Page 1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 736 OF 2008

State of Kerala         Appellant(s)

VERSUS

P. Muhammed Noushad     Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed by the State against the

final  judgment  and  order  dated  09.08.2004

passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

in Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2000 whereby the

1

Page 2

Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  set  aside  the

order dated 29.07.2000 passed by the Trial Court

in C.C. No. 21 of 1999 convicting the respondent

herein for the offences punishable under Sections

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

Corruption Act,  1988 (hereinafter referred to as

“the P.C. Act”)  and sentenced him to  undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years

with a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo

simple imprisonment for one year under Section

7 of the P.C. Act  and rigorous imprisonment for

a term of four years under Section 13(1)(d) read

with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.   

2) In short, the case of the prosecution was as

under:

The  respondent-accused  was  a  Village

officer, Vijayapuram in Kottayam District.  There

2

Page 3

was  a  property  dispute  between  PW-2

(Complainant)  and  his  sister-in-law.   The

sister-in-law  submitted  a  complaint  to  the

District  Collector  on  01.09.1998.   The  District

Collector (PW-1) immediately directed an enquiry

through the  respondent-Village Officer (accused)

and  directed  him  to  submit  a  report  before

15.09.1998.   

3) On  10.09.1998,  the  respondent-accused

demanded gratification of Rs.500/- from PW-2 for

forwarding  a  favourable  enquiry  report  to  the

District  Magistrate.  On  the  same  day,  the

complainant paid the accused a sum of Rs.300/-.

Thereafter on 19.09.1998, the accused demanded

the  balanced  sum of  Rs.200/-  from PW-2  and

agreed to send a favourable report.    

3

Page 4

4) On  24.09.1998,  PW-2  reported  the  illegal

demand of the accused to the officials of vigilance

department.   Thereafter,  on  26.09.1998,  PW-2

made a formal complaint (Ex.P-3), F.I. statement

and produced M.O.1 notes (two notes of hundred

rupees  denomination)  each before  the  Vigilance

officer.

5) After registering the FIR, the Dy.S.P. affixed

identification  marks  on  the  notes  and  after

applying  Phenolphthalein  powder  on  the  notes,

placed  them  in  the  pocket  of   PW-2  with  a

direction to make the payment to the accused if,

demanded.

6) At  the  time  of  trap,  PW-3  (Agricultural

Officer,  Krishi  Bhavan,  Erattupetta)  and

Additional  Tahsildar,  Taluk  Officer,  Meenachil

(PW-4)  were  present.   After  completion  of  the

4

Page 5

formalities  of  the  trap  team,  PW-2  alone  went

inside the village officer’s room.  On seeing PW-2,

the accused asked for the balanced amount and

PW-2 tendered the amount to the accused, who

after receiving the same placed the same in his

shirt’s pocket.    

7) Thereafter, PW-2 came out of the room and

conveyed  the  signal  and  the  trap  team arrived

there.   After  investigation,  the  accused  was

apprehended and subsequently charge sheet was

filed  against  the  accused  under  Section  7  and

Section  13(1)(d)  read  with  Section  13(2)  of  the

P.C. Act against the accused.

8) During the trial, the prosecution examined

seven witnesses and the defence examined three

witnesses.

5

Page 6

9) By order dated  29.07.2000 the trial Judge

convicted the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)

(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced

him  to   undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  a

term of three years with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in

default to undergo simple imprisonment for one

year under Section 7 of the P.C. Act  and rigorous

imprisonment  for  a  term  of  four  years  under

Section  13(1)(d)  read  with  Section  13(2)  of  the

P.C. Act.   

10) Challenging the said order, the accused filed

an  appeal  before  the  High  Court.   The  Single

Judge of the High Court by impugned order dated

09.08.2004 set aside the order of conviction and

acquitted the respondent of  the charges leveled

against him.

6

Page 7

11) The  High  Court  appreciated  the  evidence

and on its appreciation recorded its disagreement

with the reasoning of the Trial Court. The High

Court held that it is not satisfactorily proved that

how the currency notes reached in the pocket of

accused.  It  is  also  not  proved  that  colour  of

currency note did not turn pink.  In the opinion

of the High Court when these two material facts

were  not  satisfactorily  proved  with  the  aid  of

evidence  adduced  by  the  prosecution,  the

accused is entitled to claim the benefit of doubt

and hence can not be convicted for the offences

in question.  It  is  with these  findings,  the  High

Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused and

set aside his conviction.  

7

Page 8

12) Aggrieved by the said order,  the State has

filed this appeal by way special leave before this

Court.

13) Heard Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, learned

counsel  for  the  appellant-State  and  Mr.  V.K.

Sidharthan,  learned  counsel  for  the

respondent-accused.

14) As  mentioned  above,  this  is  a  case  where

the Trial Court convicted the accused-respondent

of the offences alleged against him under the PC

Act  whereas  the  High Court  on appreciation of

evidence  finding  fault  in  the  manner  of

appreciation done by the Trial Court reversed the

judgment  of  the  Trial  Court  and  acquitted  the

respondent on the findings mentioned in para 11

giving rise to filing of this appeal by the State.

8

Page 9

15) We  have  perused  the  order  of  the  High

Court. In our considered opinion, the view taken

by the High Court as detailed in para 11 above is

based on appreciation of evidence and the same

was taken within its jurisdiction.  The High Court

has given its reasoning as to why it has reversed

the  finding  of  the  Trial  Court.  It  is  one  of  the

possible views, which the High Court is capable

to take on appreciation of evidence and it has so

taken.

16) It is a settled principle of law that if the view

taken  by  the  High  Court  while  reversing  the

judgment of  the Trial  Court  appears to be just

and reasonable and which is supported by cogent

reasoning  then  this  Court  would  not

re-appreciate the evidence again especially when

the appeal arises out of the order of acquittal.  

9

Page 10

17) It  is  only  when  the  High  Court  while

reversing the judgment of the Trial Court fails to

record  any  reason  or  fails  to  appreciate  the

evidence  or  when  the  High  Court  records  any

material  finding  which  is  wholly  perverse  or

against  any  provision  of  law,  this  Court  would

examine  the  issues  arising  in  the  case  and  in

appropriate case may interfere. Such is not the

case here.  

18) In our view, the High Court has given cogent

reasons in support of its view and we have not

been able to notice any infirmity or perversity in

the  reasoning  of  the  High  Court,  which  may

persuade us to interfere in the impugned order.

In  these  circumstances,  there  is  no  need  to

undertake the exercise of appreciating the whole

evidence in this appeal.

10

Page 11

19) All  the  submissions  urged  by  the  learned

counsel for the appellant (State) are on facts and

involved  appreciation  of  evidence.  He  was  not

able to point out any legal or jurisdictional error

or/and extreme perversity in the reasoning of the

High Court, which may persuade us to probe into

evidence  de novo. We thus decline to accept the

submissions and also decline to re-appreciate the

evidence.

20) In the light of foregoing discussion, there is

no merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and

is accordingly dismissed.

                                .……...................................J.           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

                              ………..................................J.           [ASHOK BHUSHAN]

New Delhi, June 29, 2016

11