CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1323 OF 2007
Syed Ahmed …..Appellant
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.
Nagaraja @ Nagarajegowda (PW1) and his father, Thimmegowda (PW4) are
owners of some land. On 7th June, 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 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 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
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 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
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,
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
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.
Section 7 of the Act, to the extent that we are concerned, reads as
“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.
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
(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
(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
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any
public, interest; or
(e) xxx xxx xxx
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
(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 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
(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.
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
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.
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
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 (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 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 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
We are not inclined to give much weight to this incident. The reason
is that the issue regarding the return of utensils 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.
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
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.
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 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
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. 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
The appeal is dismissed.
New Delhi; (Madan B. Lokur)
July 31, 2012