N. Raja
Kantham Vs. State: Inspector of Police, A.P. [2009] INSC 1270 (23 July 2009)
Judgment
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.817 OF 2006 N. RAJA KANTHAM
.......Appellant Versus STATE: INSPECTOR OF POLICE ......Respondent ORDER The
accused-appellant was, at the relevant time, working as a Senior Accountant in
the District Treasury Office, Warangal. On 4th June, 1991, a salary bill
pertaining to 23 employees of Irrigation Division No.2 amounting to 2
Rs.43,178/- was submitted in the District Treasury Office, Warangal. As per the
prosecution story, the very same evening, the complainant Venugopal PW-1 and
his colleague K. Srinuvas Rao PW-2 approached the accused and enquired about
the bill. The accused demanded Rs.700/- as a bribe for getting the bill passed.
As the complainant was not willing to pay this amount he approached the DSP,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Warangal and lodged a complaint, Ext.P.1 On the basis
of this complaint a trap was arranged on 6th June, 1991 when the accused
allegedly accepted the amount from PW.1.
The
tainted money was recovered from the appellant and on the phenolphthalein test,
the solution turned pink. On the completion of the investigation, the accused
was charged under Sections 11 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(D) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and brought to trial.
The
prosecution, in support of its case, examined PWs 1- 6 and put on record
Exhibits P.1-P.20 and M.Os. 1-8. Four witnesses in defence, DWs.1-4, were also
examined by the accused. The trial Judge went through the evidence on record 3
very carefully and in the course of a very elaborate judgment, discussing all
aspects of the case held that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was not worthy of
credence as it was clear that the payment of Rs.700/- had been made towards
repayment of a loan which one Prasad, a nephew of PW.1, the complainant had
taken from the accused, and that the record indicated that the accused and the
complainant represented two different factions of employees union and that was
an additional reason for what could be a case of false implication.
It was
further held that as the accused and PW.1 were residents of the same village it
appeared that there was some rivalry between them inter se. The trial Court
also observed that the very fact of the trap being struck was itself in doubt
as PW.2 who was to give a signal after the money has been passed over had not
made any signal on which the DSP had sent Constable Satyanarayana to find out
whether the money had been paid, and it was after Satyanarayana reported to the
DSP that the money had in fact been handed over that the raid had been carried
out. The Court concluded that as Constable Satyanarayan had not been produced
as a witness 4 also indicated the falsity of the case. The Court accordingly
acquitted the accused for the offence charged. An appeal was thereafter taken to
the High Court and on the basis of a casual examination of the evidence and a
brief discussion in one or two paragraphs, the exhaustive judgment of the trial
court has been set aside and the accused convicted. This matter is before us by
way of special leave.
Mr. P.S.
Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for the appellant, has first and foremost
submitted that if the trial court had taken a decision which could be possible
on the evidence, interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal
on the plea that a different view was also possible, was not called for. He has
also pointed out that the cash recovered was a re-payment of the loan which had
been taken by Prasad and the factum of the loan stood proved not only from the
statement of the defence witnesses but even from the cross-examination of PW.1
himself. He has also pointed out that as Satyanarayana, the Constable had not
been produced in evidence, it appeared that the trap had in fact not been 5
struck but the whole matter concocted for the reason that PW.1 Venugopal have
deep animosity towards the appellant.
The
learned counsel appearing for the State, Ms. Altaf Fathima, has, however,
pointed out that in addition to the unimpeachable evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and
the fact that the hand wash of the appellant had indicated the presence of the
phenolphthalein powder, the evidence of the mediator Laxminrayana proved the
case beyond any doubt. She further submitted that PW.1 was one of 23 persons
who would have been the beneficiaries of the amount that was to be disbursed by
the Treasury Department for which they had made an application which was to be
dealt with by the appellant.
We have
heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. We endorse Mr.
Patwalia's submission that the view taken by the trial Court on a very
elaborate and comprehensive discussion of the entire evidence was not merely
possible but was the correct one. Interference by the High Court, therefore, by
a sketchy and ill-considered judgment was, therefore, not called for. We find
that the trial 6 Court had given very good reasons as to why the prosecution
story did not inspire confidence and that the defence version represented the
true state of affairs. It is significant that the appellant had, at the very time
of his arrest, given a statement that the money recovered from him was towards
the repayment of the loan that Prasad had taken from him. This fact finds clear
mention in Ex.P.12 the report tendered by the mediator PW.3. The factum of the
loan is admitted even by PW-1 but the story is further clarified by the
testimony of DW.2 a retired District Treasury Officer, who deposed that
Bhadriah was the brother of PW1 and Prasad the latter's son, and that he had,
in fact, borrowed rupees one thousand from the appellant towards the medical
expenses that he had to incur for the treatment of his father and that in May
1991 the brothers of the appellant had demanded the repayment which had led to
a quarrel. He further stated that as all the parties were living in close
proximity to each other, he along with others, had intervened and assured the
brothers that the amount due from Prasad would be paid in the first week of
June 1991. Significantly, the trap was struck on 6.6.1991. It 7 is also clear
from the record that there were 23 persons who would have been the
beneficiaries on the passing of the bill which had been made over to the
appellant, but only PW1, the complainant, who was also one of the beneficiaries
has been examined by the prosecution. On the contrary, the accused examined
DW1, an Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Warangal who deposed that he
was one of the claimants in the bill but nobody ever told him that any amount
was required from him as his contribution towards the bribe to be paid to the appellant.
He further stated that it was not within the knowledge of any of the other
employees as to whether a demand of bribe had been made or that PWs.1 and 2
were doing the follow up towards the payment of the bill. This statement
completely belies the evidence of PW1 who deposed that after the DSP had asked
him to bring the bribe amount to be passed over during the trap, he had
returned to his office and asked the other employees to make a contribution
towards that fund but they had told him that as they had no cash in hand, he
should advance the amount from his own resources which would be re-imbursed at
a later stage. There 8 is yet another extremely relevant circumstance. As per
the evidence of PW3, PW2 was to give a signal after the money had been handed
over but as this was not done Constable Satyanarayana had been deputed by the
DSP to go to the office and find out as to what had transpired. Satyanarayna
apparently returned after few minutes and told the DSP that the money had been
passed over and the raid was then carried out. As noted by the trial court, and
completely ignored by the High Court, Satyanarayana was not even examined as a
witness. There is, in this situation, no witness other than PW.1 to the passing
over of the tainted money.
It also
appears from the evidence that there was apparent rivalry between the parties.
As already noted above PW1 had admitted that Prasad had taken a loan from the
appellant in the month of April 1991 and in the month of May 1991 when the
appellant's brothers had demanded the repayment an altercation had ensued. The
matter does not end here. PW1 admitted that he was a member of the Telangana
Non-Gazetted Officers' Employees Association and that this association was
divided into two groups, one led by 9 Krishnareddy and the other by Sathireddy
and whereas he belonged to the group of the former the appellant belonged to
the latter group. He further testified that elections to the association had
been held in January 1991 i.e. shortly before this incident when he, along with
several other members of his group, had gone to the appellant and had asked him
to support Krishnareddy which request had been declined by him and that it was
the Sathireddy group which was successful, with the appellant also being
elected the Joint Secretary. We find from the evidence that the fact that there
seemed to be substantial rancour between PW1 and appellant is supported by the
evidence of PW1 himself. It appears to us that this was a crucial factor and
was the reason for the concoction of a false story using the excuse of the
repayment of the loan as a means of reaching the appellant on the vital day.
10 We
accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and
restore that of the trial court and order the appellant's acquittal. The
appellant is on bail; his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
....................................J. (Harjit Singh Bedi)
.....................................J.
Back
