

Criminal Appeal  No(s).  1581 OF 2011

M. NADIMUTHU                                       Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU                      Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) These  appeals  arise  out  of  the  conviction  of  the

appellants under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)

(d)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988  and  the

appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

one year.

(2) A grocery shop under the name and style “Ambika Stores”

was run by father of Sabapathy-(PW-2).  On 19th October, 1994

2

Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (PW-4) along with accused no.1,

M. Nadimuthu, who was then working as Assistant Commercial Tax

Officer, inspected the grocery shop and seized the accounts

book.  Case of the prosecution is that PW-2 approached A-1 and

asked for return of accounts book for which A-1 demanded bribe

amount  of  Rs.2000/-.   On  22nd October,  1994,  PW-2  gave  an

application  for  registration  and  produced  a  challan  for

Rs.100/-.  On 22nd November, 1994 PW-2 again went to the Office

of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officers and asked A-1 to return

of accounts book on which A-1 is said to have reiterated the

demand  for  Rs.2000/-.   On  30th November,  1994,  PW-2  again

approached A-1 who stated that the bribe amount of Rs.2000/-

which was subsequently reduced to Rs.800/-, to be paid on 1st

November, 1994 failing which the application for registration

certificate would be rejected.  On 1st November, 1994, PW-2

lodged  a  complaint  before  the  Vigilance  and  Anti-Corruption

Wing, based on which an F.I.R. was registered and trap was

arranged.   On  the  same  day  i.e.  1st November,  1994  PW-2

accompanied by PW-3 went to the office of A-1 where A-1 asked

him whether he brought the money and when PW-2 stated that he

brought the money, A-1 asked PW-2 to pay the money to A-2,

Kannan, and directed A-2 to receive the money.  Accordingly,

PW-2 paid the bribe amount of Rs.800/- to A-2.  PW-5 and the

trap team went inside and after completion of the test with

sodium  carbonate  solution  turning  red  and  other  formalities

arrested A-1 and A-2.

3

(3) The Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 7 and

Section  13(2)  and  Section  13(1)(d)  of  the  Prevention  of

Corruption  Act  and  sentenced  them  to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment  for  two  years.   In  appeal,  the  High  Court

maintained  the  conviction  but  reduced  the  sentence  of

imprisonment to one year.

(4) We have heard Ms. Malini Poduval and Mr. P.B. Suresh,

learned counsel appearing for the appellants.  Both learned

counsel  submitted  that  the  evidence  of  PW-2  remains

uncorroborated and that A-1 was not in receipt of money.  So

far as A-2 is concerned, it was submitted that there was no

evidence to show that there was any demand by A-2 and therefore

conviction of A-2 is not sustainable.  Learned counsel have

taken  us  through  the  depositions  of  the  witnesses  and  the

relevant  portion  of  the  judgment.   We  have  considered  the

submissions  and  also  perused  the  impugned  judgment  and  the

materials on record.

(5) So far as the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by

A-1 and A-2 are concerned, PW-2 has clearly stated about the

demand  and  acceptance.   PW-3,  accompanying  witness,  though

turned hostile, in his Chief-Examination clearly stated that he

accompanied PW-2 who went and met A-1 and on the direction of

A-1, PW-2 paid the money to A-2.  To that extent, the evidence

of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-3.  That apart,

as submitted by Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the

4

respondent-State, the evidence of PW-6, the office assistant,

also corroborates the version of PW-2.  In his evidence PW-6

has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and that A-1

told A-2 that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must take and

keep it with him.  Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 who

received the same.  Thus the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated

by the evidence of PW-6, the Office Assistant.  Based on the

evidence of PW-2 and test conducted in the sodium carbonate

solution  the  Trial  Court  and  the  High  Court  had  found  the

appellants-accused guilty of the offences.  Having regard to

the concurrent findings of the courts below, we do not find any

good ground to take a different view.

(6) The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

(7) The appellants are to surrender to custody within a period

of eight weeks to serve the remaining sentence failing which

they shall be taken to custody.

(8) A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court

for necessary action.      

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (INDIRA BANERJEE)

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 12, 2018.