http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

B. HANUMANTHA RAO

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF A.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/03/1992

BENCH:

KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

BENCH:

KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:

1992 AIR 1201 1992 SCR (2) 358

1993 SCC Supl. (1) 323 JT 1992 (2) 433

1992 SCALE (1)736

ACT:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 :

Section 4 and 5-Charge of receiving illegal

gratification-Trap case-Huge amount of money found in the

possession of accused-Explaining the circumstances and

proving innocence-Burden of proof-Whether shifted on

accused.

HEADNOTE:

The petitioner, an Excise Sub-Inspector, was charged

with the offence of accepting an amount of Rs. 50,000 as

illegal gratification from an arrack contractor. The

defence of the petitioner was that the Contractor offered

him the said amount towards arrears of rental, stating that

he could not deposit the amount in Bank since the banking

hours were over on that day. Despite his refusal to accept

the same and requesting that it may be remitted in Bank the

following day, the Contractor placed the cover containing

the said amount on the table of the petitioner, it was

claimed. The trial court disbelieved the defence version

and convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo

two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 and

in default thereof, to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment.

On appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction and

sentence awarded by the trial court. Aggrieved against the

said order, the petitioner has preferred the present special

leave petition, raising the same grounds as were urged

before the Courts below.

Dismissing the special leave petition, this Court,

Held : 1.1. It remains undisputed that an amount of Rs.

50,000 was recovered from the possession of the accused,

lying on a tea-poy in a room of office-cum-residence of the

accused. In view of the fact that on washing the hands of

the accused by a solution of sodium carbonate, the water

turned pink, it leaves no manner of doubt that the amount of

Rs. 50,000

359

was touched and handled by the accused. Under the Excise

Rules, the accused-petitioner had no right or authority to

accept any arrears of rentals of an excise contract. Even

if the bank was closed as suggested by the accused, there

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

was no question of accepting such amount by the accused as

the rentals could have been deposited by the Contractor in

the bank when it opened. Once the amount of Rs. 50,000 is

found in the possession of the accused, the burden shifts on

him to explain the circumstances to prove his innocence as

contemplated under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act. [362 C-E]

1.2. Even if the statements of the prosecution

witnesses who were declared hostile are excluded from

consideration, it would not make any difference in believing

the substratum of the prosecution story. [362 B,C]

2. The circumstance that the Contractor was inimical

and had an axe to grind inasmuch as he was instrumental in

getting the petitioner transferred and such transfer was

subsequently stayed by the Administrative Tribunal, has been

considered be the High Court and it rightly took the view

that such circumstance cannot improbablise the demand and

acceptance of the illegal gratification by the patitioner.

The conviction is based on concurrent findings of fact and

appreciation of evidence. Both the trial court as well as

the High Court have considered the facts and circumstances

of the case in detail and have placed reliance on the

prosecution witnesses and there is no ground or

justification to take a different view. [362 F-H; 363A]

3. There is no ground or justification to reduce the

sentence awarded to the petitioner, in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave

Petition (Criminal) No. 2369 of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.1990 of the

A.P. High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1047/88.

P.P. Rao, B. Rajeshwar Rao and Vimal Dave for the

Petitioner.

K. Madhava Reddy and G. Prabhakas for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

360

KASLIWAL, J. This special leave petition (criminal) is

directed against the judgment of the High Court of

judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 19.11.1990. The

petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under

Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) punishable under

Section 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act and

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years

and a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine to

suffer two months simple imprisonment under each count with

a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently,

by an order of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB

cases dated 24.11.1988. The High Court dismissed the appeal

filed by the petitioner and confirmed the conviction and

sentence awarded by the trial court.

We have heard Mr. P.P. Rao, Learned Senior Advocate on

behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, Learned

Senior Advocate on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

This is a trap case in which the petitioner was alleged

to have accepted an amount of Rs. 50,000 as illegal

gratification on 5.7.1986 while working as Sub-Inspector of

Excise at his office-cum-residence at Godavarikhani. Briefly

stated the prosecution story is that PW.1 A. Baswa Reddy

took arrack contract in partnership of his brother A.

Rajender Reddy (PW.2) and one Arjun for the sale of arrack

for Ramagundam group in Karimnagar district for one year

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

from 1.10.1985 on payment of Rs. 14 lakhs rental permensem

payable by 20th of each month. The petitioner was the

Excise Sub-Inspector Ramagundam. On 3.6.1986 the petitioner

called PW.1 through a constable PW.6 A Narender. PW.1 met

the accused-petitioner on the same day at 9.00 a.m. The

accused demanded bribe of Rs. 50.000 and threatened that

otherwise he would seize the arrack depot at Godavarikhani

and its machinery for supplying arrack in polythene sachets

without permission. When PW.1 requested the accused to

reduce the bride the accused told him that he used to take

'mamool' of Rs. 5,000 per month from the previous

contractor. On. 4.7.1986 the accused again called PW.1 to

his office-cum-residence and asked him to pay the bride of

Rs. 50,000 by the next evening otherwise, threatened him as

done earlier. PW.1 on the same day submitted a complaint

Exhibit P.1 to Shri P. Bal Reddy, the then DSP, ACB, Wrangal

Range. The DSP with the assistance of two mediators planned

a trap. On 5.7.1986 at about 2.00 p.m.

361

PW.1 met the accused at his office-cum-residence and on a

demand made by the accused he gave an amount of Rs. 50,000.

Immediately thereafter PW.1 gave a signal to the raiding

party and thereupon DSP, ACB (PW.9) and other members of the

raiding party rushed into the office-cum-residence of the

accused. The hands of the accused were got washed by a

solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned pink.

An amount of Rs. 50,000 was recovered from the possession of

the accused. The accused was then charged for offences

under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with

Section 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. The

accused denied the charges. The prosecution examined (1)

witnesses in support of its case. The accused in his

explanation under section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 gave a long statement. But in substance,

his defence was that on 5.7.1986 at about 2.00 p.m. while he

was at his office-cum-residence PW. 7 an Excise constable

told him that PW.1 had come to meet him. The accused then

called in PW.1. Then PW.1 gave a slip Exhibit D.7 showing

the remittances made by him towards arrears of rental till

4.6.1986. The same was in the handwriting of PW.2. The

accused further stated that PW.1 informed him that he could

not deposit the amount towards arrears of rental on that day

as banking hours were over, as it happened to be a Saturday

and then offered to give him a cash of Rs. 50,000 towards

payment of arrears. So saying, PW.1 took out a cover

containing currency notes and pushed it on the table towards

the accused asking him to remit the same towards rentals.

Then the accused told him that he had no safe to keep the

amount and apart from that he was going to Karimnagar and

therefore asked PW.1 to remit the amount in the bank. PW.1

then told that his licence was cancelled previously for non

payment of rentals and therefore it would not be proper to

allow the arrears to be accumulated, but inspite of that the

accused pushed back the packet towards PW.1 and asked him to

remit the rentals on the next working day. By that time

PW.1 went out leaving the packet of currency notes on the

table on the pretext of bringing some papers from outside.

PW.1 went near the jeep and talked with the driver and again

came back with some papers. Immediately thereafter the DSP,

ACB and others entered the house and subjected him to

phenolphthalein test. The accused told the DSP that PW.1

had offered him the amount of Rs. 50,000 towards payment of

arrears of rentals. He admitted that when his fingers were

washed in sodium carbonate solution it turned into pink

colour on account of the reason that he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

362

had shaken hands with PW.1.

The Learned Special Judge accepted the case of the

prosecution and disbelieved the version of the accused. The

High Court affirmed the decision of the trial Judge.

We have heard Shri P.P. Rao, Learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner at length. Shri Rao made strenuous effort to

convince us to believe the version given by the accused-

petitioner, but in vain. Even if the statements of PW.6 and

PW.7, Excise constables who were declared hostile are

excluded from consideration, it would not make any

difference in believing the substratum of the prosecution

story. It remains undisputed that an amount of Rs. 50,000

was recovered from the possession of the accused, lying on a

tea-poy in a room of office-cum-residence of the accused.

In view of the fact that on washing the hands of the accused

by a solution of sodium carbonate, the water turned pink, it

leaves no manner of doubt that the amount of Rs. 50,000 was

touched and handled by the accused. Under the Excise Rules,

the accused-petitioner had no right or authority to accept

any arrears of rentals of an excise contract. Even if, the

bank was closed as suggested by the accused, there was no

question of accepting such amount by the accused as the

rentals could have been deposited by PW.1 in the bank when

it opened. Once the amount of Rs. 50,000 is found in the

possession of the accused, the burden shifts on him to

explain the circumstances to prove his innocence as

contemplated under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act. A great stress was laid by Shri Rao that PW.1 was

inimical and had an axe to grind with the petitioner

inasmuch as he was instrumental in getting the petitioner

transferred from Godavarikhani by order dated 16.5.1986 and

such transfer was subsequently got stayed by the

Administrative Tribunal by order dated 20.5.1986 in a

petition filed by the petitioner. The above circumstance

has been considered by the High Court and we agree with the

High Court that when the fact that the accused demanded and

accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 50,000 on 5.7.1986 is

acceptable then such circumstance cannot improbablise the

demand and acceptance. The conviction is based on

concurrent findings of fact and appreciation of evidence.

Both the trial court as well as the High Court have

considered the facts and circumstances of the case in detail

and have placed reliance on the prosecution witnesses and we

do not find any ground or justification to take a different

363

view. Shri Rao also submitted that even if this Hon'ble

Court was not inclined to take a different view from the

lower courts, a lenient view may be taken in awarding the

sentence. We find no ground or justification to reduce the

sentence awarded to the petitioner, in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

In the result, we find no force in this petition and

the same is dismissed.

G.N. Petition dismissed.

364