Page 1

‘  REPORTABLE’   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 1564 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012)

Narinder Singh ………Appellant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ……..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

M.Y. EQBAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  by  special  leave  is  directed  against  the  

judgment  dated  13.6.2012  and  order  dated  9.7.2012  

pronounced  by  the  High  Court  of  Himachal  Pradesh,  in  

Criminal  Appeal  No.169  of  2008  preferred  by  the  State,  

whereby learned Single Judge of the High Court setting aside  

the  judgment  and  order  of  acquittal  of  the  Trial  Court  

convicted  the  appellant-accused  guilty  of  the  offence  

punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption  

1

Page 2

Act,  1988  (for  short,  “the  Act”)  and  sentenced  him  to  

undergo six months imprisonment.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 10.12.2002 at  

11 AM the accused-appellant attempted to give a bribe of  

Rs.10,000/- to the complainant – the then Additional District  

Magistrate, Bharmour for inducing him, a public servant, to  

exercise his influence to give accused supply orders for the  

supply of  double-decker beds by corrupt or  illegal  means.  

Thereafter, complainant called police officials and lodged the  

complaint.   List  of  currency  notes  allegedly  given  by  the  

accused were prepared and the police officials recorded the  

statements of other witnesses.  The accused was charged  

with having committed the aforesaid offences, to which he  

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Complainant, who was in-charge of the administration  

of  Bharmour  area  and  sanctioning  authority,  appeared  as  

PW-8  and  stated  that  while  he  was  sitting  in  his  office  

accused entered in his office and talked with regard to the  

complaints of the quality of the furniture already supplied by  

2

Page 3

him.  Thereafter,  accused  offered  to  supply  double  decker  

beds  for  the  Government  Senior  Secondary  School,  Holi.  

Upon  which,  complainant  explained that  there  must  be  a  

rate contract of those articles and these articles should be of  

good quality.  In the meantime, a senior assistant-PW2 came  

inside his office and had a discussion with the complainant  

with regard to purchase of some door mats and left office  

room.  Thereafter, after using complainant’s office bathroom  

with  permission,  the accused did  not  sit  on the chair  but  

pulled out the drawer of the table of the complainant and put  

some currency notes in the drawer, which were immediately  

picked up by the complainant raising objection on it.  On this  

the  accused  replied  that  this  was  his  right  (hak).   The  

complainant then reprimanded him and informing the SHO  

Bharmour telephonically asked him to come to his office.   

5. The  complainant  also  called  his  Statistical  Assistant-

PW1 and handed over the notes to him to prepare list  of  

notes.  In the meantime some other officials came into the  

office of the complainant.  Upon reaching of SHO Bharmour-

3

Page 4

PW7 within 15 minutes, the complainant made and handed  

over a written complaint along with 20 currency notes of the  

denomination of Rs.500/- each, duly signed and sealed in a  

parcel.  According to the complainant he is not sure why the  

accused offered him Rs.10,000/-.   Probably,  it  was with  a  

view to procure further supply order.  The cross-examination  

of this witness is to the effect that the accused had earlier  

supplied desks and benches for  which payment  had been  

made to the accused.  The complainant has admitted that  

double-decker beds were required for the Govt. Girls Hostel  

at Holi and he could straight way call the tenders from the  

parties concerned but in this case he had still  not invited  

tenders.   He,  however,  stated  that  he  had  issued  oral  

directions to the Principal of the hostel to be in touch with  

the contractors for supply of double decker beds.

6. On  the  other  side,  according  to  the  defence,  the  

complainant used to give supply orders to the manufacturers  

of  furniture  not  belonging  to  Chamba  district  and  in  this  

connection  complaint  was  made  to  the  Deputy  

4

Page 5

Commissioner, Chamba, and as such, a false case has been  

lodged  by  the  complainant  against  the  accused,  who  is  

cashier  and  spokesperson  of  Chamba  Steel  Furniture  

Manufacturing Association.  The defence also led evidence  

by  examining  DW-1  Statistical  Assistant,  who  stated  that  

although complainant gave sanctions for purchase of various  

articles  to  various  departments  in  Bharmour  area but  the  

record of such sanctions is not available with him as no such  

copies of sanction orders are retained by his office.  DW-2,  

owner  of  a  steel  factory  in  Chamba,  stated  during  

examination  that  after  transfer  of  complainant  from  

Bharmour their units are getting supply orders.  

7. Considering  the  respective  contentions  of  both  the  

parties  and scrutinizing the  records  of  the case,  the  Trial  

Court acquitted the accused of the charge by giving him the  

benefit of doubt.  According to the Special Judge Chamba,  

the case had been initially investigated by the then ASI Prem  

Chand-  PW7  and  the  matter  was  not  investigated  by  an  

5

Page 6

authorized officer and there had been miscarriage of justice  

especially  when  the  statement  of  the  complainant  was  

recorded  by  more  than  one  investigating  officer  including  

PW-9 Dr.  D.K. Chaudhary, the then Dy. S.P.,Chamba.  The  

other ground which weighed with the Trial  Court was that  

there was no occasion for the accused to offer the bribe for  

getting the supply of double-decker bed as no quotation had  

been invited by PW-8 and there was no correspondence in  

this  behalf.   Therefore,  there  was  no  motive  to  give  the  

bribe.  The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that the  

defence version that the ADM (complainant)  was annoyed  

with  the  accused  was  a  plausible  and  reliable  version.  

Lastly, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to  

prove as to what conversation actually transpired between  

the accused and the complainant.

8. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court, the State  

preferred appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure  contending  that  Trial  Court  did  not  take  into  

consideration the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption  

6

Page 7

Act especially  Section 20(2)  and if  it  is  proved that  some  

money was offered then a presumption had to be raised that  

it was by way of illegal gratification.

9. After hearing learned Additional Advocate General for  

the  State  and  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

accused and considering case law and provisions of the Act,  

learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  opined  that  the  

judgment delivered by the Trial Court is totally perverse and  

has been passed without appreciating the evidence or the  

legal  provisions.   Setting  aside  the  judgment  of  the  Trial  

Court, the High Court convicted the accused for an offence  

punishable under Section 12 of the Act and imposed upon  

him minimum sentence of six months. Hence, the present  

appeal by special leave by the accused.

10. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-accused  

assailed the judgment passed in appeal on the ground, inter  

alia, that the High Court has not correctly appreciated and  

interpreted the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,  

7

Page 8

1988.   According to  the learned counsel  the  investigation  

was done by the police officer who was not an authorized  

officer  in  terms of  Section 17 of  the Act  and thereby the  

entire investigation is vitiated in law.  The High Court also  

erroneously drawn presumption under Section 20 of the said  

Act  when  the  prosecution  miserably  failed  to  prove  the  

demand  or  offer  of  any  gratification.   Learned  counsel  

further  submitted  that  the  presumption  as  contemplated  

under Section 20(2) of the Act can be made applicable only  

when the  public  servant  accepted the  illegal  gratification.  

Learned counsel submitted that all witnesses examined by  

the prosecution are subordinates of the complainant and no  

independent witness was examined to prove the charges.  It  

was further contended that charge was framed by the Trial  

Court for the admitted bribe to the complainant for awarding  

the supply order of double decker beds, but as a matter of  

fact no such supply order was processed anywhere. Lastly, it  

was contended that no implicit reliance on the testimony of  

8

Page 9

the  complainant  can  be  placed  unless  corroborated  by  

independent witnesses.

11. The  impugned  judgment  reveals  that  the  High  Court  

discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as also  

the evidence of the defence witnesses.   On analyzing the  

entire evidence, the High Court recorded a conclusive finding  

about the guilt of the appellant/accused.  It is evident that  

PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour  

Police Station requested the SHO at  Chamba to  depute a  

gazette officer to investigate the matter.  Even if the part of  

investigation had been carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said  

to be illegal.   Nothing has been said from the side of the  

defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by  

reason  of  the  investigation  carried  out.   The  High  Court  

rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there  

is a single line administration and lot of power is vested with  

the  Resident  Commissioner  since  the  heads  of  various  

departments or  competent authorities are not  available in  

9

Page 10

Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also  

the Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.

12. While taking note of the finding recorded by the High  

Court,  we are fully in agreement that the prosecution has  

proved charges made against the appellant.  The provisions  

of  law considered by  the  High  Court  ought  to  have been  

followed  by  the  Trial  Court.   The  Trial  Court  decided  the  

matter  as  if  the  offence  has  been  committed  by  the  

appellant under the provisions of penal code.  The Trial Court  

has  not  considered  the  gravity  of  the  offence  as  

contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

13. In  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and  

seriousness  of  the  offence,  we  fully  agree  with  the  view  

taken  by  the  High  Court.   The  impugned  judgment,  

therefore, needs no interference.  Hence this appeal has no  

merit and the same is dismissed.

10

Page 11

14. The  appellant-accused  is  accordingly  directed  to  

surrender  within  a  period  of  one  month  from  today  to  

undergo  the  six  months  sentence  awarded  by  the  High  

Court,  failing  which  the  Trial  Court  shall  take  necessary  

steps.  The Registry is directed to immediately communicate  

this order to the Trial Court.

………………………………J. (Ranjan Gogoi)

……………………………….J. (M.Y. Eqbal)

New Delhi July 25, 2014

11