Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1317  OF  2008

State of Andhra Pradesh       … Appellant

:Versus:

P. Venkateshwarlu                              … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.

1. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by the State of

Andhra  Pradesh  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated

10.7.2006  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at

Hyderabad, whereby the High Court has set aside the conviction

and  sentence  of  the  respondent  herein  and  acquitted  him

allowing the criminal appeal filed by him.   

2. The  facts  of  the  present  matter  before  us  are  that  the

accused respondent was working as Sub Registrar in the office

of Sub Registrar and Assurance, Sattypali, Khammam District.

On 18.3.1995 one Sri Burra Venkateshwara Rao, complainant,

approached the respondent to get a Will deed registered in the

Page 2

2

name  of  his  wife  for  transfer  of  certain  extent  of  land.   As

alleged, the accused respondent demanded a sum of Rs.1000/-

for the said registration work. After some bargain the demand

was reduced to Rs.500/-. Since the complainant was not willing

to  pay  the  said  bribe  amount,   he  approached  the  Deputy

Superintendent  of  Police,  Anti  Corruption  Bureau,  Warrangal

(P.W. 8) and lodged a complaint on  20.3.1995, who registered a

case in Crime No.1/ACB-WKH/95 under Sections 7 and 11 of

Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  issued  FIR  and  took  up

investigation.  Thereafter,  P.W.8  requested  the  complainant  to

come to Neeladri Guest House at Penuballi on 21.3.1995 with

the necessary amount. Accordingly the complainant along with

his  friend,  namely,  V.  Edukondalu  (P.W.1),  went  to  Neeladri

Guest House at Penuballi on a motorcycle at about 1.00 P.M.

and  P.W.8  introduced  the  complainant  to  one  V.  Yugender

(P.W.7) and another. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to

give  the  money  only  when the  officer  demanded  it.  The  trap

party consisting of P.W.8, two mediators, two inspectors and two

constables,  left  the  Guest  House  in  a  Jeep  while  the

complainant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went on a motorcycle. The raid

party stopped the Jeep at a little distance from the office of the

Page 3

3

respondent at Sattupally. The complainant and P.W.1 went to a

hut situated within the premises of Sub Registrar’s office, where

the complainant collected the Will document prepared by P.W.5

N.V. Chalapathi Rao, the document writer and stamps necessary

for registration from P.W.4 B. Lakshmaiaha, the stamp vendor.

Before  handing  over  the  Will  document  to  the  complainant,

attestation  was  obtained  from  P.Ws.  1  and  2.  Later  on  the

complainant along with P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the office of the

respondent and gave the Will deed to the respondent, who after

examining the Will deed, obtained the signatures of P.W.1, P.W.2

and P.W.3 K. Srinivas Rao, who were present there. When the

complainant  enquired  about  the  registration  fee  of  the

document, the respondent said it would amount to Rs.81/-. The

complainant took out Rs.81/- from inner pocket of his banian

(vest)  and  gave  it  to  respondent,  who  placed  it  in  the  table

drawer. Thereafter, he prepared a receipt and handed it over to

the  complainant.  It  was  subsequently  alleged  that  the

respondent  demanded  the  bribe  of  Rs.500/-  and  that  the

complainant took out the tainted amount from his shirt pocket

and gave it to the respondent, who kept the amount in the table

drawer.  Then  P.W.1  came  out  of  the  office  and  gave  the

Page 4

4

pre-arranged signal, pursuant to which the trap party entered

into the office and P.W.8 - the Deputy Superintendent of Police

(ACB) asked the respondent whether he has received the bribe

amount  to  which  the  respondent  denied.  Then  the

phenolphthalein test was performed on fingers of both the hands

of the respondent and the test on the right hand fingers proved

positive. The respondent denied having received any bribe even

when he  was  so  asked  by  the  mediators.  On instructions  of

P.W.8, the mediators searched the right side drawer of the office

table  of  the  respondent  and found three  batches  of  currency

notes in it, out of which one bundle containing currency notes of

Rs.500  and  Rs.100  denominations,  tallied  with  the  numbers

noted  by  the  mediators.  The  other  bundle  of  Rs.9000/-  was

given account according to the records. An amount of Rs.9.50

paise was found in the drawer which was left by the customers

due  to  non availability  of  change.  Again  on being  asked,  the

respondent said that he did not know who kept the amount in

the  drawer.  Post  trap  Panchnama  was  prepared  and  the

respondent was arrested and released on bail. After completion

of  investigation,  the Inspector of  Police filed the charge-sheet.

During the pendency of the trial, the de facto complainant Burra

Page 5

5

Venkateshwar Rao died on 10.6.1997.  

3. In the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB

cases,  at  Hyderabad,  the  learned  judge  after  considering  the

material  facts  and evidence,   found the accused guilty  under

Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act.  He was awarded conviction under  Sections 7

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

Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year

under each count and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under each

count, and in default,  he would suffer simple imprisonment for

2 months.  

4. On appeal by the respondent before the High Court,  the

learned Single Judge was of the view that the lower Court erred

in coming to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the

offences under the above mentioned Sections of the Prevention

of Corruption Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on

the accused by the Court below were set aside and the accused

was acquitted of the charges against him. The reasons adduced

by the High Court for acquitting the accused respondent are as

follows: The High Court disbelieved the testimony of P.W.1 as

Page 6

6

truthful.  The High Court considered the theory of the defence

that the document writer had foisted a false case, from the cross

examination of P.W.1 and came to the conclusion that Chepu

Chennaiah  had  visited  the  room  of  the  Public  Prosecutor.

Another circumstance was that the prosecution did not record

the statement of the so called complainant under Section 164

Cr.P.C. The prosecution got the statement of P.W.1 recorded, but

not that of the complainant, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However,

the High Court noticed that it was not imperative in the instant

case. The alleged trap was dated 21.3.1995 and the complainant

died on 10.6.1997. Thus, the prosecution cannot take the plea

that  the  complainant  was  not  available  for  the  recording  of

statement  under  Section  164  Cr.P.C.  Another  circumstance

favouring the accused as noticed by the High Court was that

whether it was necessary for the complainant to execute a Will

in favour of his wife. The High Court was of the view that the

complainant was a petty vendor, having no legal heirs, with only

a  second  wife.  In  such  a  situation  the  property  would

automatically devolve upon her and there was no necessity to

execute a Will deed. The Court was of the view that the positive

result of the phenolphthalein test was not enough to hold the

Page 7

7

accused  guilty.   The  High  Court  observed  that  it  was  not

disputed that the complainant was carrying one set of amount in

his  banian  pocket  and  the  other  in  his  shirt  pocket.  So  the

possibility of his touching the tainted currency notes at the time

of taking out the registration amount could not be ruled out.   

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the State

of Andhra Pradesh as also the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh

contended before us that it was evident that P.W.1 accompanied

the  complainant  to  the  place  where  the  trap  was  laid.   In

addition, he narrated the events in sequence and his evidence

was  corroborated  with  the  evidence  of  P.W.2  and  other

witnesses.  The suggestion made by the accused respondent that

P.W1  and  P.W.2  were  set  up  by  Chepu  Chennaiah  and

Nageshwar Rao was wrong, as nothing was elicited from their

cross examination. As per the prosecution, the High Court in the

impugned judgment had given more weightage to the evidence of

defense with regard to cancellation of the license of document

writers than the evidence of prosecution with regard to the test

Page 8

8

conducted by P.W.8.  Also the High Court failed to appreciate

that  non-recording  the  statement  of  the  complainant  under

Section 164 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The High

Court also failed to appreciate that the evidence of D.W.1 and

D.W.2, who are subordinates to the accused respondent, would

naturally be in support of their colleague.  

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other

hand, argued that mere recovery of money by itself cannot prove

the charge of the prosecution against the accused respondent in

the absence of any evidence to establish payment of bribe or to

show  that  the  accused  respondent  voluntarily  accepted  the

money. The positive phenolphthalein test is not the conclusive

proof that the accused respondent took the bribe.  The learned

counsel  cited a number of  cases in support  of  the respective

contentions raised by them. In addition, it was submitted that

the  complainant  in  a  trap  case  stands  in  the  position  of  an

accomplice  and  his  evidence  cannot  be  accepted  without

corroboration.  

8. We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  case  of  the  prosecution

depends on the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 7 & 8.  P.Ws. 1 and 2

Page 9

9

are  alleged  to  be  the  eyewitnesses  for  the  demand  and

acceptance of the tainted money. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the mediators

and Head of the raiding party that recovered the money from the

table drawer in the office of respondent. The evidence of P.W.1

makes it clear that on 21.3.1995, he went to the house of the

complainant  where  he  was  informed  that  the  de  facto

complainant  had  given  a  complaint  against  the  A.O.  for

demanding  a  sum  of  Rs.500/-.  Both  of  them  went  to  the

Penuballi  Guest  house,  where  they  were  introduced  to  the

mediator  (P.W.7)  by  the  D.S.P.  (P.W.8)  and  was  given

instructions  regarding  the  trap.  His  evidence  further  showed

that after the Will was presented and registration fee paid, the

A.O. demanded from the  de facto complainant to pay the bribe

amount. From the evidence of P.W.2, it becomes clear that on

21.3.1995, he went to the office of the M.R.O.  on account of

personal work and was reckoned by Bora Venkateshwara Rao

and P.W.1 to attest the Will Deed.  His evidence further goes to

show that he accompanied P.W.1 and  de facto complainant to

the office of the A.O. where he witnessed that the A.O. firstly

collected the registration fee of Rs.81/- and later demanded and

accepted the tainted amount. He has thus fully corroborated the

Page 10

10

evidence of P.W.1 on the question of presence, on the question of

signing as identifying witness and also on the fact of demand

and acceptance of the tainted money.

9. Coming  to  the  testimonies  of  P.W.7  and  P.W.8,  their

testimonies  fully  corroborate  the  testimony  of  P.W.1.  The

testimonies  of  the  material  witnesses  have  been  fully

corroborated  and  we  find  them  to  be  trustworthy.  The

Phenolphthalein  test  goes  further  to  prove  that  there  was

demand and acceptance of the tainted money.  The recovery of

the  tainted  money  has  gone  unchallenged  by  the  accused

respondent.  Thus,  we  find  that  the  High  Court  has  wrongly

disbelieved the testimony of P.W.1.  

10. We are aware of the position in law, as laid down in cases

involving  the  relevant  provisions  under  the  Prevention  of

Corruption Act, that mere recovery of the tainted amount is not

a sine qua non for holding a person guilty under Sections 7, 11

and  13  of  the  Act.   This  Court  has  observed  in  Narendra

Champaklal Trivedi  Vs. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80,

that there has to be evidence adduced by the prosecution that

bribe was demanded or paid voluntarily as bribe. The demand

and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a  sine

Page 11

11

qua  non for  constituting  an  offence  under  the  Prevention  of

Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that

there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has

to  be  founded  on  facts.  The  same  point  of  law  has  been

reiterated by this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan

Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153. In the present case the factum

of demand and acceptance has been proved by the recovery of

the tainted amount and the factum of there being a demand has

also  been  stated.  The  essential  ingredient  of  demand  and

acceptance has been proved by the prosecution based on the

factum  of  the  case.  It  has  been  witnessed  by  the  key  eye

witnesses and their testimonies have also been corroborated by

other material witnesses. The offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act

has been confirmed by the unchallenged recovery of the tainted

amount.   Thus,  it  is  our  obligation to  raise  the  presumption

mandated  by  Section  20  of  P.C.  Act.  It  is  for  the  accused

respondent  to  rebut  the  presumption,  by  adducing  direct  or

circumstantial  evidence,  that  the  money  recovered  was  not  a

reward or motive as mentioned under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.  

11. In  C.M.  Girish  Babu  Vs.  CBI,  Cochin,  High  Court  of

Kerala, (2009) 3  SCC 779, this Court stated:

Page 12

12

“It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under  Section  20  is  not  an  inviolable  one.  The accused charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. If  the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has and then it can be held by the court  that  the  prosecution  has  proved  the  accused received the amount towards gratification.”  

In the instant case, the defense has raised various presumptions

to disprove the prosecution case. However, it has not been able

to  adduce  evidence  before  us,  on  the  basis  of  which  the

presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act could be rebutted.  

12. On  the  question  of  demand,  learned  counsel  for  the

respondent  stated  that  the  allegations  in  the  complaint  with

regard to prior demand were false as the A.O. was on election

duty on 9.3.1995 and 10.3.1995. The defense contended that

the bribe was made for the first time on 9th or 10th of March 1995

as alleged in the complaint. The defense has tried to take the

plea of alibi. However, in the complaint the exact date of visit is

not  mentioned.  On the basis  of  an approximation,  we cannot

assume that  the  demand was  made on 9th or  10th of  March,

1995.  The  facts  of  the  case  also  bring  to  light  that  the

complainant went to the office of the accused on 18.3.1995,  he

Page 13

13

again went to the office of the A.O. and as a result the demand

was  reduced  from  Rs.1000/-  to  Rs.500/-.  This  Court  has

observed in  Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 6

SCC 204, that “the plea of  alibi in fact is required to be proved

with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the

presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and in the

home of their relatives.”  The accused has neither taken the plea

of  alibi for the visit on the 18.3.1995 and nor has proved the

factum of not being present on the first date when the alleged

demand was made, beyond all doubt. Therefore, we are of the

view  that  the  probability  of  his  not  being  present  cannot  be

considered.     

13. One of the suggestions given by the accused respondent is

that the entire trap was laid down due to the inimical relations

with document  writers,  Chepu Chennaiah and his  son-in-law

Nageshwar Rao.  The defense also suggests that the complainant

was a petty vendor who has no children and the second wife

alone is in existence, and therefore, execution of the Will Deed

was not required.  Another possibility as stated by the defense

was that the complainant was carrying two sets of amounts, one

in his banian pocket and other in the shirt pocket. The amount

Page 14

14

of Rs.81/- he was carrying in the banian pocket, whereas the

tainted amount he was carrying in the shirt pocket and he could

have touched the tainted amount at the time of taking out the

registration fee. The suggestion as to Nageshwar Rao and Chepu

Chennaiah setting up the trap to implicate the accused seems to

be  very  farfetched.  All  the  remaining  above  mentioned

suggestions  are  not  adduced  by  any  direct  or  circumstantial

evidence, as required under law.

14. Thus,  the  accused  respondent  has  not  successfully

rebutted the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The

prosecution, on the other hand, has established the demand and

acceptance  of  the  tainted money.  The recovery  also  has  gone

unchallenged.  Therefore, we strike down the order of acquittal

passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2000.

We restore the judgment and order dated 24.1.2000 rendered by

the  Principle  Special  Judge  for  SPE &  ACB cases,  City  Civil

Court, Hyderabad, in C.C. No.10 of 1996, convicting the accused

respondent  under  Sections  7  and  13(1)(d)  read  with  Section

13(2) of P.C. Act and sentence him to suffer one year rigorous

imprisonment  under  each  count  and  also  to  pay  a  fine  of

Rs.1000/-  under  each  count,  in  default  to  suffer  simple

Page 15

15

imprisonment  for  two  months  under  each  count.  Both  the

substantive sentences are to run concurrently.  This appeal is

accordingly allowed.  

….....….……………………J  (Pinaki Chandra  Ghose)

….....…..…………………..J  (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi; May 06, 2015.

Page 16

16

ITEM NO.1A               COURT NO.11               SECTION II (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).  1317/2008 STATE OF A.P.                                      Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS P.VENKATESHWARLU                                   Respondent(s) Date : 06/05/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  

judgment today. For Appellant(s) Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.

Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, Adv. (NP)

                    For Respondent(s)  Ms. T. Anamika, Adv.

Mr. B.V. Chandan, Adv.                       

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Pinaki  Chandra  Ghose  pronounced  the reportable  judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.  

The  appeal  is  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed  reportable judgment as follows:-

“ Thus, the accused respondent has not successfully rebutted the  presumption  under  Section  20  of  the  P.C.  Act.  The prosecution, on the other hand, has established the demand and acceptance of the tainted money. The recovery also has gone unchallenged.  Therefore, we strike down the order of acquittal passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2000. We restore the judgment and order dated 24.1.2000 rendered by the Principle Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, City  Civil  Court,  Hyderabad,  in  C.C.  No.10  of  1996, convicting the accused respondent under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and sentence him to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment under each count and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under each count, in default to  suffer  simple  imprisonment  for  two  months  under  each count.  Both  the  substantive  sentences  are  to  run concurrently.  This appeal is accordingly allowed.”  (R.NATARAJAN)        (SNEH LATA SHARMA)  Court Master       Court Master

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)