GANAPATHI SANYA NAIKversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA

                        GANAPATHI SANYA NAIK                                     A
                                   v.
                         STATE OF KARNATAKA

                           SEPTEMBER 14, 2007

                     (S.B. SINHA AND H.S_. BEDI, JJ.)                            B


        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-s. 13(/)(d) rlw s. 13(2)-Demand
 of illegal gratification-Prosecution for-Trap arranged-Money recovered
from the table and not from the person ofaccused-Defence offalse implication     C
.on account of animosity-Acquittal by trial court-Conviction by High
 Court-On appeal, held: In view of the facts of the case, accused liable to
 be acquitted.

       Appellant-accused was prosecuted for an offence punishable u/s 13 (1)
(d) r/w s. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Prosecution case was     D
that the accused a village accountant had demanded bribe from PW 6 for
effecting mutation entries and for providing revenue documents. On complaint
of PW 6, trap was arranged. Two Panchas including PW 4, were engaged.
Recovery of the cash by the trap party, was from the table under the filrs.
Immediately thereafter PW 6 was provided with necessary documents. Defence
version was that the money had been put on the table surreptitiously and         E
without the.knowledge of the accused as the accused had animosity with PW6.
Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that prosecution has not been able
to prove demand and recovery of money. High Court convicted him. Hence the
present appeal.

      Allowing the appeal, the Court                                             F

      HELD: The view taken by the trial court was clearly possible on the
evidence in the case. The Court had observed that the plea of the defence at
the very initial stage was that PW-6 had serious animosity towards the
appellant and that the currency notes had been put on the table by the former    G
was a plausible explanation. It is in the evidence that the currency notes had
not been touched by the appellant or recovered from his person. It is also the
prosecution case that the relevant documents had been handed over to PW 6
immediately after the money had been put on the table. The argument therefore
that there was no occasion to make a demand for any bribe is also plausible.
                                     939                                         II
    940                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A   In an appeal against acquittal where the High Court's interference is in a
    manner circumscribed, there was no justification in upsetting the judgment         l.

    of the trial court. IPara 8) 1942-D, E, F)

            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of
    2007.
B
        From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2006 of the High Court of
    Kamataka Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2000.

            Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appe_llant.

C        Sanjay R. Hegde, Vikrant Yadav, Amit Kumar Chawla and Ramesh S.
    Jadhav for the Respondent.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. Leave granted.
D
            2. This appeal arises out of the following facts.

          3. The accused/appellant was at the relevant time working as a Village
    Accountant in Bisalkoppa in Sirsi Taluk in the State of Kamataka. PW.6
    Nagaraj had pu~chased some agricultural land from Smt. Janaki on which he
E   approached the appellant and requested him to effect mutation entries in his
    name and to issue the requisite record of rights. The appellant told Nagaraja
    to come after a few days and thereafter told him ~hat some objections had
    been received with respect to the sale in his favour. It appears that an enquiry
    was also held by the Deputy Tehsildar who passed an order in Nagaraja's ·
    favour.
F
          4. Armed with this order, Nagaraja again approached the appellant
    requesting him to enter the necessary mutation and· to provide a certified
    ~opy of the revenue dotuments. The- accused demanded a sum of
    Rs.1,000/- from him for this purpose and asked for Rs. 500/- as an advance,
G   which was reduced to Rs. 450/-. As Nagaraja was apparently not willing to
    pay the amount, he approached the Lok Ayukta and made a written complaint
    to the Police on which a case was registered by PW.9 Police Inspector
    Shambhulingappa. The said police officer requested the Asstt. Director of
    Agriculture and Asstt. Director of the Employment Exchange, Karwar to
    depute a Pancha each to report to him at 6 a.m. on 14.8.1996. Two Panchas
H    PW.4 Mailarappa Neellappa Sunkad and R.N.Cholvekar were accordingly
             GANAPA THI SANYA NAIK v. STATE [H.S. BEDI,J.]                941

deputed by the said officers. The Police Officer thereafter informed the two      A
Panchas as to what had transpired. Nagaraja also produced M05, four notes
of hundred rupee denomination, and one note of fifty rupees denomination.
The Inspector also explained the phenolphthalein/Sodium Carbonate procedure
to the Panchas. Phenolphthalein powder was then smeared on the currency
notes where were thereafter handed over to PW6. and PW.4 was instructed           B
to accompany the appellant and he was asked to make a signal for the raiding
party after the money had been handed over. The party thereafter ni'°ade its
way to the office of the appellant. The two PWs. then met the appellant. PW.6
stood near the table of the appellant whereas PW4 stood at the door of the
office. On enquiry from the appellant, PW-6 told him that he had brought the
money on which the appellant demanded the same from him and asked him             C
to put in on the table. The appellant thereafter took some files and put them
on the currency notes. PW-6 thereafter came out and gave a signal to the
Police Inspector on which PW9 rushed in and recovered the money and was
told by PW 4 and PW 6 that the appellant had demanded and received the
money. On completion of the investigation, the accused/appellant was charged
for an offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of       D
the Prevention of Corruption Act.

      5. The trial court observed that the foremost question to be established
by the prosecution was as to the demand for money from the complainant,
PW-6 and the recovery of the money at the instance of the appellant. The          E
Court also observed that the evidence of PW4 and 6 with regard to the
recovery of the cash from the table under the files was not believable and the
defence version that the money had teen put on the table surreptitiously and
without the knowledge of the accused/appellant appeared to be more plausible
and worthy of acceptance. The trial court accordingly acquitted the accused.
The State thereafter preferred an appeal before the High Court .The learned       F
Judge in judgment dated 31.3.2003, which has been impugned before us,
however set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused and sentenced him
to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and
in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months observing that Nagaraja's
statement as to the recovery had been corroborated by PW4 an independent          G
witness and that no doubt could be created in the story merely because the
currency notes had not been touched by the appellant. The Court also
observed that the plea of the appellant that there was no occasion for the
demand of money as the necessary documents had already been prepared
was not acceptable as the possibility that the documents had been prepared
                                                                                  H
    942                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A   in anticipation of the receipt of the money, could not be ruled out. It is in
                                                                                          J..
    these circumstances that this matter is before us by way of special leave.

          6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
    High Court had ignored the principle, reiterated time and again by this Court,
    that a finding of fact arrived at on a proper appreciation of the evidence
B   should not be interfered with merely because the appellate court was of an
    opinion that a view different from the one taken by the trial court was
    possible. It has been pointed out that the currency notes had not been
    touched by the appellant and the defence version that they have been
    surreptitiously put on the table while the appellant was otherwise engaged
C   in some activity was a possibility on the evidence and could not be ruled out.

         7. The Government Advocate has however supported the judgment of
    the High Court.

            8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the
D   view taken by the trial court was clearly possible on the evidence in the case.
    The Court had observed that the plea of the defence at the very initial stage
    was that PW-6 had serious animosity towards the appellant and that the
    currency notes had been put on the table by the former was a plausible
    explanation. It is in the evidence that the currency notes had not been
    touched by the appellant or recovered from his person. It is also the prosecution
E   case that the relevant documents had been handed over to Nagarja immediately
    after the money had been put on the table. The argument therefore that there
    was no occasion to make a demand for any bribe is also plausible. We are
    thus of the opinion that in an appeal against acquittal where the High Court's
     interference ~s in a manner circumscribed, there was no justification in upsetting
F   the judgment of the trial court. Accordingly we allow the appeal, set aside the
    judgment of the High Court, and order the appellant's acquittal.

    K.KT.                                                           Appeal allowed.