Holding

The Supreme Court held that the evidence of PW‑1 is reliable, the presumption under Section 20 stands, and the High Court's acquittal is unsustainable; thus the conviction is reinstated with a reduced sentence.

Summary

The respondent, a Development Officer of the Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board, was caught demanding and receiving a Rs.500 bribe from a loan applicant (PW‑1) to revive a lapsed loan. The trial court convicted him under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution's evidence lacked corroboration and that a key witness (NR) was not examined, and it failed to consider the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the testimony of PW‑1 was reliable, that non‑examination of another witness does not render the evidence suspect, and that the presumption under Section 20 applies, thereby setting aside the High Court's acquittal. The conviction was reinstated, the sentence reduced to one year, and the fine restored.

Issues considered

Whether the failure to examine a corroborating witness renders the testimony of the primary witness unreliable.
Whether the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, applies in the present facts.
Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused despite the seizure of bribe money and the trial court's findings.
Whether the conviction should be upheld and the sentence modified.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d)(i), s. 13(2), s. 20

Subjects

briberycorruptionpublic servantpresumptionevidenceacquittalconvictionsentence reductionPrevention of Corruption Act

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 213

STATE OF A.P. A
v.
P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
(Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 2001)

OCTOBER 3, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB
-; ALAM, JJ] .

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
s. 1~(2) rlw s.13 (1)(d)(i) ands. 20 -Accused, a public C
servant, demanding illegal gratification - Caught with bribe
money - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court -
HELD: Evidence of complainant does not suffer from any in-
firmity:- Mere non-examination of any other person would not
render his evidence suspect - Accused was caught red D
handed with bribe money - High Court has not considered
effect of presumption flowing from s. 20 - It has not given any
reason as to how conclusions of trial Court are wrong - Trial
court had elaborately dealt with evidence to record conviction
- Judgment of High Court set aside - Conviction and imposi- E
tion of fine as ordered by tria(Court upheld - Custocflal_ s~n
tence reduced to one year.
The respondent, a Development Officer of A.P. Khadi
and Village Industries Board, was prosecuted for com-
mission of offence punishable uls 13(2) read with F
s.13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on
the allegafions that he, in the presence of PW-2, demanded
Rs.5001- as bribe from"PW-1 to revive his lapsed loan. PW-:
1 informed the Dy. Superintendent of Police, A.C.8. A trap
was laid and the respondent was caught with the bribe G
money. The trial Court convicted the respondent and sen-
tenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/- , but fhe High Court acquitted him.

213 ,H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
~
'

r-
A In the instant appeal filed by the State, it was con- f
tended for the appellant that the High Court erred in set-
ting aside, by a cryptic order; the well reasoned judgment
of the trial Court; that merely because some persons were
not examined, the same could not be a ground to discard
B the evidence of a reliable witness; and that High Court's
conclusions were based on surmises and conjectures I

and it did not keep in view the presumption u/s 20 of the r
Act.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court
c
HELD: 1.1 The High Court did not discard· the evi-
dence of PW~1, but it observed that there was no corrobo-
ration to .his evidence and, therefore, it recorded the or-
der of acquittal. The evidence of PW-1 does not suffer from
any infirmity. Mere non- examination of any other person
D
would not render his evidence suspect. The 10 has cat- ..
egorically stated that the other person, namely, 'NR' was y
not available to be examined as a witness. Reasons for
his non examination have been disclosed by the pros-
ecution. [para 5] [217,G-H; 218,E]
E
1.2 There was no suggestion given by the accused
that money was forced on his hands and thereafter he \
put it on the table. For the first time during examination
under Section 313 of t~e Code of Criminal Procedure,
F 1973 such a stand was taken. [para 5] [218,A] \·
\
'r
1.3 The High Court has also not considered the ef-
feet of the presumption flowing from Section 20 of the Pre-
vention of Corruption Act, 1986. The accused did not dis-
pute that the application form (Ext.PS) was found in a brief
G case. In fact the bribe money given by another person,
namely, 'NR' was also seized. It has been clearly indicated r·--
by the witness that the money given by PW-1 and money
given by 'NR' were kept side by side and were not mixed
up. [para 5] [218,B-C]
H
STATE OF AP. v. P. SATYANARAYANA 215
MURTHY
.-...., 1.4 The trial Court had elaborately dealt with the evi- A
dence to record conviction. The High court has not indi-
cated any reason as to how the conclusions of the trial
Court are wrong. In any event, the High Court by a cryptic
conclusion held that the evidence led was not sufficient.
The judgment of the High Court is clearly unsustainable B
and is set aside. Considering the background facts, cus-
_,' todial sentence is reduced to one year, and the fine of
Rs.1,000/- as was imposed by the trial Court is restored.
[para 5-6] [218,D-E]
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal c
No. 580 of 2001
From the final Judgn:ient and Order dated 15.12.2000 of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
Appeal No. 129 of 199~
D
'
Somiran Sharma and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appel-
-:
---l lant.
R. Santhan Krishnan, Radha Rani, P.C. Pandey, Vijaya
Kumar and D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who faced trial
~ for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section F
13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corrup-
tion Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The trial Court i.e. the Court of
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad,
found the accused guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to
two years rigorous imprisonment under each count. Both the G
sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was also fined
-·-' with Rs.1000/- under each count with default stipulation.
l

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

One Gande Vaikuntam (PW-1) was sanctioned a loan of H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] .14 S.C.R.

A Rs.15,000/- in the year 1986 by theA.P. Khadi & Viilage Indus-
tries Board, Sangareddy. But due to some unavoidable circum-
stances he could not avail the facility. After about three years
between April and May 1989 he approached the res:pondent-
accused officer who was the Development Officer of A. P. Khadi
B & Village Industries Board and requested him.for revival of the
lapsed loan. According to the defacto complainant, responde~Qt
dodged him on 25th May, 1989 when he went to his office at
Sangareddy and asked him to see him in the Head Office of
A.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board at Hyderabad on 27th May,
c 1989. Accordingly, the complainant and one Balreddy (PW-2)
met the respondent at the Head Office in Hyderabad on
27.5.1989. The respondent demanded bribe of Rs.500/- from
him so that his loan case could be revived. He also told PW-1
to meet him on 31st May, 1989 at 8.00 a.rh. at his residence.
D PW-1 approached the Dy. Superintendent of Police, A.C.B.
Nizamabad and gave a report. On 31.5.1989 at about 7.25 a.m.
PW-1 met the respondent who demanded and accepted the
sum of Rs.500/-from him in presence of D. Sridhar Reqdy and
Ch. Narsimha Reddi. The respondent was -caught red handed
and bribe money was recovered in presence of mediators from
E the respondent. To prove the accusations the prosecution ex-
amined eight witnesses and 31 exhibits were exhibited. Ac-
cused examined one witness and exhibited 2 exhibits.
The trial Court found the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to be
F clear and cogent and accordingly recorded the conviction and
sentence as afore-stated. In appeal before the High Court it
was submitted that the accusations have not been established
so far as the respondent is concerned. The High Court held that
according to the evidence of prosecution the application given
G by PW-1 was found in the brief case of the accused person. But
the High court observed that normally one would expect that if
the accused officer kept the application in the brief case he
would also keep the money in the brief case and it is not ex-
pected that he would keep the money on a tea-pot and the ap-
plication in the brief case. This according to the High Court cre-
H
,.
STATE OF AP. v. P. SATYANARAYANA 217
MURTHY [OF{ ARUIT PASAYAT, J.]
\ I ated doubt whether any money was demanded and received A
-:.
by the accused person. It was further observed_ that the evidence
of PW'-1 was not corroborated. Although there was an indepen-
dent witness available, he was not examined. The High Court
also observed that non examination of one Narsimha Reddi
rendered the prosecution version fragile. Accordingly, the con- B
viction was set aside and acquittal was directed.
--i
Questioning the acquittal, the State of Andhra Pradesh has
filed this appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that c
the High Court by a cryptic order has set aside the well rea-
saned judgment of the trial Court. Merely because some per-
sons were not examined, same cannot be a ground to discard
the evidence of a reliable witness. It is pointed out that the bribe
money purported to have been given by Narsimha Reddi was
D
also seized. The Investigating Officer had clearly stated the rea-
( sons for the non examination of Narsimha Reddi. It was stated
that he had joined naxalites. The presumption available under
Section 20 of the Act was not kept in view by the High Court. It is
submitted that the High Court's conclusions are based on sur-
mises and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal cannot be main- E
tained.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the High Court has analysed the evidence in great
1 detail to find that the prosecution version is not believable. That F
-..i
being so, there was no scope for any interference in this ap-
peal.
5. It is to be noted that the evidence of PW-1 has not been
discarded by the High Court. But it is observed by the High Court
that there was no corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 and G
-·i therefore it recorded the order of acquittal. The evidence of PW-
1 doe~ not suffer from any infirmity. Mere non- examination of
any other person would not render his evidence suspect. The
10 has categorically stated that Narsimha Reddi was not avail-
able to be examined as a witness. Further, there was no sug- H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A gestion given by the accused that money was forced on his hands (
I

and thereafter he put it on the table. No such suggestion was
given and for the first time during examination under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
'Code') such a stand was taken. The High Court has also not
B considered the effect of the presumption flowing from Section
20 of the Act. It is not understood as to the basis on which the
High Court found that accused would not put the application \-
form and the money in different places. The conclusion has no l
.----
basis. The accused did not dispute that the application form
c (Ext.P5) was found in a brief case. In fact the bribed money
from Narsimha Reddi was also seized. It has been clearly indi-
cated by the witness that the money given by PW-1 and money
given by Narsimha Reddi were kept side by side and were not
mixed up. In the present case, the trial Court had elaborately
dealt with the evidence to record conviction. The High court has
D
not indicated any reason as to how the conclusions of the trial
Court are wrong. In aoy event, the High Court by a cryptic con-
..
clusion held that the evidence led was not sufficient. As noted
r-
above, reasons for Narsimha Redd i's non examination has been
disclosed by the prosecution.
E
6. Above being the position, the judgment of the High Court
is clearly unsustainable and set aside. Considering the back-
ground facts, one year custodial sentence with fine of Rs.1,000/ ..
- as was imposed by the trial Court are imposed. The respon-
F dent shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve the remainder i...

of sentence. "'r
7. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
~-

RP. Appeal Partly allowed.

r-
i-_

I ..
i