STATE OF A.P. versus K. PUNARDANA RAO

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 03-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
STATE OF A.P. 
v. 
K. PUNARDANA RAO 
. SEPTEMBER 3, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 13(1) (d) and 13(2)-
Respondent prosecuted for demanding and receiving bribe-Complainant 
examined as PW I-Conviction by special Judge-Acquitted by High Court 
on the ground that evidence of PW I suspicious-On appeal held-Accused 
liable to be convicted as defense version is highly improbable and no court 
of I aw can accept such a version. 
Respondent-accused was prosecuted for offences punishable under 
section 13 (l)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act 1988. He was working as Commercial tax Officer. It was alleged 
that he demanded bribe from complainant for extending time for 
submission of accounts and other documents. A trap was laid by the 
Anti (:orruption bureau and Rs. 20,000 recovered from his possession. 
His fingers, pyjama and bedcover were found to be positive on chemical 
test. The Special Judge relying on the evidence of PW 1, the complainant, 
convicted the accused. The High Court rejecting !he evidence of PWl, 
acquitted the accused. Hence the appeal. 
Aollowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1. It is proved by satisfactory evidence that PWl, 
complainant, went to the house of the respondent and the trap party 
was able to recover the money from his possession. The phenolphthalein 
test conducted on the hands, pyjama and bed cover of the respondent 
proved to be positive. The explanation of the respondent that he shook 
G · hands with PW1 and thus his hands got contaminated with chemical 
substance, is highly improbable and no court of law can accept such 
improbable version. High Court committed a serious error by rejecting 
the evidence of PWl and the evidence of the accompanying witnesses of 
the trap party. [107-D-F; 108-B) 
2. This being an appeal against acquittal, this court would be slow 
104 
< 
-
STATE v. K. P. RAO [BALAKRISHNAN, J.] 
105 
in reversing the acquittal, when the High Court has taken a reasonable 
A 
view of the evidence as adduced by the prosecution; but if there is 
perverse appreciation of evidence and serious miscarriage of justice, the 
acquittal of the accused is to be reversed. This is one such case where 
the high Court failed to appreciate the evidence in the correct perspective. 
Minor flaws in the prosecution evidence were given undue importance. B 
and the impeccable evidence which unmistakably proved the guilt of the 
respondent was ignored. Therefore, the acquittal of the accused was 
clearly erroneous and the same is reversed. [108-D-El 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 408 , 
of 1998. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.97 of the Andhra Pradesh High 
Court in Crl. A. No. 1222 of 1994. 
Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellant. 
Jaspal Singh and D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. : This is an appeal preferred by the State 
E 
of Andhra Pradesh against the acquittal of the respondent who was convicted 
by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Nellore, for the offences 
punishable under Section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act, 1988. The respondent was working as a Commercial Tax 
Officer at Naidupet from 13.7.1991to22.8.1992. The de-facto complainant 
, F 
Badri Audhiseshaiah was the proprietor of two firms, by name, Sri Lakshmi 
Oil Mill & Company and Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders at Gudur. The 
complainant received notices from the respondent asking him to submit 'C' 
Forms and affidavits and other account books relating to his firm, Sri 
Bharatha Lakshmi Traders. The prosecution case is that on 8.8.1992 at about 
7.00 A.M.", the complainant went to the house of the respondent and sought 'G 
for a month's time for submission of accounts and other documents. The 
respondent refused to grant time and threatened that the complainant would 
be visited with penalty in case he failed to submit the books of accounts and 
other documents in time. Complainant made repeated requests and then the 
respondent agreed to extend the time provided the complainant paid him Rs. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
106 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] ~UPP. 4 S.C.R. 
25,000 as bribe. The complainant said that the amount demanded was a huge 
amount and, therefore, the respondent reduced the amount to Rs. 20,000 and 
wanted the complainant to pay the amount on the next day.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.