GANAPATHI SANYA NAIK versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 14-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GANAPATHI SANY A NAIK 
A 
v. 
STA TE OF KARNATAKA 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 
(S.B. SINHA AND H.S_. BEDI, JJ.) 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-s. 13(/)(d) rlw s. 13(2)-Demand 
of illegal gratification-Prosecution for-Trap arranged-Money recovered 
from the table and not from the person of accused-Defence of false implication C 
. on account of animosity-Acquittal by trial court-Conviction by High 
Court-On appeal, held: In view of the facts of the case, accused liable to 
be acquitted. 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for an offence punishable u/s 13 (1) 
(d) r/w s. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Prosecution case was D 
that the accused a village accountant had demanded bribe from PW 6 for 
effecting mutation entries and for providing revenue documents. On complaint 
of PW 6, trap was arranged. Two Panchas including PW 4, were engaged. 
Recovery of the cash by the trap party, was from the table under the filrs. 
Immediately thereafter PW 6 was provided with necessary documents. Defence 
version was that the money had been put on the table surreptitiously and E 
without the.knowledge of the accused as the accused had animosity with PW6. 
Trial Court acquitted the accused holding that prosecution has not been able 
to prove demand and recovery of money. High Court convicted him. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The view taken by the trial court was clearly possible on the 
evidence in the case. The Court had observed that the plea of the defence at 
F 
the very initial stage was that PW-6 had serious animosity towards the 
appellant and that the currency notes had been put on the table by the former G 
was a plausible explanation. It is in the evidence that the currency notes had 
not been touched by the appellant or recovered from his person. It is also the 
prosecution case that the relevant documents had been handed over to PW 6 
immediately after the money had been put on the table. The argument therefore 
that there was no occasion to make a demand for any bribe is also plausible. 
939 
II 
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A In an appeal against acquittal where the High Court's interference is in a 
manner circumscribed, there was no justification in upsetting the judgment 
of the trial court. I Para 8) 1942-D, E, F) 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2006 of the High Court of 
Kamataka Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 696 of 2000. 
Lakshmi Raman Singh for the Appe_llant. 
C 
Sanjay R. Hegde, Vikrant Yadav, Amit Kumar Chawla and Ramesh S. 
D 
Jadhav for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of the following facts. 
3. The accused/appellant was at the relevant time working as a Village 
Accountant in Bisalkoppa in Sirsi Taluk in the State of Kamataka. PW.6 
Nagaraj had pu~chased some agricultural land from Smt. Janaki on which he 
E approached the appellant and requested him to effect mutation entries in his 
name and to issue the requisite record of rights. The appellant told Nagaraja 
to come after a few days and thereafter told him ~hat some objections had 
been received with respect to the sale in his favour. It appears that an enquiry 
was also held by the Deputy Tehsildar who passed an order in Nagaraja's · 
favour. 
F 
4. Armed with this order, Nagaraja again approached the appellant 
requesting him to enter the necessary mutation and· to provide a certified 
~opy of the revenue dotuments. The- accused demanded a sum of 
Rs.1,000/- from him for this purpose and asked for Rs. 500/- as an advance, 
G which was reduced to Rs. 450/-. As Nagaraja was apparently not willing to 
pay the amount, he approached the Lok Ayukta and made a written complaint 
to the Police on which a case was registered by PW.9 Police Inspector 
Shambhulingappa. The said police officer requested the Asstt. Director of 
Agriculture and Asstt. Director of the Employment Exchange, Karwar to 
depute a Pancha each to report to him at 6 a.m. on 14.8.1996. Two Panchas 
H PW.4 Mailarappa Neellappa Sunkad and R.N.Cholvekar were accordingly 
l. 
GANAPA THI SANY A NAIK v. ST A TE [H.S. BEDI,J.] 
941 
deputed by the said officers. The Police Officer thereafter informed the two A 
Panchas as to what had transpired. Nagaraja also produced M05, four notes 
of hundred rupee denomination, and one note of fifty rupees denomination.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.