STATE OF A.P. versus P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 03-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-; 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 213 
STATE OF A.P. 
v. 
P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 
(Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 2001) 
OCTOBER 3, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND AFTAB 
ALAM, JJ] . 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
A 
B 
s. 1~(2) rlw s.13 (1)(d)(i) ands. 20 -Accused, a public C 
servant, demanding illegal gratification - Caught with bribe 
money - Conviction by trial court - Acquittal by High Court -
HELD: Evidence of complainant does not suffer from any in-
firmity:- Mere non-examination of any other person would not 
render his evidence suspect - Accused was caught red D 
handed with bribe money - High Court has not considered 
effect of presumption flowing from s. 20 - It has not given any 
reason as to how conclusions of trial Court are wrong - Trial 
court had elaborately dealt with evidence to record conviction 
- Judgment of High Court set aside - Conviction and imposi-
E 
tion of fine as ordered by tria(Court upheld - Custocf lal_ s~n­
tence reduced to one year. 
The respondent, a Development Officer of A.P. Khadi 
and Village Industries Board, was prosecuted for com-
mission of offence punishable uls 13(2) read with 
F 
s.13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 
the allegafions that he, in the presence of PW-2, demanded 
Rs.5001- as bribe from"PW-1 to revive his lapsed loan. PW-: 
1 informed the Dy. Superintendent of Police, A.C.8. A trap 
was laid and the respondent was caught with the bribe G 
money. The trial Court convicted the respondent and sen-
tenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment and to 
pay a fine of Rs.1000/- , but fhe High Court acquitted him. 
213 
,H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
~ 
' 
A 
In the instant appeal filed by the State, it was con-
r-
f 
tended for the appellant that the High Court erred in set-
ting aside, by a cryptic order; the well reasoned judgment 
of the trial Court; that merely because some persons were 
not examined, the same could not be a ground to discard 
B the evidence of a reliable witness; and that High Court's 
conclusions were based on surmises and conjectures 
I 
and it did not keep in view the presumption u/s 20 of the 
r 
Act. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court did not discard· the evi-
dence of PW~1, but it observed that there was no corrobo-
ration to .his evidence and, therefore, it recorded the or-
der of acquittal. The evidence of PW-1 does not suffer from 
D any infirmity. Mere non- examination of any other person 
would not render his evidence suspect. The 10 has cat-
.. 
egorically stated that the other person, namely, 'NR' was 
y 
not available to be examined as a witness. Reasons for 
his non examination have been disclosed by the pros-
E ecution. [para 5] [217,G-H; 218,E] 
1.2 There was no suggestion given by the accused 
that money was forced on his hands and thereafter he 
\ 
put it on the table. For the first time during examination 
under Section 313 of t~e Code of Criminal Procedure, 
F 1973 such a stand was taken. [para 5] [218,A] 
\· 
\ 
1.3 The High Court has also not considered the ef-
'r 
feet of the presumption flowing from Section 20 of the Pre-
vention of Corruption Act, 1986. The accused did not dis-
pute that the application form (Ext.PS) was found in a brief 
G case. In fact the bribe money given by another person, 
namely, 'NR' was also seized. It has been clearly indicated 
r·--
by the witness that the money given by PW-1 and money 
given by 'NR' were kept side by side and were not mixed 
up. [para 5] [218,B-C] 
H 
STATE OF AP. v. P. SATYANARAYANA 
215 
MURTHY 
.-...., 
1.4 The trial Court had elaborately dealt with the evi-
A 
dence to record conviction. The High court has not indi-
cated any reason as to how the conclusions of the trial 
Court are wrong. In any event, the High Court by a cryptic 
conclusion held that the evidence led was not sufficient. 
The judgment of the High Court is clearly unsustainable B 
and is set aside. Considering the background facts, cus-
_, ' 
todial sentence is reduced to one year, and the fine of 
Rs.1,000/- as was imposed by the trial Court is restored. 
[para 5-6] [218,D-E] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal c 
No. 580 of 2001 
From the final Judgn:ient and Order dated 15.12.2000 of 
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal 
Appeal No. 129 of 199~ 
D 
' 
Somiran Sharma and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Appel-
-: 
lant. 
---l 
R. Santhan Krishnan, Radha Rani, P.C. Pandey, Vijaya 
Kumar and D. Ma

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