SELVARAJ versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 18-08-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 381 
SELVARAJ 
V. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
(Criminal Appeal No.1172 of 2008) 
AUGUST 18, 2015 
[H.L. DATTU, CJI, ARUN MISHRA AND 
AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 -
s. 5(1)(d) -
c 
Allegation of demand of illegal gratification against public 
servant-appellant - Trap laid and tainted money recovered 
from the possession of the appellant - However, death of 
complainant befC?re tt1e commencement of the trial -Acquittal 
by trial court, however High Court convicted and sentenced D 
the appellant for commission of offence punishable u/s. 
5(1)(d)- On appeal, held: Acceptance of the bribe was not 
established by adducing cogent evidence - In view of the 
reasons given by the trial court and on appraisal of the 
evidence, the view taken by the trial court was a plausible 
E 
one - High Court should not have interfered without going 
. into the reasoning employed by the trial court and re-appraisal 
of the evidence - Judgment of the f-ligh Court was short and 
cryptic - Order passed by the High Goud set aside and that 
of the trial court restored. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court while reversing the 
judgment of acquittal in a short and cryptic judgment, G 
did not care to go into the various reasoning e_mployed 
by the trial court. Appreciation of evidence to hold it to 
be credible was required which was not done by the High 
381 
H 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A Court at all. In a cursory manner without re-appraisal of 
the evidence and probabilities, the judgment of acquittal 
was reversed. Though the High Court has the power to 
re-appraise the evidence in appeal against acquittal but 
that was not done. It is incumbent upon the High Court 
B while reviewing the evidence and to reverse the order of 
acquittal to consider all matters on record including the 
reasons given by the trial court in respect of the order of 
acquittal and should consider all the circumstances in 
favour of the accused which was not done. [Para 10, 11] 
C (387-8, E-F] 
1.2 The acceptance of the bribe was not established 
by adducing cogent evidence. Considering the reasons 
given by the trial court and on appraisal of the evidence, 
D the view taken by the trial court was a plausible one and 
could not have been interfered with by the High Court, 
that too without coming to the close quarters of the 
reasoning and re-appraisal of the evidence. The 
judgment of the High Court is not only cryptic but also 
E no attempt was made to look into the evidence-both oral 
and documentary. Thus, the judgment and order passed 
by the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court. 
restored. [Para 17] (394-B-D] 
F 
Kanu Ambu Vish v. The State of Maharashtra 1971 (1) 
SCC 503; Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of TN. 2002 (9) SCC 
639; State through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. 
Narasimhachary 2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 197: 2005 (8) SCC 
364; A. Subair v. State of Kera/a 2009 (6) SCC 587; State of 
G Kera/a & Anr. v. C.P Rao 2011 (6) SCR 864: 2011 (6) SCC 
450; G. V Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi Administration) 1987 
(Supp) SCC 266 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
H 
1911 (1) sec 503 
refoned to. 
Para 11 
SELVARAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
383 
2002 (9) sec 639 
referred to. 
Para 12 
A 
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 197 referred to. 
Para 12 
2009 (6) sec 587 
referred to. 
Para 14 
2011 (6) SCR 864 
referred to. 
Para 15 
B 
1987 (Supp) sec 266 
referred to. 
Para 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 1172 of 2008. 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.02.2006 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 
878of1999. 
Kiran Suri, S. J. Amith, Dr. Vipin Gupta for the Appellant. 
D 
Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred as 
E 
against the judgment and order convicting and sentencing the 
appellant for commission of offence punishable under section 
5( 1 }( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 194 7, thereby 
reversing the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court F 
and sentencing him forthree months with a fine of Rs.50,000/ 
- and in default to undergo SI for six months. 
2. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the appellant was 
working as First Division Assistant in the District Treasury, 
Hassan. Peter Philip, CW-1 contacted him to secure refund of G 
loan subsidy in a sum of Rs.13,990/-. He met the accused on 
28.1.1988 who demanded illegal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.