STATE OF KERALA Vs P. MUHAMMED NOUSHAD
Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,ASHOK BHUSHAN
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000736-000736 / 2008
Diary number: 5033 / 2005
Advocates: BINA MADHAVAN Vs
V. K. SIDHARTHAN
Page 1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2008
State of Kerala Appellant(s)
VERSUS
P. Muhammed Noushad Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the State against the
final judgment and order dated 09.08.2004
passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
in Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2000 whereby the
1
Page 2
Single Judge of the High Court set aside the
order dated 29.07.2000 passed by the Trial Court
in C.C. No. 21 of 1999 convicting the respondent
herein for the offences punishable under Sections
7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
“the P.C. Act”) and sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years
with a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year under Section
7 of the P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment for
a term of four years under Section 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
2) In short, the case of the prosecution was as
under:
The respondent-accused was a Village
officer, Vijayapuram in Kottayam District. There
2
Page 3
was a property dispute between PW-2
(Complainant) and his sister-in-law. The
sister-in-law submitted a complaint to the
District Collector on 01.09.1998. The District
Collector (PW-1) immediately directed an enquiry
through the respondent-Village Officer (accused)
and directed him to submit a report before
15.09.1998.
3) On 10.09.1998, the respondent-accused
demanded gratification of Rs.500/- from PW-2 for
forwarding a favourable enquiry report to the
District Magistrate. On the same day, the
complainant paid the accused a sum of Rs.300/-.
Thereafter on 19.09.1998, the accused demanded
the balanced sum of Rs.200/- from PW-2 and
agreed to send a favourable report.
3
Page 4
4) On 24.09.1998, PW-2 reported the illegal
demand of the accused to the officials of vigilance
department. Thereafter, on 26.09.1998, PW-2
made a formal complaint (Ex.P-3), F.I. statement
and produced M.O.1 notes (two notes of hundred
rupees denomination) each before the Vigilance
officer.
5) After registering the FIR, the Dy.S.P. affixed
identification marks on the notes and after
applying Phenolphthalein powder on the notes,
placed them in the pocket of PW-2 with a
direction to make the payment to the accused if,
demanded.
6) At the time of trap, PW-3 (Agricultural
Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Erattupetta) and
Additional Tahsildar, Taluk Officer, Meenachil
(PW-4) were present. After completion of the
4
Page 5
formalities of the trap team, PW-2 alone went
inside the village officer’s room. On seeing PW-2,
the accused asked for the balanced amount and
PW-2 tendered the amount to the accused, who
after receiving the same placed the same in his
shirt’s pocket.
7) Thereafter, PW-2 came out of the room and
conveyed the signal and the trap team arrived
there. After investigation, the accused was
apprehended and subsequently charge sheet was
filed against the accused under Section 7 and
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
P.C. Act against the accused.
8) During the trial, the prosecution examined
seven witnesses and the defence examined three
witnesses.
5
Page 6
9) By order dated 29.07.2000 the trial Judge
convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)
(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
term of three years with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for one
year under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and rigorous
imprisonment for a term of four years under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
P.C. Act.
10) Challenging the said order, the accused filed
an appeal before the High Court. The Single
Judge of the High Court by impugned order dated
09.08.2004 set aside the order of conviction and
acquitted the respondent of the charges leveled
against him.
6
Page 7
11) The High Court appreciated the evidence
and on its appreciation recorded its disagreement
with the reasoning of the Trial Court. The High
Court held that it is not satisfactorily proved that
how the currency notes reached in the pocket of
accused. It is also not proved that colour of
currency note did not turn pink. In the opinion
of the High Court when these two material facts
were not satisfactorily proved with the aid of
evidence adduced by the prosecution, the
accused is entitled to claim the benefit of doubt
and hence can not be convicted for the offences
in question. It is with these findings, the High
Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused and
set aside his conviction.
7
Page 8
12) Aggrieved by the said order, the State has
filed this appeal by way special leave before this
Court.
13) Heard Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, learned
counsel for the appellant-State and Mr. V.K.
Sidharthan, learned counsel for the
respondent-accused.
14) As mentioned above, this is a case where
the Trial Court convicted the accused-respondent
of the offences alleged against him under the PC
Act whereas the High Court on appreciation of
evidence finding fault in the manner of
appreciation done by the Trial Court reversed the
judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted the
respondent on the findings mentioned in para 11
giving rise to filing of this appeal by the State.
8
Page 9
15) We have perused the order of the High
Court. In our considered opinion, the view taken
by the High Court as detailed in para 11 above is
based on appreciation of evidence and the same
was taken within its jurisdiction. The High Court
has given its reasoning as to why it has reversed
the finding of the Trial Court. It is one of the
possible views, which the High Court is capable
to take on appreciation of evidence and it has so
taken.
16) It is a settled principle of law that if the view
taken by the High Court while reversing the
judgment of the Trial Court appears to be just
and reasonable and which is supported by cogent
reasoning then this Court would not
re-appreciate the evidence again especially when
the appeal arises out of the order of acquittal.
9
Page 10
17) It is only when the High Court while
reversing the judgment of the Trial Court fails to
record any reason or fails to appreciate the
evidence or when the High Court records any
material finding which is wholly perverse or
against any provision of law, this Court would
examine the issues arising in the case and in
appropriate case may interfere. Such is not the
case here.
18) In our view, the High Court has given cogent
reasons in support of its view and we have not
been able to notice any infirmity or perversity in
the reasoning of the High Court, which may
persuade us to interfere in the impugned order.
In these circumstances, there is no need to
undertake the exercise of appreciating the whole
evidence in this appeal.
10
Page 11
19) All the submissions urged by the learned
counsel for the appellant (State) are on facts and
involved appreciation of evidence. He was not
able to point out any legal or jurisdictional error
or/and extreme perversity in the reasoning of the
High Court, which may persuade us to probe into
evidence de novo. We thus decline to accept the
submissions and also decline to re-appreciate the
evidence.
20) In the light of foregoing discussion, there is
no merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and
is accordingly dismissed.
.……...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………..................................J. [ASHOK BHUSHAN]
New Delhi, June 29, 2016
11