Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.593 OF 2012

L. Laxmikanta            Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State by Superintendent of Police,  Lokayukta               

Respondent(s)                   

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. 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)  

1

Page 2

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 3

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  the  District  Officer  through  the  

appellant  after  getting  countersigned  from  the  

3

Page 4

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  

4

Page 5

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-

5

Page 6

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 7

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  counsel  for  the  appellant  while  

assailing  the  legality  and  correctness  of  the  

impugned  judgment  contended  that  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 8

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 9

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 10

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 11

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 12

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 13

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 14

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 15

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.

15