Supreme Court of India
SYED AHMEDversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 312
- Decided
- 31 July 2012
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A K PATNAIK
Holding
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and affirmed the High Court's judgment while not interfering with the sentence.
Summary
The appellant, a police officer, was alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification from Nagaraja (PW1) in exchange for inquiring into a complaint. The prosecution presented testimony of Nagaraja and two independent trap witnesses, corroborating the transaction of tainted currency notes, while the trial court acquitted the appellant citing inconsistencies and lack of forensic evidence. On appeal, the High Court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, rejecting the alleged discrepancies as immaterial. The Supreme Court held that the evidence established the demand, receipt, and acceptance of gratification, satisfying the statutory elements, and that the minor discrepancies did not affect the core issue. It affirmed the conviction but declined to alter the three‑month rigorous imprisonment sentence, noting the statutory minimum was not appealed and the incident was decades old. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the evidence to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the appellant despite the testimony of the complainant and independent witnesses.
- Whether minor discrepancies (wallet forensic examination, attire of the accused, and currency note) constitute a fatal flaw in the prosecution case.
- Whether the High Court erred in imposing a sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment, which is below the statutory minimum under Section 13(2).
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 7
Subjects
corruptionillegal gratificationpublic servantPrevention of Corruption Actconvictionsentenceevidentiary standardsminor discrepancies
Judgment
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 887
•
SYED AHMED A
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1323 of 2007)
JULY 31, 2012
8
[A.K. PATNAIK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 & 13(1)(d) rlw
s. 13(2) - Offences under - Prosecution case that appellant- a
police official, demanded and accepted illegal gratification C
from PW1 for inquiring into a complaint lodged by him against
his neighbour - Trial court acquitted the appellant - High Court,
however, reversed the acquittal of appellant and sentenced
him to rigorous imprisonment for three months - On appeal,
held: There was sufficient evidence of the appellant D
demanding illegal gratification from PW1 and receiving and
accepting it when given by him - Testimony of PW1 was
unshaken which was corroborated by the evidence of the
independent eye witness PW2 - Case proved beyond any
doubt - High Court justified in convicting the appellant - E
However, it erred in awarding a sentence of only three months
rigorous imprisonment inasmuch as s. 13(2) of the Act
prescribes a minimum sentence of one year imprisonment -
Nevertheless, since the State did not appeal against the
quantum of sentence and the incident occurred about 19 F
years back, sentence imposed by High Court not interfered
with.
The appellant, a police official, allegedly demanded
and accepted illegal gratification from PW1 for inquiring
into a complaint lodged by him against his neighbour. G
Two independent persons including PW2 allegedly
witnessed the transaction of delivery of the tainted
currency notes to the appellant. On these broad facts, the
887 H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A prosecution charged the appellant for committing
offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial
court did not accept the version of the prosecution and
acquitted the appellant. On appeal by the State, the High
B Court held that there was no reason to disbelieve PW1,
nor was there any reason to disbelieve PW2 the
independent witness and accordingly, reversed the
acquittal of appellant and sentenced him to rigorous
imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved, the appellant
c preferred the instant appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The inquiry by the Trial Judge ought to
have been somewhat limited and confined to the
D question of a demand for illegal gratification by appellant,
meeting that demand by PW1 and acceptance of the
illegal gratification by the appellant. The appellant was
entitled to put forward his defence, which was required
to be considered by the Trial Judge. However, in this
E case, no defence was put forward, but an attempt was
made to discredit the witnesses. The High Court did not
commit any error in reappraising the evidence for arriving
at the truth of the matter and also rightly confined itself
to the core issues before it in concluding the guilt of the
F appellant. [Paras 27, 28] [899-E-G]
1.2. The testimony of PW1 was unshaken which was
corroborated by the evidence of the eye witness PW2.
PW2 specifically stated that the appellant asked PW1 if
he had brought what he was told to bring; that PW1
G replied in the affirmative and thereupon gave the tainted
currency notes to the appellant, which he accepted and
thereafter, the appellant kept the tainted currency notes
in a purse which was then placed in the pocket of his
trousers hung on the wall. There is, therefore, a clear
H
SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 889
statement of PW2, which has not been shaken in cross- A
examination, to the effect that there was a demand for
some gratification by the appellant from PW1 and that
PW1 paid some money to the appellant by way of
gratification. The ingredients of Section 13(1 )(d) of the Act
are fulfilled in this case and have been proved beyond B
any doubt. In view of Explanation (d) to Section 7 of the
Act, the issue whether the appellant could or could not
deliver results (as it were) becomes irrelevant in view of
the acceptance of the testimony of PW1 and PW2. [Paras
30, 31) [900-A-F]
c
1.3. The submission made by the defence that a
Rs.10/- currency note recovered from the wallet of the
appellant as also the wallet were not sent for forensic
examination, is not relevant. The tainted currency notes
given to the appellant as illegal gratification are material D
and not the untreated Rs.10/- currency note or the wallet
in which all the currency notes were kept. These are
minor issues that have no real bearing on the
controversy on hand. The discrepancy in the testimony
of the witnesses with regard to the dress worn by the E
appellant when he allegedly received the illegal
gratification from PW1 is also a minor matter. Whether the
absence of the Rs. 10/- currency note could or could not
be explained or why the appellant's wallet was not sent
for forensic examination or whether he was wearing F
trousers or a lungi at the relevant point of time are matters
of minor detail which do not impact on the substratum
of the prosecution's case. A discrepancy would be minor
if it did not affect the substratum of the prosecution's
case or i.mpact on the core issue. In such an event, the G
minor discrepancy could be ignored. [Paras 36, 37, 41, 42
and 43) [902-C-E; 903-C-E]
1.4. In conclusion, it is found from the evidence of
the witnesses that there was sufficient evidence of the
appellant demanding illegal gratification from PW1 and H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A receiving and accepting it when given by him. On this
basis, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment
and order under appeal. [Para 44] (904-A-B]
1.5. With regard to the sentence awarded to the
appellant, the High Court erred in awarding a sentence
8
of only three months rigorous imprisonment. Section
13(2) of the Act prescribes a minimum sentence of one
year imprisonment. However, the State has not appealed
against the quantum of sentence. Moreover, the incident
is of 1993, which is about 19 years ago. Keeping these
C factors in mind, this Court does not propose to interfere
with the sentence awarded. [Para 45] (904-8-C]
Abdul Nawaz v. State of West Bengal 2012 (5) SCALE
357 - relied on.
D
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SeC 415:
2007 (2) SCR 630; Jugendra Singh v. State of U.P. 2012 (5)
SCALE 691; State of Kera/a v. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450:
2011 (6) SCR 864 and Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana
E (2010) 4 sec 450: 2010 (4) SeR 383 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2007 (2) SCR 630 referred to Para 21
2012 (5) SCALE 691 referred to Para 22
F
2011 (6) SCR 864 referred to Para 24
2010 (4) SCR 383 referred to Para 24
2012 (5) SCALE 357 relied on Para 42
G CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1323 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 25.07.2006 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 116
H of 2011.
SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 891
Shanth Kumar Mahale, Harisha S.R., Rajesh Mahale for A
the Appellant.
Rashmi Nandakumar, Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent.
The Judment of the Court was delivered by
B
MADAN 8. LOKUR, J. 1. The Appellant (Syed Ahmed)
was acquitted by the Trial Court of offences under Sections 7
and 13( 1)( d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The acquittal was set aside by the High
Court and he is aggrieved thereby. We are in agreement with c
the order of conviction handed down by the High Court. We are
not in agreement with the sentence awarded, but prefer to let
the matter rest. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
The facts:
D
2. Nagaraja @ Nagarajegowda (PW1) and his father,
Thimmegowda (PW4) are owners of some land. On 7th June,
1993 they had a boundary dispute with their immediate
neighbour, Channakeshavegowda which resulted in their being
assaulted by him and others. Thimmegowda then lodged a E
complaint on the same day with the Konanur Police Station in
this regard.
3. According to Syed Ahmed (a police officer in the
Konanur Police Station), the complaint was inquired into by
F
S.C. Rangasetty (PW7). According to Nagaraja, illegal
gratification was demanded by Syed Ahmed to enable him to
file a charge-sheet against Channakeshavegowda and others
on the complaint by Thimmegowda.
4. The dispute between Thimmegowda and G
Channakeshavegowda was, however, amicably resolved in a
few days time and the settlement entered into between them
is Exhibit P.15 in the Trial Court.
5. Unfortunately, on 27th June, 1993 a boundary dispute H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A again arose between Nagaraja and Thimmegowda on the one
hand and Channakeshavegowda and others on the other. This
resulted in Nagaraja lodging a complaint against
Channakeshavegowda in the Konanur Police Station on 27th
June, 1993. For inquiring into this complaint, Syed Ahmed
B allegedly demanded illegal gratification from Nagaraja.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the unlawful demand, Nagaraja
lodged a complaint with the Lok Ayukta Police at Hassan on
28th June, 1993. The Lok Ayukta Police decided to trap Syed
C Ahmed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification from
Nagaraja. As per the arrangement for the trap, some currency
notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and upon
delivery of these tainted currency notes to Syed Ahmed, his
fingers would get smeared with the powder. Thereafter, on
washing the powdered fingers with sodium carbonate solution,
D the resultant wash would turn pink indicating thereby the physical
receipt of the tainted currency by Syed Ahmed.
7. Also, as per the arrangements, two independent
persons were to accompany Nagaraja to witness the
E transaction of delivery of the tainted currency notes to Syed
Ahmed. The two independent witnesses in the case are
Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) and Keshavamurty (PW6).
8. As per the plan chalked out by the Lok Ayukta Police,
Nagaraja went to the Konanur Police Station to hand over the
F illegal gratification to Syed Ahmed. However, when he reached
there, he was told that Syed Ahmed was available at the
Inspection Bungalow. Accordingly, Nagaraja and the trap party
went to the Inspection Bungalow.
G 9. At the Inspection Bungalow, the two independent
witnesses positioned themselves close to Syed Ahmed's room.
Nagaraja then entered his room and after a brief conversation
with Syed Ahmed, he handed over some currency notes to him.
Thereafter, Nagaraja exited from the room and gave a pre-
H
SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 893
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
determined signal to the trap party who reached Syed Ahmed's A
room and washed his hands with sodium carbonate solution
which turned pink. This confirmed his physical receipt of the
tainted currency notes from Nagaraja.
10. On these broad facts, the prosecution charged Syed
B
Ahmed (a public servant) with demanding and accepting illegal
gratification from Nagaraja and thereby committing an offence
under Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').
11. The prosecution examined eight witnesses including C
Nagaraja (PW1) and the two independent trap witnesses
Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) and Keshavamurty (PW6). In
addition, the prosecution also examined Bistappa (PW3) the
scribe of the complaint dated 28th June, 1993 to the Lok Ayukta
Police; Thimmegowda (Nagaraja's father) as PW4; B. Pradeep D
Kumar (PW5) the Police Inspector of the Lok Ayukta Police,
who arranged the trap, prepared the trap mahazar and
investigated the case; S.C. Rangasetty (PW7) who dealt with
the complaint dated 7th June, 1993 and confirmed the
settlement Exhibit P.15. The officer who seized the samples E
relevant to the trap and sent them to Bangalore for analysis and
then received the report was examined as PW8. None of the
prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
Trial Court judgment:
F
12. Upon a consideration of the testimony of the witnesses
and the documents on record, the Trial Judge by his judgment
and order dated 21st July, 2000 concluded that the prosecution
had failed to prove its case against Syed Ahmed beyond a
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Syed Ahmed was acquitted of G
the charges leveled against him.
13. The Trial Judge held that the dispute between
Thimmegowda and Channakeshavegowda (of 7th June, 1993)
was amicably settled and so there was no occasion for Syed
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Ahmed to demand any gratification from Nagaraja in connection
with that complaint. As far as the other dispute (of 27th June,
1993) is concerned, it was held that Syed Ahmed had no role
to play in it since he was not investigating that complaint. There
was, therefore, no occasion for Syed Ahmed to demand any
B gratification from Nagaraja. On the contrary, it was held that
Nagaraja had some enmity with Syed Ahmed as a result of
Nagaraja's failure to return some village utensils, which led to
Syed Ahmed taking action against Nagaraja's elder brother
Thimmegowda. It was to wreak vengeance on Syed Ahmed
C because of that event that Nagaraja filed a false complaint
against him.
14. The Trial Judge had some reservations about the
location of the witnesses when the gratification was said to have
been given to Syed Ahmed. The Trial Judge also held that Syed
D Ahmed's wallet and a Rs.10/- currency note recovered
therefrom ought to have been sent for forensic examination. The
Trial Judge also noted that there was an inconsistency in the
testimony of the witnesses about the dress worn by Syed
Ahmed when he is alleged to have taken the illegal gratification.
E Finally, the Trial Judge held that the failure of the prosecution
to produce the complaint dated 27th June, 1993 made by
Nagaraja against Channakeshavegowda was significant.
15. Taking all these factors and discrepancies into
F consideration, the Trial Judge did not accept the version of the
prosecution and acquitted Syed Ahmed of the charges framed
against him.
High Court judgment:
G 16. On appeal by the State, a learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Karnataka by his order dated 25th July, 2006 set
aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court and convicted
Syed Ahmed for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Syed Ahmed was
H sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three
SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 895
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default thereof A
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
17. The High Court held that there was no reason to
disbelieve Nagaraja, nor was there any reason to disbelieve
Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) the independent witness. It was
8
also held that in view of Section 7(d) of the Act, a public servant
who is not in a position to do any favour to a person could also
be deemed to commit an offence under the Act if he demands
and accepts illegal gratification. As regards the discrepancies
pointed out by the Trial Court, the High Court found that they
did not dent the veracity of Nagaraja (PW1) or of Sidheshwara C
Swamy (PW2). Accordingly, the High court reversed the order
of acquittal and convicted Syed Ahmed.
18. Feeling aggrieved, Syed Ahmed preferred an appeal
to this Court. D
Statutory provisions:
19. Section 7 of the Act, to the extent that we are
concerned, reads as follows:
E
"7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official act.-Whoever, being,
or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or
agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person,
for himself or for any other person, any gratification F
whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or
reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for
showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official
functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering
or attempting to render any service or disservice to any G
person, with the Central Government or any State
Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State
or with any local authority, corporation or Government
company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any
public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than
six months but which may extend to five years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanations.-(a) xxx xxx xxx.
B (b) xxx xxx xxx.
(C) XXX XXX XXX.
(d) "A motive or reward for doing." A person who receives
c a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he
does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not
done, comes within this expression.
(e) xxx xxx xxx."
D 20. Sections 13(1 )(d) and 13(2) of the Act read as follows:
"Section 13 - Criminal, misconduct by a public
servant
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence
E of criminal misconduct, -
(a) xxx xxx xxx .
(b) xxx xxx xxx
F (c) xxx xxx xxx
(d) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself
or for any other person any valuable thing or
G
pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant,
obtains for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
H
SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 897
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains A
for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage without any public, interest; or
(e) xxx xxx xxx
Explanation.- B
xxxxxxxxx
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal
misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment C
for a term which shall be not less than one year but
which may extend to seven years and shall also be
liable to fine."
Preliminary submissions and conclusions:
D
21. Learned counsel for Syed Ahmed contended that the
High Court ought not to have interfered with the order of acquittal
given by the Trial Judge. In this context, reference was made
to the principles laid down in Chandrappa v. State of
Kamataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, namely:-
E
"(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no F
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power
and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and
compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very G
strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring
mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of
H
,,
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in
B
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court
c of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal,
the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
D of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
22. While culling out the above principles, this Court
referred to and relied upon over a dozen earlier decisions.
E These principles were reiterated recently in Jugendra Singh
v. State of UP., 2012 (5) SCALE 691. We do not think it
necessary to burden this decision with the very large number
of citations on the subject. Suffice it to say that these principles
are now well settled.
F 23. It is also necessary to appreciate the ingredients of the
offence for which Syed Ahmed was convicted. This is
necessary for understanding whether or not the Trial Judge
correctly applied the law on the subject.
G 24. Learned counsel relied upon State of Kera/a v. C.P.
Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450 and Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana,
(201 O) 4 sec 450 and contended that "mere recovery of
tainted money, divorced from the circumstances in which it is
paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the
H
SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 899
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
substantive evidence in the case is not reliable".,lt was also A
contended that the prosecution should, additionally, prove that
payment to the accused was by way of a reward for doing or
proposing to do a favour to the complainant.
25. We are in agreement with learned counsel on this issue 8
and it is for this reason that we went through the evidence on
record.
26. We must add that on a reading of the provisions of the
Act, it is also necessary for the prosecution to prove that the
person demanding and accepting gratification is a public C
servant. In so far as the present case is concerned, there is no
dispute that Syed Ahmed is a public servant. The prosecution
must also prove a demand for gratification and that the
gratification has been given to the accused. If these basic facts
are proved, the accused may be found guilty of an offence under D
the provisions of law that concern us in this case.
27. Viewed in this light, the inquiry by the Trial Judge ought
to have been somewhat limited and confined to the question
of a demand for illegal gratification by Syed Ahmed, meeting E
that demand by Nagaraja and acceptance of the illegal
gratification by Syed Ahmed. Of course, Syed Ahmed was
entitled to put forward his defence, which was required to be
considered by the Trial Judge. However, in this case, no
defence was put forward, but an attempt was made to discredit
F
the witnesses.
28. Given the law laid down by this Court, we are of the
opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in
reappraising the evidence for arriving at the truth of the matter.
The High Court also rightly confined itself to the core issues G
before it in concluding the guilt of Syed Ahmed.
Submissions on merits and conclusions:
29. On the merits of the case, learned counsel made
several submissions. It was submitted that there is nothing on H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 7 S.C.R.
A record to suggest that Syed Ahmed made any demand for
gratification or received and accepted any illegal gratification.
This contention does not appeal to us, particularly in view
of the unshaken testimony of Nagaraja (PW1) and the
8 corroborative evidence of the eye witness Sidheshwara Swamy
(PW2). This witness was near the window and just outside the
room occupied by Syed Ahmed. He refers to some
conversation that took place between Syed Ahmed and
Nagaraja in a low tone and which he could not hear. Thereafter,
C this witness specifically states that Syed Ahmed asked
Nagaraja if he had brought what he was told to bring. Nagaraja
replied in the affirmative and thereupon Nagaraja gave the
tainted currency notes to Syed Ahmed, which he accepted.
Thereafter, Syed Ahmed kept the tainted currency notes in a
purse which was then placed in the pocket of his trousers hung
D on the wall. There is, therefore, a clear statement of
Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2), which has not been shaken in
cross-examination, to the effect that there was a demand for
some gratification by Syed Ahmed from Nagaraja and that
Nagaraja paid some money to Syed Ahmed by way of
E gratification. The ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act are
fulfilled in this case and have been proved beyond any doubt.
31. We agree with the High Court that in view of
Explanation (d) to Section 7 of the Act, the issue whether Syed
F Ahmed could or could not deliver results (as it were) becomes
irrelevant in view of the acceptance of the testimony of Nagaraja
(PW1) and Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2).
32. It was then contended that the High Court overlooked
the fact that the complaint dated 7th June, 1993 made by
G Thimmegowda had been settled vide Exhibit P.15 and that the
subsequent complaint made by Nagaraja on 27th June, 1993
was not available on the record. It was submitted that in the
absence of the basic document, that is the complaint dated
27th June, 1993 the case of the prosecution could not stand
H scrutiny.
SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 901
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
33. We are unable to accept this submission. The basis A
of the action against Syed Ahmed was not the complaint dated
27th June, 1993 but the complaint dated 28th June, 1993 made
by Nagaraja to the Lok Ayukta Police. This complaint is on the
record and is marked as Exhibit P .3. In the complaint, it is
alleged, that Syed Ahmed had demanded illegal gratification B
from Nagaraja and it is on a follow up of this complaint that
arrangements were made to lay a trap against Syed Ahmed.
Learned counsel is, therefore, in error in assuming that action
- against Syed Ahmed was based on the complaint dated 27th
June, 1993. As mentioned above, this is factually not so. c
34. As regards settlement of the dispute referred to in the
complaint dated 7th June, 1993 in our opinion that would not
take away the substance of the issue before us, namely,
whether Syed Ahmed demanded and accepted illegal
gratification from Nagaraja or not. But, it is submitted that the D
complaint against Syed Ahmed was motivated. This is traced
1o an earlier dispute between Nagaraja's elder brother (also
named Thimmegowda) and Syed Ahmed. It appears that
sometime in May, 1993 Nagaraja had taken some utensils
belonging to the village community for performing the marriage E
of his younger brother. These utensils were retained by
Nagaraja for quite some time. A complaint came to be made
against Thimmegowda (PW4) in this regard and at that time,
Syed Ahmed assaulted Thimmegowda (elder brother of
Nagaraja) for not promptly returning the utensils. Due to this F
incident, and by way of revenge, Syed Ahmed is said to have
been falsely implicated by Nagaraja.
35. We are not inclined to give much weight to this incident.
The reason is that the issue regarding the return of utensils was G
settled as testified by Nagaraja and S.C. Rangasetty (PW7).
In addition, we find that no suggestion was given by Syed
Ahmed to any witness that the complaint of 28th June, 1993
was a result of this particular incident. Even in his statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
H
-
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Syed Ahmed does not make out a case that that incident had
some nexus with this complaint. Also, if anybody had to have
any grievance in this regard, it would be Thimmegowda (elder
brother of Nagaraja) and not Nagaraja. In fact, it appears that
Nagaraja was not particularly happy with his brother because
B he says in his cross examination that during 1993-94 he was
managing the family affairs since his father was aged and infirm
and his elder brother was a drunkard.
36. The next two submissions of learned counsel were to
the effect that a currency note of Rs.10/- recovered from the
C wallet of Syed Ahmed and indeed the wallet also were not sent
for forensic examination to ascertain the presence of
phenolphthalein powder. Moreover, there is nothing on record
to indicate what eventually happened to that currency note.
D 37. We cannot see relevance of these submissions. What
we are concerned with is whether Syed Ahmed had demanded
illegal gratification from Nagaraja and whether he had received
and accepted that illegal gratification. The tainted currency
notes given to Syed Ahmed as illegal gratification are material
E and not the untreated Rs.10/- currency note or the wallet in which
all the currency notes were kept. These are minor issues that
have no real bearing on the controversy on hand.
38. The final contention was that there is considerable
doubt about the attire of Syed Ahmed at the time of receiving
F the illegal gratification from Nagaraja. It is pointed out that
Nagaraja stated that Syed Ahmed had kept the tainted currency
notes in a purse and that the purse was kept in the hip pocket
of his trousers. It is suggested by learned counsel that this
would indicate that Syed Ahmed was wearing trousers at that
G point of time.
39. In his cross-examination also, Nagaraja stated that
Syed Ahmed was wearing his uniform when the illegal
gratification was given to him. According to learned counsel,
H both these statements confirm that Syed Ahmed was wearing
SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 903
[MADAN 8. LOKUR, J.]
his trousers when the concerned incident took place. A
40. In this context, reference was made to the testimony
of Sidheshwara Swamy (PW2) who stated that Syed Ahmed
kept the tainted currency notes in a purse which he put in the
pocket of his trousers hanging on a wall. In his cross-
8
examination this witness stated that at the relevant time, Syed
Ahmed was sitting on a cot wearing a vest and a lungi.
41. On this basis, it is submitted by learned counsel that
there is a discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses with
regard to the dress worn by Syed Ahmed when he was sought C
to be trapped. It is submitted by learned counsel that the
discrepancy casts a doubt on the correctness of the events said
to have taken place on 28th June, 1993 and the benefit of this
must go to Syed Ahmed.
D
42. In our opinion, the discrepancy with regard to the attire
of Syed Ahmedthe Rs .10/- currency note and the forensic
examination of the wallet are rather minor matters. What is a
minor discrepancy? This has been the subject matter of
discussion in Abdul Nawaz v. State of West Bengal, 2012 (5)
SCALE 357 and Jugendra Singh. After referring to a few earlier E
decisions of this Court, it was held that a discrepancy would
be minor if it did not affect the substratum of the prosecution's
case or impact on the core issue. In such an event, the minor
discrepancy could be ignored.
F
43. As far as we are concerned, whether the absence of
the Rs. 10/- currency note could or could not be explained or
why Syed Ahmed's wallet was not sent for forensic examination
or whether he was wearing trousers or a lungi at the relevant
point of time are matters of minor detail which do not impact G
on the substratum of the prosecution's case. We are required
to look at the core issue and at the overall picture of the events
that transpired on 28th June, 1993 and not get diverted by minor
discrepancies or trivialities.
H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 7 S.C.R.
A 44. It is while undertaking this exercise that we find from
the evidence of the witnesses that there was sufficient evidence
of Syed Ahmed demanding illegal gratification from Nagaraja
and receiving and accepting it when given by him. On this
basis, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and
B order under appeal.
45. With regard to the sentence awarded to Syed Ahmed,
the High Court has erred in awarding a sentence of only three
months rigorous imprisonment. Section 13(2) of the Act
prescribes a minimum sentence of one year imprisonment.
C However, the State has not appealed against the quantum of
sentence. Moreover, the incident is of 1993, which is about 19
years ago. Keeping these factors in mind, we do not propose
to interfere with the sentence awarded.
o 46. The appeal is dismissed.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "corruption"Sign in to search