STATE OF A.P. versus S. JANARDHANA RAO

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 17-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF A.P. 
..__..,, .. 
v. 
S. JANARDHANA RAO 
NOVEMBER 17, 2004 
~ 
..... 
~. 
B 
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
\ , 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 7, 13(/)(d) read with 
section 13(2)-Demand of money by way illegal gratification by Judicial 
Officer-Trap laid and officer caught-Convicted by Trial Court-Acquitted 
~ 
c by High Court-Correctness of-Held : When prosecution succeeds in 
proving the case beyond reasonable doubt by credible evidence, High Court 
not justified in refusing rely upon the evidence merely on basis of certain 
minor contradictions-Hence, conviction by trial court restored-Evidence 
! -
( 
Act, 1972. 
D 
A Sessions Case was pending trial in the court of the respondent-
member of Higher Judicial service. Respondent demanded Rs. 6 lacs by 
way of illegal gratification which was reduced to Rs. 3 lacs for showing 
official favour to two accused in the Sessions Case through a Police 
E 
Constable (A-2) in his Court. One of the accused -
PW-1 sought 
permission of the Chief Justice of High Court and laid a trap and 
.....
handed over the particular amount to A-3, wife of the respondent which 
was kept by her son. Trap party recovered the same amount at the 
instance of the son and also found the respondent entertaining PW-I in 
his flat at odd hours. FIR was lodged. A-1 to A-4 were tried. Accused 
F 
persons pleaded that they were falsely implicated at the instance of the 
then Registrar of the High Court - member of Higher Judicial Service. 
A-2 was granted pardon as be turned an approver. Prosecution witnesses 
were examined. Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respond.eat 
under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention 
G 
of Corruption Act, 1988; it however acquitted his wife and son. High 
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-State against acquittal 
"' ' 
order whereas allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and acquitted 
him and also recorded adverse remarks against the Registrar of High 
Court. This Court dismissed the SLP filed by the State against acquittal 
of wife and son. The present matters concern the acquittal of Al by the 
H High Court. 
,....
38 
I -
STATE v. S. JANARDHANA RAO 
39 
Allowing the matters, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1. Order of acquittal by High Court suffers from the vice 
of perversity as it has refused to place reliance upon the evidence of 
witnesses merely on the basis of certain minor contradictions in the 
evidence of witnesses, though, they have supported the prosecution case B 
on all material particulars. Also the High Court was also not at all 
justified in making adverse remarks against the then Registrar of the 
High Court. Therefore, order of acquittal of the respondent is set aside 
and the conviction order passed by trial court is restored and the 
adverse remarks recorded in the impugned judgment against the 
Registrar are expunged. [48-D-F; 48-F-H) 
C 
1.2. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its case of illegal 
gratification against the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. 
Relying on the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it proved the following 
circumstances against the respondent, thatthe respondent(A-1) demanded D 
a sum of Rs. 6 lacs by way of illegal gratification which was later reduced 
to Rs. 3 lacs through A-2, for showing official favour to PWs 1 and 2, who 
were accused in Sessions Case, pending trial in A-1 's court; that PW-1 
met the Chief Justice of High Court and obtained permission for laying a 
trap and registering a case; that the date on which the Sessions Case was 
fixed in the respondents' court, respondent pronounced the code word 
that 'all the petitions posted to that date stand adjourned to 6th September, 
1996' to assure PW-1 that the amount was demanded on his behalf by A-
2 and to go ahead with modalities worked out earlier which was to pay the 
amount of Rs. 3 lacs in the denomination of Rs. 500 notes to his wife, at his 
house; that the amount was paid to the wife of A-1 at his house and the 
same was recovered by the trap party at the instance of son of A-1; and 
that after payment of illegal gratification to the wife of A-1, A-2 informed 
A-1 about the same on phone and fixed time with him to meet PW-1 and 
A-1 was found meeting and entertaining PW-1 in his flat in the night at 
odd hours. [48-D; 43-C-H; 44-A) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
865 of 2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9 .1.2003 of the Andhr

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