Holding

The conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is justified and the High Court’s acquittal is set aside.

Summary

The State of West Bengal prosecuted Kailash Chandra Pandey, a Deputy General Manager at Calcutta Airport, for demanding a bribe of Rs.5,000 to facilitate the passage of cleaning contract bills. A trap was arranged in which the complainant handed the money, which was subsequently recovered from Pandey's pocket; his hands and trouser pocket, washed with phenolphthalein, turned pink, and the cash was sealed. Pandey was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but the Calcutta High Court acquitted him on technical grounds such as the absence of his signature on the seizure list, lack of forensic laboratory examination of the notes and pant, and non‑production of the envelope. The Supreme Court held that these procedural lapses did not render the prosecution case improbable, emphasized that appellate courts must be cautious in re‑appreciating evidence, and set aside the High Court’s acquittal, affirming the conviction. Pandey’s bail was cancelled and he was ordered to surrender to serve his sentence.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution evidence, despite procedural irregularities, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether the non‑signing of the accused on the seizure memo, non‑submission of seized items for forensic analysis, and non‑production of the envelope invalidate the prosecution case.
Scope of appellate court’s power to re‑appreciate evidence under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 7

Subjects

BriberyPrevention of Corruption ActSection 7Trap operationForensic evidenceAppellate reviewEvidence appraisalConvictionAcquittalArticle 136

Judgment

STATE OF WEST BENGAL A
v.
KAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY

OCTOBER 13, 2004

[D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] B

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 7-Demand of money by
way of illegal gratification by accused-Trap laid, accused apprehended a~d
currency notes recovered from his pocket-Conviction under-Acquittal by
High Court on basis of infirmities in the prosecution case-Justification of- C
Held: Non-signing of accused on seizure list, non-sending of currency notes
and pant for Forensic Chemical Examination, non-seizure of pyjama given
to accused to wear after taking the pant, money kept in the left hand pocket
but hand wash taken of right hand, bills passed prior to tender of money to
accused and non-production of envelope does not improbablise the D
prosecution case-Prosecution case based on sufficient, cogent and reliable
evidence-Hence, conviction justified and order of High Court set aside.
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Re-appreciation of evidenc~
by appellate court-Scope of-Held: Since trial court is in a better position
to appreciate evidence, appellate court should be slow in re-appreciating E
evidence-It should not set aside the appreciation done by trial court except
for cogent reasons. ·

According to the prosecution, complainant was sanctioned a cleaning
contract at the International Airport for certain period. He raised the bills,
for payment. Respondent - Deputy Manager (Airport) demanded illegal money p
for passing the bills. Complainant filed a complaint Thereafter, trap was laid
and respondent - accused was apprehended and currency notes were recovered ,
from his pocket. Charges were framed. Prosecution witnesses we.re examined.
Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondent under section 7 of the '
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the High Court acquitted the
respondent on the ground that no signature of accused was taken on seizure' G
list; that the currency notes and pant were not sent to Forensic Laboratory
for chemical examination; that the pyjama given to the accused to wear after
taking the pant was not produced; that the money was kept in the left hand
pocket but the hand wash was taken of the right hand; that the amount covered
437 H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A by impugned bills had already been released prior to the alleged tender of
money; and that the envelope containing ~lleged money was not produced.
Hence the present appeal. ·

Allowing the appeal, the Court

B HELD: 1.1. In the present case, there were no imp;obabilities in the
prosecution case. The prosecution has led sufficient, cogent and reliwte
evidence to fully substantiate the allegation against the accused but the High
Court was not correct in taking a very easy approach to improbablise the
prosecution case. (449-F-H]

C 1.2. With regard to the ground of non-signing of the .accused on the
seizure list, the Investigating Officers stated that the accused refused to sign
on the seizure list. The prosecution cannot force him to append his signature
on the seizure memo if he refused to sign. Therefore, just because the accused
did not append the signature on the seizure memo, it cannot be a ground to
D improbablise the prosecution story. (447-G-H],-

1.3. When the currency notes which were mixed with the phenolphthalein
powder were handled by the accused ihe hands of the accused and the pant
pocket used with currency notes was washed in a water bowl and the colour
of the water turned pink. The hand and pant wash which was kept in bottles
E were sent for chemical examination, which is sufficient to conne~t the accused
with the commission of the crime. Just because the notes and pant were not
sent for F.S.L. examination, it cannot be~ ground to disbelieve the prosecution
story. Furthermore, the pant of the accused was produced and exhibited in the
Court and the pant has been identified by one of the prosecution witnesses. It
is very strange that the pyjama which was given to the accused to wear that
F was not requi.red.to be seized or produced before the court because the accused
could not be permitted to go naked without wearing anything since his pant
was already seized. [448·A-C]

1.4. The entire prosecution story cannot be disbelieved on the ground
G that when the money was allegedly received by the right hand of the accused,
it was kept in the left hand pocket but hand wash was taken of the right hand
only since such conduct of the accused is the normal course of human conduct
Furthermore, the accused has received the currency notes and after the hand
wash a~d the left hand pocket of the trouser wash, _the,colour of the water
turned pink, therefore, putting these two evidence together, there remains no
H doubt about the prosecution case. (448-D-E)
STATEOFWESTBENGALv. KAILASHCHANDRAPANDEY 439

1.5. The bills of the complainant for the given period have already b~n A
passed and payments were made prior to the tendering of the money to the
accused, is not a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. In fact, the
objections were raised and deductions were made in bills and money was being
demanded from the complainant so that his bills are not objected or delayed
and no deduction be made in future. The money was p~id to the accus~d B
primarily for an illegal purpose to facilitate smooth release of the money as
per the bills. Furthermore, the allegation that the bil!s were passed earlier
and later on the trap was arranged by the complainant who was ini~I!y
motivated and was interested in trapping the accused, cannot impi;biablise
the prosecution story. [448-F-GJ :.

1.6. Non-production of the envelope is of no consequence. The acceptance
c
of money by the accused is material which is more than apparent from the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the money was recovered from the
accused and the accused's hand wash and also the accused's pant pocket wa~h
turned the water into pink colour. [448-H; 449-A, BJ
' .. D
Som Parkash v. State of PunJab, [1992J Supp. 1 SC~
428;
G. VNanjundi':'h v. State (Delhi li.dmn.), ~_IR (1987) SC 2402; Sta~fUP. v.
Jagdish Singh Malhotra, [2001) 10 set'' 215 and State of Mahar,ashtra t.
Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwal/a, (1987)~\'tpp. SCC 379, distinguished.

2. The appellate court should be slo~ re-appreciati~~vidence. E
in
This Court time and again has emphasi~ed that the trial cou~w~idi has the
occasion to see the demeanour of the wi,tnesses, is in a bett~;:positil'ln t9
appreciate it, the appellate court should nj:>t lightly brush aside the appreciation
done by the trial court except for cogent reasons. [450-A, BJ

The Sta;e of Punjab v. Hari Singh a?;J
Anr., AIR (1974) SC 1168; Khem F
Karan and Ors. v. The State of UP. ancf Anr., AIR (1974) SC 1567; State Of
Rajasthan v. Bhawani and Anr., [2003J 7 SCC 291 and Govt. of NCTof Delhi
v. Jaspal Singh, [2003J 10 SCC 58~, refer~ed to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1406 G
of2003.
,
.,,_..
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.2002 of the Calcutta High
Court in C.R.A. No. 192 of2000.

A. Subba Rao, Vishnu Sharma and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the Appellant. H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Pradip Ghosh, Bijan Kumar Ghosh and G.V.R. Choudary with him for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A.K. MA THUR, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by
B the High Court of Calcutta dated 9.2.2002 passed in C.R.A. No.192 of2000
whereby learned Single Judge has reversed the conviction of the accused-
respondent, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and SpeCial
Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, 24- Parganas (N) in Special Case No.2 of 1997,
whereby learned Addi. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge
convicted the accused under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
c 1988 and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to
pay a fine of Rs} 000 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month
more.

Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows.
D On May 23, · 1996, one Shankar Prasad Sengupta, the proprietor of Mis.
Rakshak Security Services lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of
Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Calcutta //
" stating that he was awarded a cleaning contract at New Domestic Terminal
Complex at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Calcutta vide
award letter dated December 3, 1994 for two years with effect from December
E 21,1994. As per practice, he was required to submit the bills in the Office of
the Deputy General Manager (Airport) and thereafter the bills on presentation
were processed by the House Keeping department functioning under the
respondent. Accused-respondent was the final authority for passing of the
bills for payment. It is alleged that the accused-respondent demanded illegal
F . money for passing the bills which the complainant-Shankar Prasad Sengupta
(P.W.3) had managed till May 21,1996. P.W.3 submitted a bill for a sum of
Rs.1,39,000 on May 23,1996 and made a request to the accused-respondent
to pass the said bill. Accused-respondent insisted that unless P..W.3 pays a
sum of Rs.5000 he would not pass the bill. Accused-respondent directed
P.W.3 to make paymentofRs.5000 on May 24, 1996 after lunch hours in his
G Office. As P.W.3 had no intention to pay the said amount, he lodged a written
complaint. before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.l., Anti Corruption
Department disclosing all the details on the basis of which a complaint was
regislered against the accused-respondent for commission of an offence under
section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Mr. M.S. Hazari,
H Inspector, C.B.I. was entrusted with the investigation of the case. P.W. 3 was
STATEOFWESTBENGALv. KAILASHCHANDRAPANDEY[A.K. MATHUR,J.] 441

called by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. in his office for laying a trap. A
A pre-trap memo was prepared with necessary particulars. Pursuant to that
pre-trap, a trap party including P. W.3 left to the Office of the accused-
respondent to lay the trap and they were accompanied with two independent
witnesses i.e. P. W.4-Ratan Krishna Das, an employee of Oriental Bank of
Commerce and P.W.15- Sanjay Kumar, a Law Officer of the Bank along with
the Investigating Officer. On the fateful day, the money was handed over by B
P.W.3 to the accused-respondent and he pocketed the money. Thereafter, the
Investigating Officer accompanied by others entered into the room, seized the
money and arrested the accused-respondent. The sanction was obtained on I

December 10, 1996 and after the accord of the proper sanction by the Chairman,,
Airports Authority of India, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused- C
respondent on January 31, 1997.

Accused-respondent denied the charges and pleaded that he was falsely
implicated with ulterior motive. The prosecution in support of its case examined
16 witnesses and no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The trial '
Judge after considering the matter, after recording the evidence and hearing , D
both the sides found the guilt of the accused established and convicted the
accused-respondent under Sectior. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and '
sentenced him as above said.

Aggrieved against that order, the accused-respondent preferred an appeal
·before the High Court. Learned Single Judge considering the matter and ' E
hearing the parties, acquitted the accused of all the charges on the grounds .
that the currency notes were not sent to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical
examination, the pyjama which was given to the accused to wear after taking
the pant, the same was not produced; that the money was kept in the left
hand pocket but the hand wash was taken of the right hand; the amount F
covered by the impugned bills had already been released prior to the alleged
tender of the money and the envelope containing the alleged money was not
produced. Therefore, on the basis of these infirmities, learned Single Judge
of the High Court acquitted the accused-respondent of all the charges.
Aggrieved against this order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court
of Calcutta, the present appeal has been filed by the State of West Bengal G
represented by the C.B.I., S.P.E.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The main witness in the present case is P.W.3- Shankar Prasad Sengupta to
whom the cleaning contract for the Calcutta Airport was sanctioned for a H
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A period with effect from December 21,1994 to December20,I 996. He has deposed
that the bill amount for March, I 996 was received by him late while the bill
amount for the month of April, 1996 -was reduced as there was reduction
towards poor performance. At. the relevant point of time Shri Kai lash Pandey
was the Deputy General Manager (Airport) at·Calcutta Airport. He stated that
B after this deduction he met the General. Manager and the Airport Director,
Calcutta but without any relief. Therefore, again he approached the Deputy
General Manager, Airport and he told him that he is to be paid Rs.5000 per
month for a permanent relief against any future deduction from any bill and
for getting the payment in time. He deposed that he did not agree to the illegal
demand and he approached the C.B.I. for taking their protection. He filed a
C written complaint before the concerned Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. at his
Office at Nizam Palace, Calcutta. It is alleged that he gave a· sum of Rs.5000
to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on May 24, 1996 and some chemicals
were mixed with the currency notes and were handed over to him. He along
with some C.B.I. Officers went to the Airport Authority_oflndia, Calcutta and
two oth@r outsiders also accompanied them to the Head Officer and one of
D them was, Sanjay Kumar (P.W.15), an employee of Oriental B<_lqk of Commerce.
The numbers of the currency notes were noted in a sheet of paper in the
Office of the S.P.C.B.I. and he put his signature on .th<? said sheet of papers
where numbers of the currency notes were noted down.· All these currency
notes were produced during the trial and the numbers of the currency notes
E tallied with the aforesaid numbers noted except item No.10. Thereafter, it is
alleged that he went to the chamber of Deputy General Manager along with
Sanjay Kumar and another person and he introduced the two persons to Mr.
Pandey as his friend cum-partners of the business and he told him that he
had brought the money for a total sum of Rs.5000 and then he handed over
the ten currency notes of Rs.500 each for a total amount of Rs.5000 to Mr.
F Pandey and Mr. Pandey received the said amount and kept the same in his
pocket. It is alleged that after handing over the said money to Mr. Pandey
he came out of the chambers of Mr. Pandey where the C.B.I. Officers along
with others were already present and intimated him about the delivery of the
notes. Thereafter, Mr. Pandey was apprehended and currency notes were
G recovered from the pocket of Mr. Pandey. The C.B.I. Officers prepared
necessary papers and he put his signature there. Thereafter, the C.B.I. Officer
brought some chemicals in glass bottles and the hands of Mr-.- Pandey were
washed by the C.B.I. Officers by the chemical of the said bottle. After ,
washing the hands of Mr. Pandey the chemicals were preserved in another
glass bottle. Simiiarly pocket of pant was washed and the water was kept in
H another glass bottle. All the bottles were sealed and labels were pasted on

- ~· -.
" ...
STATEOFWESTBENGALv.KAILASHCHANDRAPANDEY[A.K.MATHUR,J.) 443
the same and he put his signature on those bottles. The currency notes were A
wrapped and sealed. P.W.3 was cross-examined at length. But nothing
\ substantial was brought out so as to dislodge his testimony:.
(
The next witness in this case is P. W.4-Ratan Krishna Das who was one
of the eye witnesses. He was an Officer of Oriental Bank of Commerce,
\
Bowbazar Branch. On the direction of his higher authority he had to go to B
the Office of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on May 24, 199i{ind he "Y~s
accompanied with one Mr. Sanjay Kumar who was the Law Officer of tHatQ
Bank. It is alleged that there he met Shri R.K. Sarkar who was the Inspector, ( )
C.B.I. and another person named, Shri M.S. Hazari who was also an Inspector,
C.B.I. and he made enquiry as to the reason for calling him and he was told C
that one Shankar Prasad Sengupta had filed a written complaint against some
Officer of Airport Authority and they have to accompany them, as demand
raised ';~ccused-respondent, Kailash Pandey was unauthorized money in
relatiqTh~'the bill of Shankar Prasad Sengupta. He deposed that the C.B.I.
,,,,~_J{ lt
Officers~Jed Shankar Prasad Sengupta to produce ~he currency notes which
were to be offered to Mr. Pandey. and thereto Shn Sengupta produced ten D
c4rrency notes 'ol Rs.500 denomination and the C.B.L Officers coated the
sa.me with some pm_yder and handed over the same again to Shankar Sengupta
and advised him to offer the said money to Mr. Pandey. It is further deposed
that he along with the C.B.l. Officers, Sanjay Kumar and Shankar Prasad
Sengupta left for Calcutta Airport in a vehicle and Sanjay Kumar was instructed E
to remain with Shankar Prasad Sengupta as a witness before offering the
currency notes to Mr. Pandey and he was asked by the C.B.I. Officers to wait
with them in a comer outside the chamber of Mr. Pandey. It is alleged that
before starting for the Calcutta Airport, the numbers of the currency notes
were also noted down and signatures were also obtained on the pre-trap
memorandum. It is deposed that before proceeding to Calcutta Airport he was F
asked to handle a white paper and thereafter he was asked to wash his hands
with some liquid and after that the liquid became pink colour and the said pink
colour was preserved in the glass bottle and marked "A". The said bottle was
produced in the Court. Shankar Prasad Sengupta accompanied with Sanjay
Kumar went to the Airport in the chamber of Shri Pandey and they were asked
to give a signal by touching their forehead after coming out of the chamber G
of Mr. Pandey as a signal that the money has been handed over. It is alleged
that Shankar Prasad Sengupta and Sanjay Kumar came out and gave the
signal and the same was noticed by him along with the C.B.I. Officers. On

-- entering the chamber of Mr. Pandey, the C.B.I. Officers disclosed their identity
and told him that he has received money from Shankar Prasad Sengupta but li ,'
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Shri Pandey refused the same. Thereafter, the C.B.I. Officers got the hands
of Shri Pandey washed with water in a pot and it was found that the said
water turned into pink colour and the said water was kept in a glass bottle
which was marked "B". Then the C.B.l. officers again asked Shri Pandey to
bring out the said currency notes and then Shri Pandey himself brought out
the money from the l!!ft pocket of his pant and handed over the same to the
B C.B.I. Officers. The pant ofShri Pandey was grey colour and Shri Pandey was
asked to change his pant there and he was given a pyjama to wear.
Subsequently, the left pocket of the pant of Shri Pandey was washed and the
said washed water also turned pink. The said water was also preserved in a
glass bottle marked as "C". Thereafter, the currency notes were seized and
C seizure list was prepared and his signature was obtained on it. The glass
bottles which contained the·hand wash of Shri Pandey that turned pink as
well as the pink colour liquid obtained after washing of the left pocket of the
pant of Shri Pandey were sealed, and labels were affixed on the same and his
signature was obtained. It is alleged that the trouser i.e. the pant of Shri
Paridey was also seized.
D
The next witness in this connection is P. W.15, Shri Sanjay Kumar. He
was a Law Officer of Central Bank of India. At the relevant time, he was
posted at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional Office, Calcutta as a Law
Officer. The Regional Manager directed him to go to C.B.l. Office at Nizam
E Palace, Calcutta and he went there and he was called at the S.P. 's Chamber.
There he was introduced by the C.B.l. Officers with one Mr. Sengupta and
he was told that a trap was being arranged at the International Airport at
Calcutta in respect of bribe being given to some Officer as he demanded
money from Shri Sengupta. He was explained as to how the trap was to be
laid. Currency notes were given and their numbers ~ere noted by the C.B.I.
F Officers. Thereafter, some chemical power were put on the currency notes. He
further deposed that he was told that when this powder coated notes were
touched by any person and his hand is washed in water, the water would tum
pink and a demonstration was given there. Thereafter, he ·along with others
proceeded to the Calcutta Airport and they were instructed that Shri Sengupta
G would hand over the money to the concerned officer in his room and signal
was to be given by touching the head by right hand and that would signal
that the money has been accepted. It is alleged that he ·and Shri Sengupta
thereafter entered into the room of Shri Pandey and at that tim~ a person was
also standing there. It is alleged that meanwhile that person left at that time.

H
Shri Sengupta had some conversation with Shri Pandey and thereafter, he
handed over the currency notes to Shri Pandey and Shri Pandey put the
-
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. KAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY [A.K. MA THUR, J.) 445

money in his trouser pocket and then both of them came out. After coming A
out of the room a signal was given by Shri Sengupta. All the C.B.I. Officers
standing in the corridor, then rushed to the Office of Shri Pandey and trapped
him by stating that he had taken the money and he was asked to bring the
same out which he first denied to have received the currency notes and on
much persuation all the currency notes were brought out from his trouser
pocket. The trouser pocket of Shri Pandey was washed in a tap flowing water B
and the colour of the water turned pink. The pink colour water was preserved
in a glass bottle by the C.B.I. Officers and the same was duly sealed. A paper
was pasted on the glass bottle and the signature obtained. Currency notes
were tallied with the numbers noted by the C.B.I. Officers and the numbers
tallied. The pant which was worn by the D.G.M. was also seized and on C
seizure memo his signature was obtained and ·that trouser was identified by
this witness in the Court and the same is marked as Mat. Ext.V. It is also
deposed that the currency notes, numbers of which were noted at the C.B.L
Office tallied with the notes which were recovered and there was only one
mistake in respect of item No. I 0. It is also clarified that in the list of the
currency notes there is only a discrepancy with regard to one currency note D
which is written as CA though it is actually CE but the number of the notes
tallied with the notes which were seized. It is alleged that after the trap
operation a trap memorandum was prepared by the C.B.I. Officer and his
signature was obtained. He was also cross-examined at length and he was
confronted that whether he was offered any entry pass for entering into the E ·
airport or not. He admitted that he did not take any entry pass as he was
accompanied along with the C.B.I. Officials. He admitted that when they
entered into the chamber of the Deputy General Manager, Airport, he was
having conversation with some other person. But that person left iinmediately
after he entered the chamber. He also admitted that after they came out they
signaled to the C.B.I. Officials that the money has been delivered. The D.G.M., F
Shri Pandey also came out of his chamber as he rushed to the chamber for
conference. He also deposed that after receipt of the money he walked in the
corridor before the C.B.I. Officers who were waiting in the corridor and
entered the conference room. He denied the suggestion that no trouser was
seized from the accused-respondent at the time of trap. He was also put to G
lengthy cross-examination. '

P.W.16-Manoranjan Singh Hazari is the Inspector, C.B.I. He deposed
that on written complaint he registered a case against Shri K.Pandey and
requisitioned two witnesses from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional
Office at Calcutta and on his requisition these two witnesses i.e. Shri R.K. Das H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. S S.C.R.

A and Shri Sanjay Kumar were called. They were all explained about the trap
procedure and the numbers of currency notes which we;e given by Shri
Sengupta, were also noted and a list was prepared. The currency notes were
put to phenolphthalein powder. Then the trap memorandum was prepared. All
the currency notes were given to Shri Sengupta and they were asked to
B deliver the currency notes to the accused. Thereafter, they gave a signal that
in fact the notes were handed to Shri Pandey. On signal they went there and
the currency notes were recovered and the hands of accused-respondent
were washed in the soda water which was already missed with soda. The
colour of the water turned into pink and the said water was kept in a glass
bottle. That bottle was sealed and that was marked as Ext."B" and signatures
(2 of the persons were obtained. Thereafter, the money was brot.~ght out and
·seized from the left side pocket of the full pant worn by Shri Pandey. The
number of the said currency notes was compared with the numbers noted in
the pre-trap memo in presence of the witnesses. Thereafter, a search cum
seizure list was prepared, currency notes were sealed, signature of the witnesses
were also appended. Subsequently, post trap memorandum was prepared.
-D
Thereafter, a pyjama was arranged and the accused was asked to take out his
pant and pyjama was handed over to him. Thereafter, the full pant was handed
over and the pocket in which the trap money was ~rpt was washed in another
bowl of water and accordingly, the colour of the water also turned pink and
the said bowl water was kept in another bottle which was duly sealed and
E labelled. The trouser of the accused was also seized. Thereafter, the three
sealed bottles containing pink colour solution to the C.F.S.L., Calcutta and
their report was received. After necessary formalities the challan was fikd.
. ... ~

I
This is how the prosecution has substantiated its case with reference
to oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. The Personal AssistanVof
F the accused was also examined as P.W.5 i.e. Debarta Munshi. He deposed that
he was at the relevant time in his chamber and.came to know about t.tae'trap
arranged against the D.G:M. He had no occasion to go through the ·I
bills. He
deposed that it is not possible to state whether the bill of~M/s. Rakshak
Security Services for the month of April, 1996 was f}ttached ·with any forwarding
G letter. He deposed that Shri Sengupta never ~came to him to ascertain the
I
position of his bills. _He also supported that at the time Shri Sengupta came,
a representative of SingaP,_or~-Airlines was inside the cham~er of D.G.M. He
! "
has also narrated abofifthe incident which has happened. P.W.6, Ambar Kr.
Monda! was Deputy Manager (Finance) Indian Airlines. P.W.7 is Mortyajit
Pal, He has deposed that he was Accounts Manager and the bills are presented
H by the contractors. He deposed that the bills of Mis. Rakshak Security
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. KAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY [A.K. MA THUR, J.] 447

Services i.e. of Shri Sengupta for the period from September, 1995 to March, A
1996 were seized by the C.B.I. P.W.8 is A.G.II, F.C. at the Airport Authority
and he used to prepare the bills on the endorsement of the Accounts Manager
as per the Rules. He deposed that he did not know Shri Shankar Prasad
Sengupta as being one of the contractors. He admitted that in the bill for the
month of April, 1996, Rs. 1,03,316 was claimed for labour charges while Rs. B
8, 70 l was claimed in respect of payment to the supervisors and he cannot say
whether in the wage sheet the disbursement of Rs. 96, 822.85 p. was done in
total in respect of payment to labourers and supervisors He deposed that the
same needs arithmetical calculation and since the said wage sheets do not
contain in running total of each page, he cannot say whether there is a
fraudulent claim of Rs.15,194.15 P. P.W.9 was the House Keeping staff of C
Airport. He deposed that cleaning operation was being done under his
supervision. P.W.10 is the Additional General Manager (G.F.S.). He deposed
that he was the Vigilance Officer and he did not receive any complaint against
Shri Kailash Pandey. P.W.11 is the Assistant Law Manager of Calcutta Airport.
P.W.12 is U.R. Khaledkar, Senior Manager in the Airport. P.W.13, is Prasun Kr.
Mitra who was Inspector, C.B.I. He deposed about the formalities done at the D
trap stage. He deposed that he was summoned in the chambers of Shri R.K.
Sarkar, the then D.S.P., C.B.I., and he came to know about the trap. He also
narrated about the handing of the currency notes by Shri Sengupta and the
said notes were coated with the phenolphthalein powder which turned pink
on wash, about the pre-trap and how the hands of the witnesses were also E
washed and all other details which have already been deposed by other
witnesses.

Therefore, a survey of this evidence shows that a trap was laid and how
the currency notes were seized from the acci1sed. On this evidence, the trial
court convicted the accused but the appellate court i.e. the learned Single F
Judge reversed the finding for the reasons mentioned above. We will examine
each of the reasons given by learned Single Judge of High Court to find out
whether they are substantial or not so as to render the prosecution story
improbable. The first reason given by Learned Single Judge was that no
signature of the accused was taken on the seizure list. It has been stated by
the prosecution witnesses i.e. by the Investigating Officers that the accused G
refused to sign on the seizure list. No accused can be forced to put his
signature and the prosecution cannqt force him to append his signature on
the seizure memo if he refused to sign. Therefore, just because the accused
did not append the signature on the seizure memo that cannot be a ground
to improbablise the prosecution story. Similarly, another reason assigned by H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the learned Single Judge was that the currency notes and pant of the accused
were not sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination. When the currency notes .
which were mixed with the phenolphthalein powder were handled by the
accused the hands of the accused was washed in a water bowl, the colour
of the water turned pink. Likewise, the pant pocket of the accused was also
washed and the colour of the water turned into pink and the hand and pant
B wash which was kept in bottles were sent for chemical examination, that is
sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. Just
because the notes were not sent for F.S.L. examination, it cannot be a ground
to disbelieve the prosecution story. The pant of the accused was produced
and exhibited in the Court and the pant has been identified by P.W.15, Sanjay
C Kumar as Ext.V. It is very strange that the pyjama which was given to the
accused to wear that was not required to be seized or produced before the
Court because the accused could not be permitted to go naked without
wearing anything since his pant was already seized. Therefore, non-seizure
of the pyjama is· not fatal to the prosecution. Another ground has been given
that when the money was allegedly received by the right hand of the accused,
D how it was kept in the left hand pocket but hand wash was taken of the right
hand only. This is no reason to disbelieve the entire prosecution story when
a man accepts anything in the right hand in normal course of human conduct
and if he has kept the money in the left hand pocket the prosecution cannot
be held responsible. The accused has received the currency notes and the
E hand wash of the water turned into pink and the left hand pocket of the
trouser was also washed and the colour of the water also turned into pink,
therefore, putting these two evidence together, there remains no doubt abm.~t
the prosecution case. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent
that the bills of the complainant for the period in question have already been
-passed and payments made. That may be so, but this is not a ground to
F disbelieve the prosecution case. In fact, the objections were raised and
deductions were made in bills and money was being demanded from Shri
Sengupta so that his bills are not objected or delayed and no deduction be
made in future. The money was paid to the accused for the safe passage of
his bills. Therefore, nothing turns on this ground that the bills were passed
G prior to the tendering of the money to the accused. It was only meant to
facilitate smooth release of the money as per the bills. Therefore, it is not a
ground to disbelieve the prosecution story that the bills in question were
passed prior to the alleged tender of the money to the accused. Lastly, a very
vague ground has been given by learned Single Judge that the envelope
which contained the currency notes had not been produced. Nothing turns
H on non-production of the envelope. What is material is the acceptance of
STATEOFWESTBENGALv.KAILASHCHANDRAPANDEY[A.K.MATHUR,J.] 449
money by the accused which is more than apparent from the evidence of the A
prosecution witnesses that the money was recovered from the accused and
the accused's hand which accepted the currency notes was washed and th~
hand wash turned in to pink colour water and likewise the accused's pant
pocket which was washed, the water also turned into pink. Therefore, from
the chain of circumstances, the prosecution story stands fully substantiated: B
Learned counsel for the accused-respondent has tried to show some'
minor discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses that whether the money
was handed over in presence of one representative of Singapore Airline and
he has not been produced. P.W.5- Debarata Munshi (P.A.) says that he did
not know whether these persons met the accused in his chamber or not. It C
is alleged that the bills were passed earlier and later on the trap was arranged
on the basis of the complaint by Shri Sengupta and the complainant was
inimically motivated. The complainant was interested in trapping the accused.
All these cosmetic contradictions cannot improbablise the prosecution story.
A similar attempt was made to highlight such trifle contradiction in written
submissions. The fact of the matter is that the money was accepted by the D
accused from the complainant and it was recovered by the Investigating·
Officer and the money was paid primarily for an illegal purpose i.e. to facilitate
the passing of the bills of P.W.3, Shankar Prasad Sengupta and not to deduct
amount from the bills. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of not
correct.
E
Our attention was also invited to the decisions of this Court in the case
of Som Parkash v. State of Punjab reported in [1992] Supp.I SCC 428; in the
case of G. V. Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in AIR (1987) SC
2402; in the case of State of U.P. v. Jagdish Singh Malhotra reported in [2001]
10 sec 215 and in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw F
Daruwalla reported in [1987] Supp. SCC 379. All these cases are
distinguishable on the facts as in all the cases some peculiar facts were found
which improbablises the case of the prosecution. But in the present case, after
examining the whole case we are convinced that there was no improbabilities
in the prosecution case. The prosecution has led sufficient and cogent evidence
to substantiate the allegation against the accused but unfortu11ately the G
learned Single Judge of the High Court took a very easy approach and picked
a small hole in the prosecution story so as to improbablise the same which,
in our opinion, was not correct. We are satisfied that sufficient, cogent and
reliable evidence is available on record which fully established the guilt of the
gT accused.
H
..
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20.04]{)9PP. 5 S.C.R.
.; \ ··\ " '
A It is. needless to reiterate that the appellate court should be slow iri
reappreciating the evidence. This Court time and again has emphasized .that
the trial court which has the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses
and it is in a better position to appreciate it, the appellate court should not
lightly brush aside the appreciation done by the trial court except fo1 cogent
reasons. In this· connection, a reference may be made t9 a decision of this
B Court in the case of The State of Purijab v. Hari Singh "and Anr. reported in
AIR (1974) SC I I 68, wherein Their Lordships have observed as follows:

"Supreme Court's power of interference under Article 136 with
judgments of acquittal is not exercised on principles which:are different
c from those adopted by it in dealing with convictions. It js;a.principle,
common to all criminal appeals by special leave, that the Supreme
Court will refrain from substituting its own views about the appreciacion
of evidence if the judgment of the High Court is based on one of two
alternative views each of which was reasonably open to the High
Court to accept. If, however, the High Court's approach is vitiated by
D some basically erroneous apparent assumption or it adopts reasoning
which, on the face of it, is unsound, it may become the duty of the
.•
Supreme Court, to prevent a miscarriage of justice, to interfere with an
order whether it be of conviction or of acquittal."

Similarly, in the case of Khem Karan and Ors. v. The State of UP. and Anr.
E reported in AIR (1974) SC 1567 it was observed as follows:

"Further, neither mere possibilities nor remote probabilities nor mere
doubts whict are not reasonable can, without danger to the
administration of justice, be the foundation of the acquittal of an
accused person, ifthere is otherwise fairly credible testimony. Ifa trial
F court's judgment verges on the perverse, the appellate court has a
duty to set the evaluation right and pass a p~oper order."

Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani and Anr. reported
in [2003] 7 SCC 291, the appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court
G without considering and taking into account the testimony of eyewitnesses.
Their Lordships after appreciation of the evidence 'reversed the order of the
High Court and maintained the order of conviction,of the trial court. Their
Lordships observed that notwithstanding the inconsistencies, exaggerations
or embellishments, the eyewitnesses account has to be accepted that clinches
the case of the prosecution.
H

'I
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. KAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY [A.K. MA THUR,J.] 451

In the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Jaspal Singh reported in [2003] A
I 0 SCC 586, Their Lordships reversed the order of acquittal passed by the
High Court and convicted the accused on the basis of clinching, truthful and
cogent evidence proving that a co-accused was a party to the common design
of other accused who stood convicted by the court below and Their Lordships
held that the confession of the co-accused is -satisfactorily corroborated by B
the witnesses.

In view of the discussions made aboye, we allow this appeal and set
aside the judgment and order dated December 9,2002 of learned Single Judge
of the High Court passed in C.R.A. No.192 of2000 and affirm the conviction
and sentence passed by the trial court. The accused- respondent is on bail, C
his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the
sentence and in case, he fails to surrender within one month from toda~,..then
it will be open to the Superintendent, C.B.l. to arrest him and to send him to
ji:til to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.

N.J. Appeal allowed.