L. LAXMIKANTA versus STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 05-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 1022 
L. LAXMIKANTA 
v. 
STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 5, 2015 
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
ss. 7, 13(1 )(d) rlw s. 13(2) - Demand of illegal gratification 
and its acceptance - Conviction by courts below - Held: 
There was no infirmity in the evidence of complainant and 
shadow witness which was consistent on the issue of demand 
0 
and acceptance of illegal gratification from the complainant 
and is without any contradiction - Conviction upheld. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A perusal of evidence of complainant (PW-
E 3) and the shadow witness (PW-4) showed that it was 
consistent on the issue of demand and acceptance of 
illegal gratification from the complainant and was without 
any contradiction. There w,as, therefore, no reason to 
disbelieve the testimony of PW-3 (complainant) when he 
F deposed that the appellant made a demand of Rs. 20001 
- from him for allotment of a room in the hostel. It is not 
in dispute that PW-3 was staying in the Hostel, and had 
applied for re-admission for allotment of room in the 
hostel. The appellant being the Warden of the hostel 
G knew the complainant. Four currency notes (each Rs. 
5001- denomination) were given to the appellant which he 
kept in his trousers' pocket and they changed their 
colour (pink) when mixed in solution along with his 
hands and trousers' pocket. PW-7, a police inspector 
H 
1022 
L. LAXMIKANTA v. STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF 1023 
POLICE, LOKAYUKTA 
(1.0.) of Lokayukta, who investigated the case, duly 
A 
proved the articles. There was no evidence of the defense 
to discard the evidence of prosecution on this material 
issue. [Para 14) [1028-E-H] 
B 
2. The courts below, rightly did not believe the 
version of DW-1 and DW-2. DW-1 is the student who was 
occupying one room in the hostel. According to him, 
when he was coming out from the bathroom, he saw that 
complainant and his friend were forcing the appellant to 
accept the money, which the appellant was refusing to 
accept while standing in the passage. DW-2 deposed that C 
he saw appellant along with the complainant and one 
person standing in the passage where complainant was 
seen offering money to the appellant. There was nothing 
in the defence version which deserves acceptance to 
acquit the appellant of the charges leveled against him. 
D 
The story that complainant was forcing the appellant to 
accept the money and which he was not accepting is 
unbelievable in the light of the evidence adduced by the 
prosecution because the trap was arranged in room No.5 
and not in the passage. Both the students (DW-1 and 2) 
were the chance witnesses who came forward to help the 
appellant and even according to appellant, he did not 
dispute that money was recovered from his body. It was 
not the case of appellant that there was some previous 
lawful money transaction between him and complainant 
pursuant to which complainant repaid the said money to 
appellant. [Paras 15 and 16) [1029-A-F] 
E 
F 
3. Once the demand and voluntary acceptance of 
illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved 
G 
by evidence then conviction must follow under Section 
7 against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements 
are sine qua non for proving the offence under Section 
7. [Para 18) [1030-B-C] 
H 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
4. Twin requirements of demand and acceptance of 
illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- were proved on the basis 
of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the 
appellant and hence the appellant was rightly convicted 
and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 
8 7 read with and Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) 
of the Act. [Para 19) [1030-D, E] 
c 
D 
C.M. Sharma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 15 
sec 1: 201 o (13) SCR 1105 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference : 
2010 (13) SCR 1105 
relied on 
Para 18 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 593 of 2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2011 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 
1792 of 2004. 
Anurag Tomar, Dharam Singh, Naik H. K. (For Naresh 
E Kumar) for the Appellant. 
F 
G 
8. V. Niren, V. N. Raghupathy, Prasouk Jain for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This criminal appeal 
is filed by the accused ag

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