The State
Rep. by CBI, Hyderabad Vs. G. Prem Raj [2009] INSC 1747 (19 November 2009)
Judgment
"REPORTABLE"
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 261
OF 2007 The State rep. by CBI, Hyderabad .... Appellant Versus G. Prem Raj ....
Respondent
V.S.
SIRPURKAR, J.
1.
In this Appeal, the judgment of the High Court, allowing the
appeal of the respondent herein and acquitting him of the offence punishable
under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter called "the Act" for short)
is in challenge, at the instance of the State.
2.
The respondent, at the relevant time, was working as a Senior
Engineer in MIDHANI at Hyderabad during the year 1998. One Preetpal Singh Sodhi
of M/s Hardeep Industries was awarded a contract for the 2 construction of
Structural Steel Sheds for VSSC stores at MIDHANI. He was accordingly informed
to contact the respondent-accused for preparation of detailed programme of work
schedule, as also for signing the original agreement. Accordingly, he met the
respondent-accused and requested him to prepare a detailed programme of work
schedule for enabling him to sign the agreement. This was in the last week of
May, 1998. The respondent-accused demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/- or at least
to pay Rs.5,000/- as first installment by 27.5.1998, failing which the
respondent-accused showed his reluctance to prepare the detailed programme of
work. Being aggrieved by this illegal demand, the said Preetpal Singh Sodhi
(hereinafter called PW-1) lodged a complaint against G.Prem Raj
(respondent-accused) with SP, CBI, Hyderabad. It was alleged that there was a
telephonic conversation between Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant - PW-1) and
the respondent-accused, according to which the complainant was called at the
Taj Mahal Hotel, Narayanguda, Hyderabad on 27.5.1998 for signing the agreement,
as well as, for the demand of bribery. After the complaint was registered, a
trap was led by one R.M. Khan, Inspector, CBI (PW-7), wherein two witnesses
were called and the usual demonstration of the use of phenolphthalein powder
was shown. The notes were soiled with the phenolphthalein powder. They were
handed over to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) with the usual instructions
that he would go to Taj Mahal Hotel along with M.N. Sampath 3 Kumar (PW-2)
while the other Panch, H. Ramakrishna Murthy (PW-4) would be reaching with the
trap party. Specific instruction was given that unless the bribe was demanded
by the respondent-accused, Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) would not touch
the notes kept in his pocket.
Accordingly,
Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) along with the trap party reached the hotel,
where at about 6 O'clock the respondent-accused also arrived on a scooter and
parked the scooter in the parking area. Then Preetpal Singh Sodhi
(complainant-PW-1) and the respondent-accused went inside the hotel followed by
M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2). Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and the
respondent-accused occupied one table in the hotel and the next table was
occupied by M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2).
The
agreements (Exhibits P-5 to P-8) were signed in Taj Mahal Hotel but the
respondent-accused did not hand over the agreements to Preetpal Singh Sodhi
(complainant). The complainant and the respondent-accused came out of the
hotel, who were followed by M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2).
Preetpal
Singh Sodhi (complainant) and the respondent-accused reached near the scooter
of the respondent-accused where the respondent- accused demanded the bribe
money for handing over the copy of the agreement. Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1)
gave money which the respondent-accused accepted and kept the same in the
scooter's bag.
The
respondent-accused handed over the copy of the agreement to Preetpal Singh
Sodhi (complainant). In the meanwhile, M.N. Sampath 4 Kumar (PW-2), who was
watching the whole scenario, gave a signal to the trap party. The trap party
reached immediately and apprehended the hands of the respondent-accused. The
usual demonstrations were done in Taj Mahal Hotel itself, which showed that the
fingers of the respondent- accused were soiled and they were dipped in the
Sodium Carbonate solution. The said solution turned pink. The
respondent-accused removed the currency notes from the bag and the same were
seized. The Panchnama was executed there and a search was conducted in the
house of the respondent-accused, but nothing incriminating was found. On this
basis, the sanction was obtained for the prosecution which was granted vide
Exhibit P-15 by Shri A.K. Taneja, the Sanctioning Authority (PW-8), and on that
basis, the charge-sheet came to be filed.
3.
In support of its claim, the prosecution examined Preetpal Singh
(PW-1), M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) and other seven witnesses including R.M. Khan
(PW-7), the Investigating Officer, as also, PW-8, Sanctioning Authority. The
documents were also presented and were proved and on that basis, the trial
proceeded. The defence of the respondent-accused was that of denial. He
examined himself as DW-1 and contended that he was framed, more particularly,
by his superior officers. He particularly pleaded that there were many
discrepancies including the discrepancy in the timing of the First Information
Report (FIR). He also pleaded that there 5 was no question of his preparing the
detailed programme and in fact, the said programme was to be prepared by
Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), the contractor himself and there was no question
of his obliging the complainant by preparing the said programme. He pointed out
that there was no question of obliging by signing the contract because the
contract was already awarded in favour of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant).
He, therefore, described the whole prosecution case as false. The learned Trial
Judge, however, found the respondent herein guilty and he was convicted for the
offence charged.
4.
The respondent-accused, therefore, filed an appeal before the High
Court and the High Court acquitted the respondent-accused. It is this acquittal
which is challenged before us in the present case.
5.
Shri Naresh Kaushik, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant urged that the High Court has erred in allowing the appeal even when
it was proved that the amount of bribe has passed from Preetpal Singh Sodhi
(complainant) to the respondent-accused and the respondent- accused had
accepted the same. The Learned Counsel pointed that the High Court would have
raised the presumption under Section 20 of the Act and it should have been
further noted by the High Court that the respondent-accused had not explained
as to why he had accepted the amount, which was not his lawful deliberation. It
is further argued by the 6 Learned Counsel that while allowing the appeal, the
High Court had nowhere shown as to how the Trial Court had gone wrong. The
Learned Counsel further urged that the respondent-accused had no business to go
to Taj Mahal Hotel for doing an official work of getting the signatures of the
complainant (PW-1) and that it was strange that the official work should have
been done at Taj Mahal Hotel. The Learned Counsel further urged that it was
clinchingly proved by the prosecution that the bribe was demanded by the
respondent-accused, who was a public servant and in pursuance of the demand, he
also accepted the bribe of Rs.5,000/-. It was pointed out that the witnesses
had absolutely no reason to speak against the respondent-accused and their
disinterested testimony was bound to be accepted and was rightly accepted by
the Sessions Judge and yet even without finding any fault with the evidence,
the High Court chose to acquit the respondent-accused on imaginary grounds.
6.
As against this, Shri G. Prakash Rao, Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the defence supported the judgment of the High Court and pointed out
that the story of the prosecution was extremely unnatural. He also pointed out
that L.N. Das (PW-5) was inimical towards the respondent-accused, therefore, he
was framed. He further pointed out that there was absolutely no reason for the
respondent-accused to demand bribe, as the contract was already awarded in
favour of Preetpal Singh 7 Sodhi (complainant) and the only remaining formality
was the preparation of the programme, which had to be done by Preetpal Singh
Sodhi (complainant) himself. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for
demanding any bribe as the respondent-accused was not in a position to oblige
Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) in any manner. Learned Counsel urged that
there was no question of raising the presumption under Section 20 of the Act,
as such, presumption could not be raised where the respondent-accused was
charged with the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act.
Lastly, the Learned Counsel urged that where two views are possible, the Court
should be slow in upsetting the judgment of acquittal.
7.
The High Court proceeded initially on the basis of the story that
the agreement had to be got signed by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant- PW-1),
the Contractor within 19 days and, therefore, L.N. Das (PW-5) had asked the
respondent-accused to take the signatures of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) on the
agreement before that date. The High Court further noted that initially the
respondent-accused was hesitant to approach Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), but
later on, he agreed to do so. According to the High Court, L.N. Das (PW-5) had
admitted in his cross-examination that since the time of contract was likely to
expire, he requested the respondent-accused to get it signed and as such, there
was pressure on 8 the part of the management to get the agreement signed within
time. In our opinion, this theory of pressure was of no consequence and could not
be viewed as helpful to the defence. Even if the contract was to be got signed
by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), the fact remains that for the purpose of
contract, ultimately, the respondent-accused had to give the detailed programme
of work. The signatures of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW- 1) could have been
obtained on the agreement and at that time, it was necessary that the work
schedule was ready, which was to be prepared by the respondent-accused and it
was for that purpose that the respondent- accused demanded the money. It must
be noted here that after putting the signatures of Preetpal Singh Sodhi
(complainant) on the agreement and after preparation of the work schedule, the
contract would be complete and the complainant would get the benefit of huge contract
worth about Rs.35 lakhs. The bribe was for this purpose. The signing of the
contract, preparation of the work schedule were mere formalities. The High
Court has not properly viewed at this position that the bribe was demanded for
completing the contract, worth about Rs.35 lakhs.
8.
The High Court further committed an error in presuming that the
amount of Rs.5,000/-, which was the first installment of Rs.50,000/- was to be
paid for signing the agreement and it was to be paid at Taj Mahal Hotel,
Narayanguda, Hyderabad. It has clearly come in the evidence of Preetpal 9 Singh
Sodhi (PW-1) that he did not want to part with the amount of Rs.5,000/- and it
was, therefore, he made a complaint (Exhibit P-3) on 27.5.1998. The evidence of
Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) clearly suggests that question of payment of
Rs.50,000/- as bribe money arose only after the letter dated 3.4.1998 (Exhibit
P-1) was written, informing him that he was awarded the contract. Admittedly,
the respondent-accused was working as a Senior Engineer (Civil) and was in
charge of the work mentioned in letter dated 3.4.1998 (Exhibit P-1). This was
followed by letter dated 18.5.1998 (Exhibit P-2), wherein the value of the work
was mentioned. It was only after this that Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) met the
respondent-accused and at that time, the respondent-accused suggested that the
site where the work was to be executed was not available, yet he asked the
complainant to cooperate with him and demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe. The
signing was to be done by Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and if the amount was
demanded only for purposes of signing, there was no question because Preetpal
Singh Sodhi (PW-1) would have been keen to get the contract. However, at the
time of signing, the detailed schedule of programme was also to be prepared by
or with the cooperation of the complainant and the respondent-accused. It was,
therefore, that the amount was demanded. Even the place that was fixed for
payment of amount was Taj Mahal Hotel. Now, one wonders as to why the responsible
senior officer like the respondent-accused would chose to go 10 to Taj Mahal
Hotel for doing official work of getting the contract signed. He could have
easily called Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) to his office and got the
agreement signed. However, that did not happen and they mutually agreed to meet
at Taj Mahal Hotel in its dining room. This is the first circumstance that the
respondent-accused had failed to explain and has also remained to be considered
by the High Court. The movement of the respondent-accused out of his office and
going to Taj Mahal Hotel after office hours at 6'O clock raises accusing finger
towards the intentions of the respondent-accused.
9.
When Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) was waiting for the
respondent-accused at Taj Mahal Hotel and when the respondent-accused came to
the Hotel, the respondent-accused asked as to whether the complainant had got
the money. This could not be said to be a demand, but was merely an assurance
that the money was available. It must be noted here that it took almost 3-4
hours for them to prepare the agreement and work schedule and to get the
signatures. What has to be noted is that even after the signatures, the
agreement was not handed over to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), and instead, the
respondent-accused took it near the scooter and it was there that the demand
for money was made. There is undoubtedly some mix-up as to where the demand was
made because it has not come specifically in the Examination-in-Chief of
Preetpal Singh 11 Sodhi (PW-1) that the respondent-accused demanded the money
near the scooter. The Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused tried to take
advantage of this situation. However, we are not impressed by this at all, as
the respondent-accused had already demanded the money and even this witness
mentioned about the demand of money as soon as he met the respondent-accused.
The High Court, without going into the details of the evidence, has merely come
to the conclusion that no demand was made.
Now, if
no demand was made, there was no reason for the respondent- accused to accept
the money offered by the complainant. The respondent-accused cannot deny that
the money was actually touched by him. There is absolutely no cross-examination
on the fact that when he dipped his finger in the solution of Sodium Carbonate,
same turned pink, which was clear indication that he touched the money and
handled it.
There is
no explanation, whatsoever, of this second fact as to how the fingers of the
respondent-accused were soiled with phenolphthalein. This is the second
circumstance, which was a very major circumstance, that the High Court has
failed to note and explain, which shows that the High Court has taken a very
casual attitude. We have scanned the judgment of the High Court very carefully
and find that the High Court has not, in any manner, considered the factum of
solution of Sodium Carbonate turning pink when the fingers of the
respondent-accused were dipped. In fact, that was a major circumstance and the
most important incriminating 12 circumstance, which was bound to be explained
by the respondent- accused.
10.
At this juncture, we must also express as to how the presumption
was completely ignored by the High Court. Section 20 of the Act provides:-
20.
Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal
remuneration:- (1) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7
or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 13, it
is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to
accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any
gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any
person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted
or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or
that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is
mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a
consideration which he knows to be inadequate."
(2) Not
relevant.
(3)
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Sections (1) and (2), the Court may
decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-Sections,
if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no
inference of corruption may fairly be drawn."
It was
argued, though feebly, that the presumption could not be drawn as the charge in
this case was under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. It was
pointed out by the Learned Counsel for 13 the respondent-accused that Section
13(1)(d) did not attract the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. What is
being ignored by the Learned Counsel for the respondent-accused is that the
charge was not only under Section 13(1)(d), but also under Section 7 of the
Act. Section 7 of the Act is as under:-
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, but which
may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
Now,
there can be no dispute that prosecution in this case was alleging that the
respondent-accused had accepted or obtained from Preetpal Singh Sodhi
(complainant), gratification, which was other than the legal remuneration as a
motive or reward for signing the contract or, as the case may be, for providing
the schedule of work, so as to complete that contract. Therefore, there was no
question of the presumption not being there, once it was proved that the
respondent-accused had accepted the 14 illegal gratification. Now, the evidence
is very clear that firstly, the fingers of the respondent-accused were found to
be soiled, which could not have been so soiled had he not touched the currency
notes offered by the complainant; and secondly, it was found that those very
currency notes were kept in the bag attached to the scooter. Lot of criticism
was made that the scooter and/or the bag were not seized, ultimately from where
the money was recovered. Now, in this behalf, the evidence of Preetpal Singh
Sodhi (PW-1) is clear. He specifically deposed:- "As agreed, I paid M.O. 1
to the accused."
Now, the
words "as agreed" in the deposition of the PW-1 (complainant) are
extremely important, as the same signify that there was an agreement between
the respondent-accused and the complainant that the complainant had agreed to
pay Rs.5,000/- as bribe for the contract, its signing and for providing the
schedule of work. The complainant further goes on to say that "the accused
kept the money in the front bag of the scooter". Now, when we see the cross-examination
of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1), it is clear that nothing has been asked in
respect of this version. It was feebly suggested to Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1)
that no amount was paid before executing Exhibits P-5 to P-8 or that it was not
paid inside the hotel soon after the agreement. The witness had clarified on
this situation that the amount was paid in the parking area. He very 15
specifically mentioned in his cross-examination that he gave Rs.5,000/- with
his right hand and the respondent-accused accepted the money with his right
hand. It has also come out in the evidence that the amount of Rs.5,000/- was
taken out of the front bag of the scooter only after the hand wash test was
completed. Some minor insignificant omissions have been brought, which were of
no consequence. In the whole cross-examination, the story of demand of the
respondent-accused prior to the contract and the acceptance by the
respondent-accused near the scooter stand, has not at all been demolished.
This, the High Court has completely ignored.
Once this
story becomes acceptable, there is no other go, but to raise a presumption
under Section 20 of the Act. This important provision of Section 20 was also
ignored by the High Court. This was again not a case falling under Section
20(3) of the illegal gratification from being trivial, so as not to raise
presumption - inference of corruption. It was a substantial amount. Therefore,
Section 20 of the Act could not have been ignored.
The High
Court has committed an error in ignoring this provision and ignoring the fact
that the presumption had to be raised, and on that basis, it was up to the
respondent-accused to explain as to how the amount came in his possession. In
our opinion, this amounts to a perverse appreciation of evidence. This is the
third aspect, on which the High Court has faltered.
11.
The evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (complainant) was fully
corroborated by the evidence of M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2), who was a Panch
witness and who was to accompany the complainant. Even this witness
specifically says that after the signatures were obtained on Exhibits P-5 to
P-8, the respondent-accused collected the books and came to the parking place,
where his scooter was parked and he was followed by the complainant and that
when Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) asked for a copy of the agreement book already
signed, the respondent-accused demanded money from Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1)
and Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) removed M.O. 1, i.e., money from his left hand
pocket. The respondent-accused collected the money and handed over the copy of
the agreement through his right hand. The respondent-accused placed the money
in the scooter bag and the complainant (PW-1) gave pre-arranged signal. It can
be said that there is some discrepancy about the hand, by which the
respondent-accused accepted the amount, but that goes into the backdrop on
account of the clear evidence of R.M. Khan (PW-7), the Investigating Officer.
R.M. Khan (PW-7), in his evidence, has referred to the earlier demonstration,
going of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) and M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) to the Taj
Mahal Hotel, the instructions given to the complainant (PW-1) and the witness
and the coming of the respondent-accused at about 6'O clock. This officer was
all through watching the happenings. He also then proceeds to say that Preetpal
17 Singh Sodhi (PW-1) removed the currency notes from his pant pocket and the
same were given to the respondent-accused, who took the same and kept it in the
scooter bag and then the respondent-accused gave a copy of the agreement to
Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1). On the signal being received from M.N. Sampath
Kumar (PW-2), the respondent-accused was caught and the money was recovered
after the demonstration of the Sodium Carbonate solution. The cross-examination
of this witness, though lengthy, is perfunctory and serves no purpose. His
basic story has remained unshaken. Some insignificant contradictions as to who
gave the signal were brought in the evidence of this witness, but those would
not affect the otherwise credible evidence of this witness. Therefore, this was
a case where the evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) was totally
corroborated by the evidence of M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2) and R.M. Khan (PW-7).
All this has been totally lost sight of by the High Court.
12.
Much was said about the scooter or the scooter bag not being
seized. We do not see as to how that would have helped, once it was proved that
the respondent-accused had accepted the money. Merely because it was kept in
the scooter by the respondent-accused, in our opinion, was an insignificant
circumstance. The fact of the matter is that the money was recovered from the
scooter bag. It would have certainly been better had the scooter and scooter
bag been seized, however, in our 18 opinion, the non-seizure of the bag and
scooter will not affect the prosecution case.
13.
Much was made of the evidence of L.N. Das (PW-5). The High Court
has gone to the extent of saying that it was at the instance of L.N. Das (PW-5)
that the respondent-accused was falsely implicated. We have scanned the
evidence of L.N. Das (PW-5) very carefully, but we find nothing in the evidence
of this witness to suggest the inference drawn by the High Court. The witness
merely gave the background, in which the respondent-accused was asked to get
the signatures and he also undoubtedly has said that one B. Ashok Kumar was
kept for this work, however, since the respondent-accused was made in charge of
the work, the respondent-accused was asked to collect the signatures, so as to
get the contract completed. We do not find anything in the evidence or the
cross-examination of this witness to suggest that it was at the instance of
this witness that the respondent-accused was falsely implicated. The inference
drawn by the High Court has absolutely no basis and only suggests that the High
Court has read something in his evidence, which was not there at all. Evidence
of A.K. Taneja (PW-8) is merely formal and nothing has been addressed to us as
regards his evidence. He had given the sanction for prosecution. In fact, no
arguments were addressed on the question of sanction.
14.
The evidence of the respondent-accused is also perused by us, as
much was made by the High Court of that evidence. The High Court, without even
discussing the evidence in details, has gone to the extent of saying that the
evidence of G. Premraj (respondent-accused & DW-1) has the effect of
establishing the defence of the respondent-accused by preponderance of
probabilities. The respondent-accused admits here in his evidence that on
27.5.1998, Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) telephoned him at about 1'O clock,
asking him to come to Taj Mahal Hotel for signing the agreement. One wonders as
to why the respondent-accused chose to accept this suggestion on the part of
the Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) even if it is held to be true. Preetpal Singh
Sodhi (PW-1), however, disowns telephoning the respondent-accused. The
respondent-accused has raised a theory that when he returned to his scooter for
proceeding after the signatures were obtained, Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1)
approached him and forcibly thrust the amount in his hands. Now, we fail to
follow as to what could prompt Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW-1) to thrust the money
into the hands of the respondent-accused. In our opinion, his evidence was
nothing, but a poor attempt to explain the change of colour of the Sodium
Carbonate solution after his fingers were dipped in it. Such theory of
thrusting the notes cannot be believed at all.
15.
The Sessions Judge in this case, after discussing the evidence,
has given cogent findings. In Para 17 of his judgment, he asked a right
question as to whether the amount was accepted by the respondent- accused or
was thrust in the hands of the respondent-accused. He has also addressed
himself about the other contentions. He has, after the discussion, chosen to
believe the evidence of Preetpal Singh Sodhi (PW- 1), M.N. Sampath Kumar (PW-2)
and R.M. Khan (PW-7) and has come to the conclusion that the amount was
accepted. He has rightly stated that there was a meeting of minds between the
respondent-accused and complainant to meet at Taj Mahal Hotel. The Sessions
Judge has rightly held that there was no question of anybody having any enmity
with the respondent-accused, much less on the part of the complainant and,
therefore, there was no reason for these persons to falsely implicate the
respondent-accused. As regards the discrepancy in the First Information Report
(FIR), the Sessions Judge has rightly attributed this to the failure of memory,
as the witness has deposed after 3 years. The Sessions Judge has also noted
that the respondent-accused had, at no point of time, complained to anybody
that the amount was thrust in his hand. We find that the judgment of the Trial
Court was quite reasonable and even without raising the presumption under
Section 20 of the Act, the Trial Court had inferred that the respondent-accused
had committed offence under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Act.
16.
We do not find, in comparison, any reasons, much less, good
reasons, having been given by the High Court for its disagreeing with the
judgment of the Trial Court.
17.
We are quite alive to the fact that unless the judgment of
acquittal tends to be perverse or unless the inferences drawn in the acquitting
judgment were not at all reasonable, possibly the acquittal should not be
upset. However, in this case, as we have already pointed out, there was no
scope for recording of finding of acquittal.
18.
For all these reasons, we are unable to agree with the impugned
judgment of the High Court. We would, therefore, choose to set aside the same
and restore the judgment of the Trial Court.
19.
Last, but not the least, we are extremely surprised to read the
last portion of the judgment of the High Court, wherein, the High Court has
honourably acquitted the accused and directed his reinstatement as senior most
Civil Engineer, Civil Department, MIDHANI with all usual retiral monetary
benefits inclusive of restoration of seniority etc. with immediate
retrospective effect. We wonder as to under what powers, the High Court has
acted. This was certainly not the jurisdiction on the part of the High Court,
which had only to find whether the respondent-accused was guilty or not of the
offence alleged against him. It has come in evidence that a 22 full-fledged
departmental enquiry was conducted against the accused, wherein he was found
guilty. We are shocked to see the step taken by the High Court in straightaway
writing off the findings in departmental enquiry without any justification.
This aberration on the part of the High Court speaks of its wholly incorrect
approach.
......................................J. [V.S. SIRPURKAR]
.......................................J. [DEEPAK VERMA]
New Delhi;
November 19, 2009.
Back