Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Held: Accused Excise sub Inspector allegedly demanded bribe
from complainant for returning stock register of his wine shop- Complainant along with members of raiding
party met accused and told him that money was ready--- But , accused told him
to come on next day and give bribe money to co-accused--- Tainted Money
recovered from co-accused --- Co-accused merely being Home Guard , could not be
said to have any role to play in return of stock register—Nothing appeared on
record to show that co-accused knew that money was paid to him as
bribe—Conviction of co-accused set aside.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2007
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6306 of 2005)
PETITIONER: K. Subba Reddy
v RESPONDENT: State of Andhra
Pradesh
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/09/2007
BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN
J U D G M E N T: Dr. ARIJIT
PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the
judgment rendered by a learned Single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
upholding the conviction of the appellant punishable under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the ’Act’). The appellant had
faced trial along with another accused and for the sake of convenience he is
described as A-2 hereinafter. Both the accused persons were convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation. They were, however, acquitted of the other charges.
3. Sans unnecessary details, the
prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:
A-1 worked as an Excise Sub Inspector, at
Mydukur, Cuddapah District and A-2 worked as a Home Guard. PW.1 is the de facto
complainant. His father by name Subba Reddy was running a wine shop at Mydukur
known as "Eswara Wines" since 1987. PW.1 obtained a license to run
another wine shop known as "New Eswara Wines" and was running the said
wine shop. He was assisting his father in the said business. On 7.2.1988 the
enforcement wing of the Excise Department raided the shop of his father in his
presence. The raiding party found some stock without license. A case was registered
against PW.1 and his father and it ended in conviction in April, 1994. They
preferred an appeal and it was pending at the relevant point of time. On
27.4.1994 the Excise Superintendent issued a show cause notice to PW-1 for cancellation
of license issued in his favour. On 3.5.1994 A.1 sealed his shop pursuant to
the directions of the Excise Superintendent. On 4.5.1994 PW-1 sent Ex.P4 reply,
which was received by the Excise Superintendent under Ex.P5 acknowledgement.
Subsequently, PW.1 filed W.P. No. 9460 of 1994 before the High Court seeking a
direction for the release of the stock seized by A.1 from his shop known as
"New Eswara Wines". The High Court passed an order on 11.5.1994 in
W.P.M.P. No. 11535 of 1994, in favour of PW. 1, directing the excise officials
to release the seized stocks. On 15.5.1994 PW.1 approached the Superintendent
of Excise along with the order of the High Court for the release of the stock.
On the same day, the Excise Superintendent directed A.1 to open the seal of the
shop and handover the stock to PW.1. PW.1 approached A-1 to remove the seals
and to open the doors of the shop. At that time A-1 demanded Rs. 5,000/-
towards bribe for opening the seals and when PW.1 expressed his inability, A.1
reduced the amount to Rs.3,000/-. Though A.1 opened the shop by removing seals,
he refused to give the stock register unless and until the bribe of Rs.3,000/-
is paid. PW.1, who had no inclination to pay the bribe to A.1, preferred Ex.P-10
complaint to Anti Corruption Bureau (for short ’ACB’) officials on 16.5.1994.
On the same day, PW.7 and members of the trap party reached the office of A-1
at about 5.00 p.m. Immediately, PWs. 1 and 2 went to A.1. When A-1 demanded the
bribe, PW.1 told him that the money was ready, but A-1 told him to come on the
next day i.e. 17.5.1994 and further told that in case he goes for checking of
shops, the amount may be paid to A.2, i.e. the present appellant. On the next
day i.e. 17.4.1994 at about 11.30 a.m. PW-1 met PW-2 enquiring about A-l and
A-2 came and asked PW-1 to give the bribe of Rs. 3,000/- as demanded by A-l.
Accordingly, PW-1 paid the amount to A.2. A.2 counted the notes, kept the
amount in his left pocket. Subsequently, the amount was recovered from A-2 and
the phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of both the hands and the
left pant pocket of A-2 proved positive. PW- 8 after completion of
investigation laid the charge sheet. Charges were framed. Appellant denied the
charges and claimed for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to establish
the guilt of the accused persons examined 8 witnesses and marked 23 documents
and produced 9 material objects. As noted above, the trial Court considering
the oral and documentary evidence recorded the conviction. Before the trial
Court the prosecution referred to the evidence of PW-1 who claimed that as per
the instructions of A-1 money was handed over to A-2. A-1 denied the demand and
acceptance of the bribe and pleaded that PW- 1 paid the amount to A-2 to hand
over the same to one person namely, Subbarayudu for the purpose of remitting
the same to the treasury. The trial Court held that the tainted money was delivered
to A-2 and it was recovered from A-2. Accordingly, both A-1 and A-2 were
guilty. The High Court by the impugned order upheld the conviction of the two accused
persons.
5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that no definite role was ascribed to the present
appellant and no material has been adduced to show that A-2 had any knowledge
that the money was being paid to A-1 as bribe. There is not even any
suggestion, much less, no evidence to show that A-2 had any knowledge that he
was being used as a conduit for the purpose of payment of bribe to A-1. It is,
therefore, submitted that the conviction is not maintainable.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other
hand submitted that the connected SLP (Crl.) No.2113/2006 filed by A-1 has been
dismissed. Though there is no direct evidence about the knowledge of A-2-the
present appellant about the money being bribe to A-1, it can reasonably be
inferred from the background facts that he was actually a conduit and the money
was paid to him and he was asked to hand over the same to A-1. On the contrary, the totally
unaccepted plea that money was to be paid to somebody else has been raised
which has been rightly rejected by the trial Court and the High Court. The
evidence of PW-1 is of vital importance.
7. There is no material to show about the
knowledge of A-2 regarding the money being bribe. He had offered the explanation
that the money was to be paid to Subbarayudu. In this connection, reference is
made to the evidence of PW-1. He has only stated that A-1 asked him to hand
over the money to A-2 if he had gone out for checking of shops.
8. Appellant (A-2) at the relevant point of time
was working as a Home Guard. He was assigned different duties at different places.
It is accepted in the cross examination by PW-1 that there is no Sub-treasury
at Mydukur and if anybody wants to remit money to the Government, one has to go
out to different places. It is also accepted that there is a practice of giving
money to some boys working in the shops or some places to remit the money to
the Government treasury at different places indicated by the shop owners. It
was also accepted that Subbarayudu was a person who used to remit the amount to
Government on behalf of shop owners. It is the accepted position that the
present appellant had no role to play in the return of the stock register. It
is the prosecution case that A-1 had wanted the bribe to be paid for the return
of the stock register.
9. Above being the position, the material is not
sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. His conviction is accordingly set aside.
He was released on bail pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27.2.2006.
His bail bonds shall stand discharged.
10. The appeal is allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment