Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.1323     OF     2007   

Syed Ahmed  …..Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka      …..Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T      

Madan     B.     Lokur,     J.   

The Appellant (Syed Ahmed) was acquitted by the Trial  

Court of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with  

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The  

acquittal was set aside by the High Court and he is aggrieved  

thereby. We are in agreement with the order of conviction  

handed down by the High Court. We are not in agreement with  

the sentence awarded, but prefer to let the matter rest.  

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

The facts:

Nagaraja @ Nagarajegowda (PW1) and his father,  

Thimmegowda (PW4) are owners of some land.  On 7th June,  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 1 of 21

Page 2

1993 they had a boundary dispute with their immediate  

neighbour, Channakeshavegowda which resulted in their  

being assaulted by him and others. Thimmegowda then lodged  

a complaint on the same day with the Konanur Police Station  

in this regard.

According to Syed Ahmed (a police officer in the Konanur  

Police Station), the complaint was inquired into by S.C.  

Rangasetty (PW7). According to Nagaraja, illegal gratification  

was demanded by Syed Ahmed to enable him to file a charge-

sheet against Channakeshavegowda and others on the  

complaint by Thimmegowda.

The dispute between Thimmegowda and  

Channakeshavegowda was, however, amicably resolved in a  

few days time and the settlement entered into between them is  

Exhibit P.15 in the Trial Court.

Unfortunately, on 27th June, 1993 a boundary dispute  

again arose between Nagaraja and Thimmegowda on the one  

hand and Channakeshavegowda and others on the other. This  

resulted in Nagaraja lodging a complaint against  

Channakeshavegowda  in  the  Konanur  Police  Station on  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 2 of 21

Page 3

27th June, 1993. For inquiring into this complaint, Syed  

Ahmed allegedly demanded illegal gratification from Nagaraja.

Feeling aggrieved by the unlawful demand, Nagaraja  

lodged a complaint with the Lok Ayukta Police at Hassan on  

28th June, 1993. The Lok Ayukta Police decided to trap Syed  

Ahmed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification  

from Nagaraja. As per the arrangement for the trap, some  

currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and  

upon delivery of these tainted currency notes to Syed Ahmed,  

his fingers would get smeared with the powder. Thereafter, on  

washing the powdered fingers with sodium carbonate solution,  

the resultant wash would turn pink indicating thereby the  

physical receipt of the tainted currency by Syed Ahmed.

Also, as per the arrangements, two independent persons  

were to accompany Nagaraja to witness the transaction of  

delivery of the tainted currency notes to Syed Ahmed.  The two  

independent witnesses in the case are Sidheshwara Swamy  

(PW2) and Keshavamurty (PW6).

As per the plan chalked out by the Lok Ayukta Police,  

Nagaraja went to the Konanur Police Station to hand over the  

illegal gratification to Syed Ahmed. However, when he reached  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 3 of 21

Page 4

there, he was told that Syed Ahmed was available at the  

Inspection Bungalow.  Accordingly, Nagaraja and the trap  

party went to the Inspection Bungalow.

At the Inspection Bungalow, the two independent  

witnesses positioned themselves close to Syed Ahmed’s room.  

Nagaraja then entered his room and after a brief conversation  

with Syed Ahmed, he handed over some currency notes to  

him.  Thereafter, Nagaraja exited from the room and gave a  

pre-determined signal to the trap party who reached Syed  

Ahmed’s room and washed his hands with sodium carbonate  

solution which turned pink. This confirmed his physical  

receipt of the tainted currency notes from Nagaraja.  

On these broad facts, the prosecution charged Syed  

Ahmed (a public servant) with demanding and accepting illegal  

gratification from Nagaraja and thereby committing an offence  

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

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

The prosecution examined eight witnesses including  

Nagaraja (PW1) and the two independent trap witnesses  

Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) and Keshavamurty (PW6). In  

addition, the prosecution also examined Bistappa (PW3) the  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 4 of 21

Page 5

scribe of the complaint dated 28th June, 1993 to the Lok  

Ayukta Police; Thimmegowda (Nagaraja’s father) as PW4; B.  

Pradeep Kumar (PW5) the Police Inspector of the Lok Ayukta  

Police, who arranged the trap, prepared the trap mahazar and  

investigated the case; S.C. Rangasetty (PW7) who dealt with  

the complaint dated 7th June, 1993 and confirmed the  

settlement Exhibit P.15. The officer who seized the samples  

relevant to the trap and sent them to Bangalore for analysis  

and then received the report was examined as PW8. None of  

the prosecution witnesses turned hostile.

Trial Court judgment:

Upon a consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and  

the documents on record, the Trial Judge by his judgment and  

order dated 21st July, 2000 concluded that the prosecution  

had failed to prove its case against Syed Ahmed beyond a  

reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Syed Ahmed was acquitted of  

the charges leveled against him.

The Trial Judge held that the dispute between  

Thimmegowda and Channakeshavegowda (of 7th June, 1993)  

was amicably settled and so there was no occasion for Syed  

Ahmed to demand any gratification from Nagaraja in  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 5 of 21

Page 6

connection with that complaint. As far as the other dispute (of  

27th June, 1993) is concerned, it was held that Syed Ahmed  

had no role to play in it since he was not investigating that  

complaint. There was, therefore, no occasion for Syed Ahmed  

to demand any gratification from Nagaraja. On the contrary, it  

was held that Nagaraja had some enmity with Syed Ahmed as  

a result of Nagaraja’s failure to return some village utensils,  

which led to Syed Ahmed taking action against Nagaraja’s  

elder brother Thimmegowda. It was to wreak vengeance on  

Syed Ahmed because of that event that Nagaraja filed a false  

complaint against him.  

The Trial Judge had some reservations about the location  

of the witnesses when the gratification was said to have been  

given to Syed Ahmed. The Trial Judge also held that Syed  

Ahmed’s wallet and a Rs.10/- currency note recovered  

therefrom ought to have been sent for forensic examination.  

The Trial Judge also noted that there was an inconsistency in  

the testimony of the witnesses about the dress worn by Syed  

Ahmed when he is alleged to have taken the illegal  

gratification. Finally, the Trial Judge held that the failure of  

the prosecution to produce the complaint dated 27th June,  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 6 of 21

Page 7

1993 made by Nagaraja against Channakeshavegowda was  

significant.  

Taking all these factors and discrepancies into  

consideration, the Trial Judge did not accept the version of the  

prosecution and acquitted Syed Ahmed of the charges framed  

against him.

High Court judgment:

On appeal by the State, a learned Single Judge of the  

High Court of Karnataka by his order dated 25th July, 2006 set  

aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court and convicted  

Syed Ahmed for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and  

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.  Syed Ahmed was  

sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three  

months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default  

thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six  

months.

The High Court held that there was no reason to  

disbelieve Nagaraja, nor was there any reason to disbelieve  

Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) the independent witness. It was  

also held that in view of Section 7(d) of the Act, a public  

servant who is not in a position to do any favour to a person  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 7 of 21

Page 8

could also be deemed to commit an offence under the Act if he  

demands and accepts illegal gratification. As regards the  

discrepancies pointed out by the Trial Court, the High Court  

found that they did not dent the veracity of Nagaraja (PW1) or  

of Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2). Accordingly, the High court  

reversed the order of acquittal and convicted Syed Ahmed.

Feeling aggrieved, Syed Ahmed preferred an appeal to  

this Court.

Statutory provisions:

Section 7 of the Act, to the extent that we are concerned,  

reads as follows:

“7. Public servant taking gratification other than  legal remuneration in respect of an official act.— Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant,  accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to  obtain from any person, for himself or for any other  person, any gratification whatever, other than legal  remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or  forbearing to do any official act or for showing or  forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official  functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for  rendering or attempting to render any service or  disservice to any person, with the Central Government  or any State Government or Parliament or the  Legislature of any State or with any local authority,  corporation or Government company referred to in  clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant,  whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with  imprisonment which shall be not less than six months  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 8 of 21

Page 9

but which may extend to five years and shall also be  liable to fine.

Explanations.—(a) xxx xxx xxx. (b) xxx xxx xxx. (c) xxx xxx xxx.

(d) “A motive or reward for doing.”  A person who  receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing  what he does not intend or is not in a position to do,  or has not done, comes within this expression.

(e) xxx xxx xxx.”

Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act read as follows:

“Section 13 - Criminal, misconduct by a public  servant

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of  criminal misconduct, —

(a)  xxx xxx xxx

(b)  xxx xxx xxx        

(c)  xxx xxx xxx

(d) if he,—

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or  for any other person any valuable thing or  pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,  obtains for himself or for any other person any  valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains  for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary  advantage without any public, interest; or

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 9 of 21

Page 10

(e) xxx xxx xxx

Explanation.—

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal  misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment  for a term which shall be not less than one year but  which may extend to seven years and shall also be  liable to fine.”

Preliminary submissions and conclusions:

Learned counsel for Syed Ahmed contended that the  

High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of  

acquittal given by the Trial Judge. In this context, reference  

was made to the principles laid down in Chandrappa v.  

State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, namely:-

“(1) An appellate court has full power to review,  reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which  the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no  limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such  power and an appellate court on the evidence before it  may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of  fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and  compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”,  “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”,  “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail  extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal  against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the  nature of “flourishes of language”  to emphasise the  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 10 of 21

Page 11

reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with  acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to  review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind  that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption  in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of  innocence is available to him under the fundamental  principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person  shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved  guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the  accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption  of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and  strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the  basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court  should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by  the trial court.”

While culling out the above principles, this Court referred  

to and relied upon over a dozen earlier decisions. These  

principles were reiterated recently in Jugendra Singh v.  

State of U.P., 2012 (5) SCALE 691. We do not think it  

necessary to burden this decision with the very large number  

of citations on the subject. Suffice it to say that these  

principles are now well settled.

It is also necessary to appreciate the ingredients of the  

offence for which Syed Ahmed was convicted. This is  

necessary for understanding whether or not the Trial Judge  

correctly applied the law on the subject.  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 11 of 21

Page 12

Learned counsel relied upon State of Kerala v. C.P.  

Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 and Banarsi Dass v. State of  

Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 450 and contended that “mere  

recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances in  

which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when  

the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable”. It was  

also contended that the prosecution should, additionally,  

prove that payment to the accused was by way of a reward for  

doing or proposing to do a favour to the complainant.  

We are in agreement with learned counsel on this issue  

and it is for this reason that we went through the evidence on  

record.  

We must add that on a reading of the provisions of the  

Act, it is also necessary for the prosecution to prove that the  

person demanding and accepting gratification is a public  

servant. In so far as the present case is concerned, there is no  

dispute that Syed Ahmed is a public servant. The prosecution  

must also prove a demand for gratification and that the  

gratification has been given to the accused. If these basic facts  

are proved, the accused may be found guilty of an offence  

under the provisions of law that concern us in this case.  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 12 of 21

Page 13

Viewed in this light, the inquiry by the Trial Judge ought  

to have been somewhat limited and confined to the question of  

a demand for illegal gratification by Syed Ahmed, meeting that  

demand by Nagaraja and acceptance of the illegal gratification  

by Syed Ahmed. Of course, Syed Ahmed was entitled to put  

forward his defence, which was required to be considered by  

the Trial Judge. However, in this case, no defence was put  

forward, but an attempt was made to discredit the witnesses.

Given the law laid down by this Court, we are of the  

opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in  

reappraising the evidence for arriving at the truth of the  

matter. The High Court also rightly confined itself to the core  

issues before it in concluding the guilt of Syed Ahmed.

Submissions on merits and conclusions:

On the merits of the case, learned counsel made several  

submissions. It was submitted that there is nothing on record  

to suggest that Syed Ahmed made any demand for  

gratification or received and accepted any illegal gratification.

This contention does not appeal to us, particularly in  

view of the unshaken testimony of Nagaraja (PW1) and the  

corroborative evidence of the eye witness Sidheshwara Swamy  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 13 of 21

Page 14

(PW2).  This witness was near the window and just outside the  

room occupied by Syed Ahmed. He refers to some conversation  

that took place between Syed Ahmed and Nagaraja in a low  

tone and which he could not hear. Thereafter, this witness  

specifically states that Syed Ahmed asked Nagaraja if he had  

brought what he was told to bring.  Nagaraja replied in the  

affirmative and thereupon Nagaraja gave the tainted currency  

notes to Syed Ahmed, which he accepted. Thereafter, Syed  

Ahmed kept the tainted currency notes in a purse which was  

then placed in the pocket of his trousers hung on the wall.  

There is, therefore, a clear statement of Sidheshwara Swamy  

(PW2), which has not been shaken in cross-examination, to  

the effect that there was a demand for some gratification by  

Syed Ahmed from Nagaraja and that Nagaraja paid some  

money to Syed Ahmed by way of gratification. The ingredients  

of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act are fulfilled in this case and have  

been proved beyond any doubt.

We agree with the High Court that in view of Explanation  

(d) to Section 7 of the Act, the issue whether Syed Ahmed  

could or could not deliver results (as it were) becomes  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 14 of 21

Page 15

irrelevant in view of the acceptance of the testimony of  

Nagaraja (PW1) and Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2).  

It was then contended that the High Court overlooked the  

fact that the complaint dated 7th June, 1993 made by  

Thimmegowda had been settled vide Exhibit P.15 and that the  

subsequent complaint made by Nagaraja on 27th June, 1993  

was not available on the record. It was submitted that in the  

absence of the basic document, that is the complaint dated  

27th June, 1993 the case of the prosecution could not stand  

scrutiny.

We are unable to accept this submission.  The basis of  

the action against Syed Ahmed was not the complaint dated  

27th June, 1993 but the complaint dated 28th June, 1993  

made by Nagaraja to the Lok Ayukta Police.  This complaint is  

on the record and is marked as Exhibit P.3.  In the complaint,  

it is alleged, that Syed Ahmed had demanded illegal  

gratification from Nagaraja and it is on a follow up of this  

complaint that arrangements were made to lay a trap against  

Syed Ahmed. Learned counsel is, therefore, in error in  

assuming that action against Syed Ahmed was based on the  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 15 of 21

Page 16

complaint dated 27th June, 1993.  As mentioned above, this is  

factually not so.  

As regards settlement of the dispute referred to in the  

complaint dated 7th June, 1993 in our opinion that would not  

take away the substance of the issue before us, namely,  

whether Syed Ahmed demanded and accepted illegal  

gratification from Nagaraja or not. But, it is submitted that the  

complaint against Syed Ahmed was motivated. This is traced  

to an earlier dispute between Nagaraja’s elder brother (also  

named Thimmegowda) and Syed Ahmed. It appears that  

sometime in May, 1993 Nagaraja had taken some utensils  

belonging to the village community for performing the  

marriage of his younger brother. These utensils were retained  

by Nagaraja for quite some time. A complaint came to be made  

against Thimmegowda (PW4) in this regard and at that time,  

Syed Ahmed assaulted Thimmegowda (elder brother of  

Nagaraja) for not promptly returning the utensils. Due to this  

incident, and by way of revenge, Syed Ahmed is said to have  

been falsely implicated by Nagaraja.

We are not inclined to give much weight to this incident.  

The reason is that the issue regarding the return of utensils  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 16 of 21

Page 17

was settled as testified by Nagaraja and S.C. Rangasetty  

(PW7). In addition, we find that no suggestion was given by  

Syed Ahmed to any witness that the complaint of 28th June,  

1993 was a result of this particular incident. Even in his  

statement recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal  

Procedure Code, Syed Ahmed does not make out a case that  

that incident had some nexus with this complaint. Also, if  

anybody had to have any grievance in this regard, it would be  

Thimmegowda (elder brother of Nagaraja) and not Nagaraja. In  

fact, it appears that Nagaraja was not particularly happy with  

his brother because he says in his cross examination that  

during 1993-94 he was managing the family affairs since his  

father was aged and infirm and his elder brother was a  

drunkard.

The next two submissions of learned counsel were to the  

effect that a currency note of Rs.10/- recovered from the wallet  

of Syed Ahmed and indeed the wallet also were not sent for  

forensic examination to ascertain the presence of  

phenolphthalein powder. Moreover, there is nothing on record  

to indicate what eventually happened to that currency note.

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 17 of 21

Page 18

We cannot see relevance of these submissions.  What we  

are concerned with is whether Syed Ahmed had demanded  

illegal gratification from Nagaraja and whether he had received  

and accepted that illegal gratification. The tainted currency  

notes given to Syed Ahmed as illegal gratification are material  

and not the untreated Rs.10/- currency note or the wallet in  

which all the currency notes were kept. These are minor  

issues that have no real bearing on the controversy on hand.   

The final contention was that there is considerable doubt  

about the attire of Syed Ahmed at the time of receiving the  

illegal gratification from Nagaraja. It is pointed out that  

Nagaraja stated that Syed Ahmed had kept the tainted  

currency notes in a purse and that the purse was kept in the  

hip pocket of his trousers.  It is suggested by learned counsel  

that this would indicate that Syed Ahmed was wearing  

trousers at that point of time.

In his cross-examination also, Nagaraja stated that Syed  

Ahmed was wearing his uniform when the illegal gratification  

was given to him. According to learned counsel, both these  

statements confirm that Syed Ahmed was wearing his trousers  

when the concerned incident took place.

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 18 of 21

Page 19

In this context, reference was made to the testimony of  

Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) who stated that Syed Ahmed kept  

the tainted currency notes in a purse which he put in the  

pocket of his trousers hanging on a wall. In his cross-

examination this witness stated that at the relevant time, Syed  

Ahmed was sitting on a cot wearing a vest and a lungi.   

On this basis, it is submitted by learned counsel that  

there is a discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses with  

regard to the dress worn by Syed Ahmed when he was sought  

to be trapped. It is submitted by learned counsel that the  

discrepancy casts a doubt on the correctness of the events  

said to have taken place on 28th June, 1993 and the benefit of  

this must go to Syed Ahmed.

In our opinion, the discrepancy with regard to the attire  

of Syed Ahmedthe Rs.10/- currency note and the forensic  

examination of the wallet are rather minor matters. What is a  

minor discrepancy? This has been the subject matter of  

discussion in Abdul Nawaz v. State of West Bengal, 2012  

(5) SCALE 357 and Jugendra Singh. After referring to a few  

earlier decisions of this Court, it was held that a discrepancy  

would be minor if it did not affect the substratum of the  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 19 of 21

Page 20

prosecution’s case or impact on the core issue. In such an  

event, the minor discrepancy could be ignored.  

As far as we are concerned, whether the absence of the  

Rs. 10/- currency note could or could not be explained or why  

Syed Ahmed’s wallet was not sent for forensic examination or  

whether he was wearing trousers or a lungi at the relevant  

point of time are matters of minor detail which do not impact  

on the substratum of the prosecution’s case. We are required  

to look at the core issue and at the overall picture of the  

events that transpired on 28th June, 1993 and not get diverted  

by minor discrepancies or trivialities.

It is while undertaking this exercise that we find from the  

evidence of the witnesses that there was sufficient evidence of  

Syed Ahmed demanding illegal gratification from Nagaraja and  

receiving and accepting it when given by him. On this basis,  

we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and order  

under appeal.

With regard to the sentence awarded to Syed Ahmed, the  

High Court has erred in awarding a sentence of only three  

months rigorous imprisonment. Section 13(2) of the Act  

prescribes a minimum sentence of one year imprisonment.  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 20 of 21

Page 21

However, the State has not appealed against the quantum of  

sentence. Moreover, the incident is of 1993, which is about 19  

years ago. Keeping these factors in mind, we do not propose to  

interfere with the sentence awarded.  

The appeal is dismissed.  

….…….……………………..J.   (A.K. Patnaik)

….…….……………………..J.         (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; July 31, 2012  

Crl. Appeal No.1323 of 2007 Page 21 of 21