B. NOHA versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 06-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B. NOHA 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 6, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Ss. 7, l 3(J)(d) and 13(2): 
Demanding and accepting of illegal gratification by a public servant-
C Testimony of interested witnesses-Evidentiary value-Held: Evidence on 
record clearly established demand and acceptance of illegal gratification-
Since it is proved that acceptance of money was conscious and voluntary, no 
burden cast on prosecution to prove demand/motive by direct evidence-
There was no basis to believe that the prosecution witness intended to falsely 
implicate the accused-Hence, evidence of such witness does not suffer from 
D any infirmity-However, considering the nature ofthe accusation, it would be 
appropriate to reduce the sentence to the minimum prescribed under the 
Statute-Orderea accordingly-Sentencing-Criminal trial-Evidence Act, 
1872-Testimony of witnesses-Evidentiary values, 
The appellant working as Health Inspector Grade-II, at 
E Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation allegedly accepted illegal 
gratification from PWI. PW-1 went to the office of Deputy Superintendent 
of Police and gave first information statement on the basis of which Crime 
was registered. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences 
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the 
F Prevention of Corruption Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced 
him to undergo rigorous imprisonm~nt for a period of three years and to 
pay fine for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He was further 
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years 
for the offence under section 13(1)(d) read ·vith section 13(2) of the Act. 
The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present 
G appeal. 
Appellant contended that he had clearly established the 
improbabilities in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, under the 
circumstan~es, conviction was not warranted; and that considering the 
nature of the accusations the sentences imposed are harsh. 
H 
368 
.. 
... 
B. NOHA v. STATE OF KI;:RALA [PASAYA T, J.] 
369 
Dismissing the appeal, but modifying the sentences, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Though the evidence of PW-1 was levelled as the 
evidence of interested witness, there is no substance in it. There was no 
basis for PW-1 to falsely implicate the accused. On the other hand, the 
evidence on record clearly shows as to why the illegal gratification was 
demand(~d and accepted by the appellant. The evidence of PW-1, therefore, B 
does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. [371-E-F} 
1.2. When it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious 
acceptance of the money, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution 
to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive. It has only to be 
deduced from the facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case. C 
[371-G-H; 372-A} 
Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, [2000) 8 SCC 571; 
M Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., [2001} 1 SCC 691 and State of A.P. v. 
Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy, [2000) 9 SCC 752, relied on. 
1.3. It is to be noted that the minimum sentence for offence relatable D 
to Section 7 of the Act is six months while that relatable to Section 13(l)(d) 
of the Act is one year. Considering the nature of the accusations, it would 
be appropriate to reduce the sentence to the minimum prescribed under 
the statute. It shall be six months and one year respectively, to run 
concurrently. [372-F-G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1122 
of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 23.9.2005 of the High Court 
of Kerala at Emakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 2002. 
Roy Abraham, Seema Jain and Himinder Lal for the Appellant. 
G. Prakash, Beena Prakash and K.D. Dileep Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned 
Single Judge of the Kerala High Court upholding the conviction of the 
appellant for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') 
E 
F 
G 
The Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram H 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable as aforesaid, convicted 
him thereunder and se

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.