KANNANversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

650                     [2018] REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   11 S.C.R. 650               [2018] 11 S.C.R.


A                                 KANNAN
                                       v.
                  STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of 2011)
B                           SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
            [R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
            Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(2) r/w.
      s.13(1)(d) – Prosecution case was that Deputy Commercial Tax
      Officer (PW-4) along with A-1, who was then working as Assistant
C
      Commercial Tax Officer, inspected a grocery shop (owned by father
      of PW-2) and seized the accounts book – PW-2 approached A-1 to
      return the accounts book for which A-1 demanded bribe – PW-2
      lodged a complaint before Anti-corruption wing – Trap was arranged
      to catch the accused – Accordingly, PW-2 went to the office of A-1
D     where A-1 asked him whether he brought the money and when PW-
      2 stated that he brought the money, A-1 asked PW-2 to pay the
      money to A-2 and directed A-2 to receive the money – Trap team
      took the sodium carbonate test, which led to arrest of A-1 and A-2
      – Trial Court convicted both accused u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) of the
      Act, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
E
      years – However, High Court reduced the sentence to one year
      imprisonment – On appeal, held: PW-2 clearly stated in his statement
      about demand and acceptance of bribe amount by A-1 and A-2 –
      PW-3, the accompanying witness clearly supported prosecution case
      – Furthermore, the evidence of PW-6, the office assistant, also
F     corroborated the version of PW-2 – Courts below, rightly found
      accused guilty on basis of the evidence of PW-2 and test conducted
      in the sodium carbonate solution.
            Dismissing the appeals, the Court
           HELD: 1. PW-2 clearly stated about the demand and
G     acceptance of the bribe amount by A-1 and A-2. PW-3,
      accompanying witness, though turned hostile, in his Chief-
      Examination clearly stated that he accompanied PW-2 who went
      and met A-1 and on the direction of A-1, PW-2 paid the money to
      A-2. To that extent, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the
H
                                     650
     KANNAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE                          651


evidence of PW-3. That apart, the evidence of PW-6, the office            A
assistant, also corroborates the version of PW-2. In his evidence
PW-6 has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and that
A-1 told A-2 that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must take
and keep it with him. Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 who
received the same. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated
                                                                          B
by the evidence of PW-6, the Office Assistant. Based on the
evidence of PW-2 and test conducted in the sodium carbonate
solution the Trial Court and the High Court had rightly found the
appellants-accused guilty of the offences. There were no grounds
to take a different view. [Paras 4 and 5][652-G; 653-A-C]
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal                    C
No. 1580 of 2011
     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2008 of the High Court
of Madras at Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2002
                                   WITH                                   D
      Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 2011.
      Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Babita Sant, P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair,
Vikrant Yadav, Anshumaan Bahadur, Karthik Jayashankar, Advs. for
the appellant.
                                                                          E
      M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Partha Sarathi, Advs. for the respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the conviction
of the appellants under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellants were         F
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
        2. A grocery shop under the name and style “Ambika Stores”
was run by father of Sabapathy-(PW-2). On 19th October, 1994 Deputy
Commercial Tax Officer (PW-4) along with accused no.1, M. Nadimuthu,
who was then working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, inspected       G
the grocery shop and seized the accounts book. Case of the prosecution
is that PW-2 approached A-1 and asked for return of accounts book for
which A-1 demanded bribe amount of Rs.2000/-. On 22nd October,
1994, PW-2 gave an application for registration and produced a challan
for Rs.100/-. On 22nd November, 1994 PW-2 again went to the Office
                                                                          H
652             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 11 S.C.R.


A     of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officers and asked A-1 to return of
      accounts book on which A-1 is said to have reiterated the demand for
      Rs.2000/-. On 30th November, 1994, PW-2 again approached A-1 who
      stated that the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- which was subsequently
      reduced to Rs.800/-, to be paid on 1st November, 1994 failing which the
      application for registration certificate would be rejected. On 1st November,
B
      1994, PW-2 lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
      Wing, based on which an F.I.R. was registered and trap was arranged.
      On the same day i.e. 1st November, 1994 PW-2 accompanied by PW-3
      went to the office of A-1 where A-1 asked him whether he brought the
      money and when PW-2 stated that he brought the money, A-1 asked
C     PW-2 to pay the money to A-2, Kannan, and directed A-2 to receive the
      money. Accordingly, PW-2 paid the bribe amount of Rs.800/- to A-2.
      PW-5 and the trap team went inside and after completion of the test
      with sodium carbonate solution turning red and other formalities arrested
      A-1 and A-2.
D           3. The Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 7 and
      Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
      and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. In
      appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence
      of imprisonment to one year.
E            4. We have heard Ms. Malini Poduval and Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned
      counsel appearing for the appellants. Both learned counsel submitted
      that the evidence of PW-2 remains uncorroborated and that A-1 was
      not in receipt of money. So far as A-2 is concerned, it was submitted
      that there was no evidence to show that there was any demand by A-2
      and therefore conviction of A-2 is not sustainable. Learned counsel
F     have taken us through the depositions of the witnesses and the relevant
      portion of the judgment. We have considered the submissions and also
      perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
             5. So far as the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by
      A-1 and A-2 are concerned, PW-2 has clearly stated about the demand
G     and acceptance. PW-3, accompanying witness, though turned hostile,
      in his Chief-Examination clearly stated that he accompanied PW-2 who
      went and met A-1 and on the direction of A-1, PW-2 paid the money to
      A-2. To that extent, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence
      of PW-3. That apart, as submitted by Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned
H
     KANNAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE                             653
                   [BANUMATHI, J.]

counsel for the respondent-State, the evidence of PW-6, the office           A
assistant, also corroborates the version of PW-2. In his evidence PW-6
has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and that A-1 told A-2
that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must take and keep it with
him. Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 who received the same.
Thus the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-6,
                                                                             B
the Office Assistant. Based on the evidence of PW-2 and test conducted
in the sodium carbonate solution the Trial Court and the High Court had
found the appellants-accused guilty of the offences. Having regard to
the concurrent findings of the courts below, we do not find any good
ground to take a different view.
      6. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.                              C

      7. The appellants are to surrender to custody within a period of
eight weeks to serve the remaining sentence failing which they shall be
taken to custody.
      8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for       D
necessary action.


Ankit Gyan                                              Appeals dismissed.


                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H