1

              REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 462  OF 2003      

P.PARASURAMI REDDY ...   Appellant(s)

                     Versus

STATE OF A.P. ...   Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

SIRPURKAR, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-

accused who was found guilty by the trial court  for the  

offences punishable under Sections 7 and  13(1)((d) read  

with  Section  13(2)  of  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  

(hereinafter referred to as ”The Act”).

2. The story of the prosecution in short is as  

under:-

The  complainant  had  applied  for  loan  for  

digging  a  community irrigation well in his land and for  

that purpose, he was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 23,400/-.  The  

complainant was paid Rs. 19,240/- on furnishing  evaluation  

certificates   and the remaining balance was due.   The  

accused-appellant,  who was working  as Mandal Development  

Officer, was dealing with the implementation of the scheme  

by allotting necessary amounts from time to time.  It is the

2

case of the complainant that when he  approached the accused  

for  the  payment  of  the  remaining  amount  and  also  for  

sanction for installing a electric motor near the well, the  

accused  demanded  Rs.  500/-  as  bribe.   According  to  the  

complainant, this happened on 31.12.1993 at the office of  

accused.  The complainant again approached the accused on  

6.1.1994.   However,  the  demand  was  again  reiterated  by  

accused.   Therefore,  on  11.1.1994  the   complainant  

approached   Superintendent  of  Police,  Anti  Corruption  

Bureau, Tirupati-  PW9 and  gave a  report to  this effect.  

Thereupon,  PW-9  asked  the  complainant  –PW1  to  bring  Rs.  

500/-  which  were  treated   with   phenolphthalein  powder.  

Thereafter,  the  raiding  party    reached   the  office  of  

accused at 4.50 p.m.  However, up to 7.00 p.m. the accused  

was  not  found  present  in  the  office.   Therefore,   not  

finding  the  accused  in  his  office,  the  raiding  party  

returned  to  the  office  of  PW9.  The  shirt  in  which  the  

currency  notes  were  kept  was  kept  in  the  office  of  the  

Investigating Officer.

3. It  is  further  the  case  of  the  complainant  

that next day on 12.1.1994, the raiding party  started from  

the office of PW-9 at about 9 a.m. and reached the office of  

accused by 10.00 a.m..  On seeing the complainant, who alone  

went to the office of  the accused, the accused asked him  

as to whether he has brought the bribe amount. On this, the

3

complainant gave the money to accused who  took the same  

with   his  right  hand and kept the same in his right hip  

pocket.  The complainant came out of the office and gave the  

agreed signal. On getting signal from complainant,  raiding  

party immediately rushed towards the accused. They noticed  

accused  also  coming  out  of  office  room.   PW9  then  

apprehended the accused.  On disclosing the identity by PW9,  

the accused  threw the  currency notes  in the  open ground  

towards the  public and shouted “take away, take away”. When  

the right hand fingers and back side pocket were subjected  

to  sodium  carbonate  test,  the  solution  turned  pink.  

Interestingly, the currency notes of  Rs. 200/- found from  

the open space, which were claimed by the accused as his  

own,  were returned to him by PW9.

4. Be  that  as  it  may,  on  this  basis,  the  

investigation started and a charge-sheet was filed against  

the accused.  The accused claimed that he never demanded and  

had never accepted the bribe money.

5. The trial court did not accept the defence of  

the  accused.   He  was  convicted  and  sentenced  for  the  

offences punishable under Sections 7 and  13(1)((d) read  

with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act   The  

appeal against the conviction was also dismissed by the High  

Court. Hence,  the appellant is before us.

6. Mr. S. Sunderavardhan, learned senior counsel

4

appearing for the appellant  very strenuously urged before  

us that this  case is full of doubts.  He points out that  

very strangely, there is nothing on record to corroborate as  

to what transpired between the accused and the complainant  

when  the  complainant  allegedly  approached  the  accused  to  

give him the bribe.  Learned counsel further points out that  

there  is  no  evidence  except  that  of  the  complainant  to  

suggest that when the complainant approached the accused, he  

actually demanded the money and in pursuance to that demand,  

the complainant paid  him the money.  The counsel urged that  

there was no corroboration to the evidence of complainant.  

The second contention is that there is enough gap between  

the time of bribe demanded and paid.  Though the money was  

demanded  as  back  as  on  31.12.1993,  there  is  nothing  on  

record to suggest that any time or place to accept the money  

was fixed in any manner.  Learned counsel further points out  

that though the accused was approached by the complainant on  

6.1.1994, he  never made any disclosure about the bribe.  

Learned counsel further points out that on 11.1.1994 when  

the complainant along with the raiding party reached the  

office of accused, he  was admittedly not present in the  

office.  There was no prior commitment  between the accused  

and the complainant fixing the time and place for receiving  

the bribe.  This, according to the learned counsel,  is a  

suspicious circumstance.  He further points out that it is

5

very strange that  no one was present to hear as to what  

transpired  between  the  accused  and  the  complainant  when  

bribe was paid and to add further chaos to the prosecution  

story, there was no seizure of the treated currency notes  

either.  Learned counsel  wonders as to  how it could have  

happened that the currency notes, which were given by the  

complainant to accused, could not be recovered.

7. Mr.  I.  Venkatanarayana,  learned  senior  

counsel  appearing  for  the  respondent-State  supported  the  

concurrent judgments of the courts below and contended that  

the findings  of facts were concluded by the courts below.  

Mr. Venkatanarayana  points out that there was no reason for  

the complainant PW-1 to falsely implicate the accused. In  

fact, that was also no reason why the investigating agency,  

particularly PWs 4, 6 & 9  should be disbelieved.  According  

to Mr. Venkatanarayana, the fact that  money was accepted by  

the accused stands proved on the basis of sodium carbonate  

test which was done on the right hand fingers and the back  

side pocket of  the accused.

8. Considering the overall circumstances, we do  

feel that the prosecution has not been able to prove that  

the accused had fixed the time and  place to receive the  

money.   The  dates  31.12.1993,  6.1.1994  and  11.1.1994  

mentioned in the complaint  of the  complainant are  rather

6

speaking.  It is further  admitted in the evidence of PW1-  

complainant that on 11.1.1994, when the accused was tried to  

be approached, he was not found present in his office.  It  

was,  therefore,  that  the  accused  was  approached  on  the  

second day i.e. on 12.1.1994. what surprises us is that when  

two  panchas were  present  in the raiding party and if  one  

of  them  had  accompanied  the  complainant  and  noted  the  

conversation between the complainant and the accused, that  

would have  given a definite corroboration to the version of  

the complainant.  But  that did not happen. Further even as  

per  the  complainant,  when  he  approached  the  accused  on  

12.1.1994, he was driven away by the accused.  In his cross  

examination, the complainant states as under:

“When I went there the accused on seeing me  

became irritated and asked me to go away and  

that I need not approach him”

9. Though  thereafter  the  complainant  asserted  

that the accused   demanded  bribe from him.  It is rather  

strange  that the complainant was  driven out of the room  

when he first approached the accused.   The complainant then  

remained silent  as to what happened when he was turned away  

by the accused on his first meeting with the accused in his  

office.  This circumstance, according to us, creates doubt.  

If the accused had to accept the bribe, he would never have

7

driven away the complainant when he was approached by the  

complainant in his office. When both of them  were alone in  

the  office  of  accused,  that  would  have  been  the  best  

opportunity for the accused to accept the bribe if there was  

any such demand on his behalf and  if there was any such  

transaction.   In short, there is no evidence to suggest as  

to what transpired between the accused and the complainant  

when the accused was first approached by the complainant.  

The second circumstance, which is really  suspicious, is not  

finding of the treated currency notes which were thrown away  

by the accused.   We cannot imagine that a raiding party  

which consisted of nine persons would not be able to recover  

the currency notes which were thrown away by the accused in  

the open space and which were allegedly taken away by the  

members of public.  There is absolutely no evidence given by  

the investigating officer PW9 as to what efforts he did to  

find out the currency notes.  The only explanation which has  

come out from the evidence of investigating officer is  that  

it was not possible. In his cross-examination, PW 9 stated  

as under:

“We did not surround the people at that place as  there was no  possibility.  I did not subject the  amount 200 to any chemical test.  It is not true  to  say  that  I  did  not  seize  Rs.  200  from  any  vacant space  and that the said amount is in the  pocket of accused.   I returned Rs. 200 as it is  his personal money.”  

8

10. This was rather strange.  Learned counsel appearing  

for  the  State  very  heavily  relied  on  that  circumstance.  

That circumstance by itself may not be able to establish  

that money was demanded and it was accepted as bribe.  It  

could have been the possibility that the complainant had  

touched the  currency notes  and had  shaken hand  with the  

accused  or it could be that any one of the investigating  

officer or the member of the raiding party had touched the  

fingers of the accused.  That circumstance itself cannot be  

ruled out.

11. We  have  seen  the  judgments  of  the  courts  below  

wherein  the sole evidence  of the fingers being soiled in  

sodium carbonate turned pink has been relied upon.  Both the  

courts  below  seem   to  have  impressed  by  this  situation  

alone.  We do not feel it sufficient to convict the accused  

on this evidence alone and we would choose to give him the  

benefit of doubt.

12. The appeal is allowed.  The appellant is on bail. His  

bail bonds are discharged.

              ...................J.                             (V.S.SIRPURKAR)

9

                   ....................J.                         (T.S.THAKUR)

 New Delhi,   August 2, 2011.