SATVIR SINGH versus STATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 20-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 9 S.C.R. 247 
SATVIR SINGH 
V. 
STATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 920 of 2011) 
AUGUST 20, 2014 
[DIPAK MISRA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: ss. 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) 
A 
B 
- Illegal gratification - Acquittal of appellant by trial court -
Reversal of acquittal by High Court - On appeal, held: A letter C 
was written by complainant to the Department that the 
appellant had not demanded any money from him when he 
visited his premises for inspection and the telephonic 
conversation for demand of money was made but he did not 
recognize the voice to be that of the appellant - Trial court 
D 
relied upon the said fetter and held that appellant was not 
guilty of the offence - The bag containing illegal gratification 
was also not recovered from the person of the appellant -
Thus, neither acceptance nor recovery of illegal gratification 
was proved - Trial court was right in holding that presumption 
E 
of innocence was in favour of appellant - High Court in 
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction had exceeded its. 
parameters in reversing the acquittal order of the trial court -
Therefore, findings were not only erroneous in law but also 
vitiated in law. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The letter-Ex.PW-1/DA was written by the 
complainant-PW2 to the Collector of Customs which 
showed that there was no case of illegal gratification either 
G 
demanded by the appellant or paid to him by the 
complainant PW2. The trial court on proper appreciation 
of both oral and documentary evidence par~icularly the 
247 
H 
., ., 
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A contents of the said letter held that the appellant was not 
guilty of the offence. It is an undisputed fact that neither 
the Inspector-co-accused was arrayed as a witness nor the 
appellant by the Investigating Officer. The brother-in-law 
of the complainant-PW2 who was stated to be present at 
B the time of the telephonic conversation with him was also 
not examined during the investigation to prove the fact that 
the appellant had telephonic conversation with him. [Paras 
29 and 30) [265-8-C; 266-C] 
Babu v. State of Kera/a (2010) 9 SCC 189: 2010 (9) SCR 
C 1039; State of Kera/a & Anr. v .. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450: 
2011 (6) SCR 864; Murugesan v. State through Inspector of 
Police (2012) 10 SCC 383: 2012 (13) SCR 1; K. S. 
Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721: 2013 
(4) SCR 155 : Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat 
D (2002) 5 SCC 86: 2002 (3) SCR 359; Mukut Bihari & Anr. v. 
State of Rajasthan (2012) 11 SCC 642: 2012 (6) SCR 710; 
C. M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kera/a (2009) 
3 SCC 779: 2009 (2) SCR 1021; M. Narsinga Rao v. State 
of Andhra Pradesh 2001 (1) SCC 691: 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 
E 584 - referred to. 
2. As per the evidence of PW-2 and shadow witness 
PW-3, the illegal gratification was in a black rexine bag 
with a broken zip which was put on a steel cot. As the 
F contents of the bag were not within the knowledge of the 
accused, therefore, the relevant aspect of the case that 
the appellant had accepted the illegal gratification as 
required under Section 7 of the Act was not proved by 
the prosecution. The plea of the prosecution that the said 
G letter was written by PW-2 under pressure cannot be 
accepted. If the letter was written by PW-2 under 
pressure, then he should have lodged the complaint in 
this regard. The black rexine bag containing the illegal 
gratification which was kept on the steel cot at the 
residence of the accused was not recovered from the 
SATVIR SINGH v. STATE OF DELHI THROUGH CBI 
249 
person of the accused. Therefore, neither acceptance nor A 
recovery of illegal gratification from the appellant was 
proved. The trial judge rightly held that presumption of 
innocence is in favour of the appellant and he was 
acquitted on merits. [Paras 33, 34] [268-E-F; 269-A-F] 
C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of India (1997) ·9 
SCC 477: 1997 (1) SCR 107; State of Madras v. A 
Vaidhyanatha Iyer AIR 1958 SC 61 :1958 SCR 580 - referred 
to. 
· 
B 
3. The High Court in exercise of its appellate 
C 
jurisdiction had exceeded its parameters in reversing the 
acquittal order of the trial court. Therefore, the findings 
were not only erroneous in law but also vitiated in law. 
The High Court did not notice the very important lacuna 
in the prosecution case that as per the evidence of PW-
D 
2 and PW-3, the bribe money which was sought to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.