KANNAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 12 September 2018

650

[2018] 11 S.C.R. 650

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 11 S.C.R.

A

KANNAN

v.

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

(Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of 2011)

BSEPTEMBER 12, 2018

[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(2) r/w.s.13(1)(d) – Prosecution case was that Deputy Commercial TaxOfficer (PW-4) along with A-1, who was then working as AssistantCCommercial Tax Officer, inspected a grocery shop (owned by fatherof PW-2) and seized the accounts book – PW-2 approached A-1 toreturn the accounts book for which A-1 demanded bribe – PW-2lodged a complaint before Anti-corruption wing – Trap was arrangedto catch the accused – Accordingly, PW-2 went to the office of A-1Dwhere A-1 asked him whether he brought the money and when PW-2 stated that he brought the money, A-1 asked PW-2 to pay themoney to A-2 and directed A-2 to receive the money – Trap teamtook the sodium carbonate test, which led to arrest of A-1 and A-2– Trial Court convicted both accused u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) of theAct, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twoEyears – However, High Court reduced the sentence to one yearimprisonment – On appeal, held: PW-2 clearly stated in his statementabout demand and acceptance of bribe amount by A-1 and A-2 –PW-3, the accompanying witness clearly supported prosecution case– Furthermore, the evidence of PW-6, the office assistant, alsoFcorroborated the version of PW-2 – Courts below, rightly foundaccused guilty on basis of the evidence of PW-2 and test conductedin the sodium carbonate solution.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. PW-2 clearly stated about the demand andGacceptance of the bribe amount by A-1 and A-2. PW-3,accompanying witness, though turned hostile, in his Chief-Examination clearly stated that he accompanied PW-2 who wentand met A-1 and on the direction of A-1, PW-2 paid the money toA-2. To that extent, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the H

evidence of PW-3. That apart, the evidence of PW-6, the officeassistant, also corroborates the version of PW-2. In his evidencePW-6 has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and thatA-1 told A-2 that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must takeand keep it with him. Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 whoreceived the same. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 is corroboratedby the evidence of PW-6, the Office Assistant. Based on theevidence of PW-2 and test conducted in the sodium carbonatesolution the Trial Court and the High Court had rightly found theappellants-accused guilty of the offences. There were no groundsto take a different view. [Paras 4 and 5][652-G; 653-A-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal AppealNo. 1580 of 2011

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2008 of the High Courtof Madras at Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2002

WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 2011.

Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Babita Sant, P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair,Vikrant Yadav, Anshumaan Bahadur, Karthik Jayashankar, Advs. forthe appellant.

M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Partha Sarathi, Advs. for the respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the convictionof the appellants under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellants weresentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. A grocery shop under the name and style “Ambika Stores”was run by father of Sabapathy-(PW-2). On 19[th] October, 1994 DeputyCommercial Tax Officer (PW-4) along with accused no.1, M. Nadimuthu,who was then working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, inspectedthe grocery shop and seized the accounts book. Case of the prosecutionis that PW-2 approached A-1 and asked for return of accounts book forwhich A-1 demanded bribe amount of Rs.2000/-. On 22[nd] October,1994, PW-2 gave an application for registration and produced a challanfor Rs.100/-. On 22[nd] November, 1994 PW-2 again went to the Office AB

C

D

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof the Deputy Commercial Tax Officers and asked A-1 to return ofaccounts book on which A-1 is said to have reiterated the demand forRs.2000/-. On 30[th] November, 1994, PW-2 again approached A-1 whostated that the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- which was subsequentlyreduced to Rs.800/-, to be paid on 1[st] November, 1994 failing which theapplication for registration certificate would be rejected. On 1[st] November,B1994, PW-2 lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-CorruptionWing, based on which an F.I.R. was registered and trap was arranged.On the same day i.e. 1[st] November, 1994 PW-2 accompanied by PW-3went to the office of A-1 where A-1 asked him whether he brought themoney and when PW-2 stated that he brought the money, A-1 askedCPW-2 to pay the money to A-2, Kannan, and directed A-2 to receive themoney. Accordingly, PW-2 paid the bribe amount of Rs.800/- to A-2.PW-5 and the trap team went inside and after completion of the testwith sodium carbonate solution turning red and other formalities arrestedA-1 and A-2.

D3. The Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 7 andSection 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Actand sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Inappeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentenceof imprisonment to one year.E4. We have heard Ms. Malini Poduval and Mr. P.B. Suresh, learnedcounsel appearing for the appellants. Both learned counsel submittedthat the evidence of PW-2 remains uncorroborated and that A-1 wasnot in receipt of money. So far as A-2 is concerned, it was submittedthat there was no evidence to show that there was any demand by A-2and therefore conviction of A-2 is not sustainable. Learned counselFhave taken us through the depositions of the witnesses and the relevantportion of the judgment. We have considered the submissions and alsoperused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.

5. So far as the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount byA-1 and A-2 are concerned, PW-2 has clearly stated about the demandGand acceptance. PW-3, accompanying witness, though turned hostile,in his Chief-Examination clearly stated that he accompanied PW-2 whowent and met A-1 and on the direction of A-1, PW-2 paid the money toA-2. To that extent, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidenceof PW-3. That apart, as submitted by Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned H

counsel for the respondent-State, the evidence of PW-6, the officeAassistant, also corroborates the version of PW-2. In his evidence PW-6has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and that A-1 told A-2that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must take and keep it withhim. Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 who received the same.Thus the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-6,Bthe Office Assistant. Based on the evidence of PW-2 and test conductedin the sodium carbonate solution the Trial Court and the High Court hadfound the appellants-accused guilty of the offences. Having regard tothe concurrent findings of the courts below, we do not find any goodground to take a different view.

A

C

6. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

7. The appellants are to surrender to custody within a period ofeight weeks to serve the remaining sentence failing which they shall betaken to custody.

8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court fornecessary action.

D

Ankit Gyan

Appeals dismissed.

E

F

G

H