Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: S B Sinha and RV Raveendran
Date of Judgment: 04/01/2006
Facts of the case- This is an appeal made by the accused against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 8.10.1999 in C.A. No.627 of 1992, where the judgment dated 29.7.1991 passed by the Special Judge, Thanjavur District at Kumbakonam in Special Case No.2/1988 was reversed, acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant was working as the Executive Officer of Sri Swarnathaneswar Temple, Chithaimoor, Tamil Nadu from September, 1985. In June, 1987 appellant was approached by Shivashanmugam (PW-1) who was in occupation of six cents of temple land (situated behind his house for securing a patta in his favour in respect of the said land. PW-1 along with PW-2 went and met the appellant where demand of Rs.450 was raised by the appellant to help him and thus reduced it to Rs.300. Rs.100 was paid by PW-1 and being unwilling to pay the rest amount to the appellant and went to file a complaint (Ex. P-1) before Inspector-Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Thanjavoor (PW-13) on 10.7.1987 and FIR was prepared. PW-1 handed-over Rs.200/- in 4 currency notes of Rs.50 each to PW-13 and after explaining the procedure, the currency were coated with a chemical and returned to PW-1. Thereafter, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were instructed as to how they should act when they went to meet the appellant. Subsequently, they met the appellant and gave Rs.200 to him. The Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police came inside and inquiry was conducted whereby the accused explained that the amount was paid by PW-1 as due by Thyagarajan (PW-6) to the temple by way of lease arrears. On 10.7.1987, PW-1 came along with PW-2 and stated that one Thyagarajan (PW-6) had requested him (PW-1) to hand-over Rs.200 towards his lease rent arrears. The complaint by PW-1 and the subsequent trap was an act of vengeance by PW-1 (in connivance with PW-2 and PW-6) in view of their nurturing enmity towards him because appellant dismissed Dhanapal, PW-1’s cousin, who was an employee of the temple and on account of certain misconduct committed by him, (vide Ex. D-7 dated 16.1.1986). On consideration of the evidence in Special Judge held that the appellant had given a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for receiving Rs.200 from PW-1, by stating that the amount had been tendered by PW-1 as having been sent by PW-6 towards his lease rent arrears and the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the three essential ingredients, namely, the demand, delivery and acceptance of the sum of Rs.200/. The appellant was acquitted. Appeal was made to High Court where the appellant was convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act on the ground that prosecution had proved that the accused has received the sum of Rs.200.
Judgement- The appeal was made in Supreme Court where the Court took note of the cases: Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat (AIR 1976 SC 1497) and In State through Inspector of Police, Andhra Pradesh v. K. Narasimhachary [2005 (8) SCALE 266], and was of a view that the evidence no doubt established that PW- 1 accompanied by PW-2 went to PW-13 and gave a complaint, a trap was arranged, , that PW-1 delivered the chemically treated currency notes to the appellant in the presence of PW-2, that the appellant received the said amount, and the same was recovered by the raiding party from the appellant, and that the appellant’s hands turned pink when dipped in the chemical solution. The above evidence no doubt proves that a sum of Rs.200/- was paid by PW-1 to the appellant. But the crucial question is whether the appellant had demanded the said amount as illegal gratification. The court observed that evidence throws out a clear alternative that the accused was falsely implicated at the instance of PWs.1, 2 and 6 and the trial court was right in holding that the charge against the appellant was not proved and the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same.
Held– The order of the High Court was set aside the order of trial court was restored by acquitting the appellant of the charge.
Ashna Handa, BA.,LLB(H), 5th Year, Amity Law School-II, Noida
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS