Page 1

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 OF 2012

S. DINESH KUMAR …. Appellant

Versus

STATE TH. INSPECTOR & ANR. …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the  

High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1057 of 2005 setting  

aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge at Mysore in Special  

Case No.95 of 1995 and convicting the appellant herein for the offences punishable  

under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption  

Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’)

2. According  to  the  prosecution  complainant  Jayaramu  was  the  proprietor  of  

Murugan Furniture and Woodworks and because of arrears of sales tax in the sum of  

Rs.30,302/- the machinery  in his factory was sealed.  He had therefore filed writ  

petition  in  which  the  High  Court  had  directed  the  authorities  to  consider  his  

representation and that upon payment of 50 per cent of the amount in question, the

Page 2

2

attachment be lifted and the machinery be released in his favour.  In this connection  

he approached the appellant  who was then working as Commercial Tax Inspector  

(Recovery) and was told that for removal of seals, Rs.1,000/- would be required to be  

paid  to  the  appellant  by  way  of  gratification.  The  complainant  then  approached  

Lokayukta Police on 09.07.1993 and lodged his  complaint  Ext.P-1.   After  taking  

requisite steps a trap was laid.   

3.   On 09.07.1993 the appellant along with his driver (A-2) and peon came to the  

office of the complainant and demanded the amount of Rs.1,000/-.  As directed by the  

appellant, the complainant gave the amount to the driver (A-2) who kept the amount  

with himself.  After a signal was given,  Lokayukta Police came and caught hold of  

the appellant as well as the driver (A-2) from whose person the amount of Rs.1,000/-  

was recovered.  On completion of investigation and grant of sanction vide Ext.P-2,  

the charge sheet was submitted.  

4.    The Special Judge acquitted the appellant and the driver (A-2) mainly on two  

grounds.  It was observed that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was not given towards the  

bribe but was  paid towards the arrears of tax and that, the machinery having been  

released in favour of the complainant no work was in fact pending.  In the Appeal  

preferred by the State it was submitted that 50% of the arrears on tax would come to  

about  Rs.  15,000/-  and it  was  unimaginable  that  the  complainant  would  pay  Rs.  

1,000/- only towards arrears of tax.    It was further submitted that the facts on record  

would show that the complainant PW1 and shadow witness Umesh PW3 had deposed

Page 3

3

consistently about the appellant demanding Rs. 1,000/- as bribe and that the amount  

was paid as per his directions to accused No.2.   

5. The  High  Court  after  analyzing  the  evidence  on  record  found  that  in  the  

explanation given by the appellant (Exhibit P-9) immediately after the trap, nothing  

was suggested that the amount in question was received towards arrears of taxes.  On  

the other hand the explanation offered was that the amount was forcibly thrust by the  

complainant.  After going through the entirety of the matter, the High Court found the  

approach adopted by the Special  Judge to  be perverse  and that  the  acquittal  had  

resulted in miscarriage of justice.  The High Court, therefore, convicted the appellant  

for  the  offence  (a)  under  Section  7  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988  

sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.  

5,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month (b)  

and under Section 13(1)d read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption  

Act, 1988 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year to pay fine of Rs.  

15,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The  

acquittal of accused No. 2 was affirmed.

6.   In this appeal after grant of special leave to appeal, the appellant was directed  

to  be  released  on  bail.     Mr.  P.  Vishwanatha  Shetty,  Learned  Senior  Advocate  

appearing  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  he  had  visited  the  premises  of  the  

complainant in connection with recovery of tax which was evident from the fact that  

the receipt book was lying in the vehicle. Further, the machinery having been de-

Page 4

4

sealed, there was in fact no occasion for the complainant to pay the bribe amount to  

the  appellant.  Mr.  V.N.  Raghupathy,  Learned  Advocate  appearing  for  the  state  

submitted that though the seal in respect of machinery was opened the lock was yet to  

be removed and that the view taken by the High Court was absolutely correct.  

7. Having heard the learned counsel and after having perused the entire material  

on record, we affirm the view taken by the High Court.  We are conscious of the fact  

that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible and the court below has  

acquitted the accused, the appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the  

acquittal merely because the other view is also possible.  In the present case, the  

recovery of bribe amount from the person or possession of the accused having being  

firmly  established,  the  immediate  explanation  offered  by  the  appellant  (namely  

Exhibit P-9) is absolutely crucial.  Secondly, it is unimaginable that as against 50% of  

the arrears of taxes which the complainant was supposed to deposit, Rs. 1000/- only  

would be paid and accepted.  The aspects of demand and acceptance having been  

established,  in  our  assessment  no  two  views  are  possible  in  the  matter  and  the  

approach adopted by the Special Judge was perverse, justifying interference by the  

High Court.

Page 5

5

8.  We, therefore, dismiss this appeal. The bail bonds are cancelled and appellant  

is  directed to  surrender  within three weeks  from today to undergo the  remaining  

sentence.

………………………..J. (Dipak Misra)

………………………..J. (Rohinton Fali Nariman)

………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, December 12, 2014

Page 6

6

ITEM NO.1B              COURT NO.6               SECTION IIB (For judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal  No(s).  162/2012

S.DINESH KUMAR                                     Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

STATE TR.INSPECTOR & ANR                           Respondent(s)

Date : 12/12/2014 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Adv.                    Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv.                       

For Respondent(s)  Mrs. Vaijayanthi Girish, Adv.

                 Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Uday  Umesh  Lalit  pronounced  the  non-

reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice  

Dipak Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and His  

Lordship.

The appeal is dismissed.  The bail bonds are cancelled and  

appellant is directed to surrender within three weeks from today  

to undergo the remaining sentence in terms of the signed non-

reportable judgment.

(R.NATARAJAN)  (H.S. PARASHER)  Court Master   Court Master

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)