STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. versus C.P. RAO

Citation: [2011] 6 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 16-05-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 6 S.C.R. 864 
A 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
V. 
C.P. RAO 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1098 of 2006) 
B 
MAY 16, 2011 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(2) rlw 
C s.13(1)(d) - Bribery case - Non-examination of complainant 
- Effect of - Allegation that respondent demanded illegal 
gratification from complainant CW1 for allotting pass marks 
to D-Pharma students in practical examination - Conviction 
of respondent by trial court - High Court acquitted the 
respondent on the ground that the complainant was not 
D examined - Justification of - Held: Justified - In view of the 
examination system prevailing, respondent alone was not in 
a position to allot higher marks - Besides, it is the case of 
the respondent that when CW 1 met him in a hotel room, the 
E respondent shouted that some currency notes had been thrust 
into his pocket by CW 1 - Such shouts were heard by PW-1 
and PW 2 - Their evidence could not be, in any way, shaken 
by manner of cross-examination - Further, PW 3 gave 
evidence of the previous animosity between the college 
F authorities and the respondent - In the background of these 
facts, the non-examination of CW 1 was very crucial - The 
case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 
G 
H 
Appeal - Against order of acquittal -
Scope of 
interference - Discussed. 
The prosecution case was that the respondent 
demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/- from the 
complainant CW 1 for allotting pass marks to D-Pharma 
864 
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. v. C.P. RAO 
865 
students in practical examination. The respondent was 
A 
convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 
13(1 )(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On appeal, 
the High Court acquitted the respondent on the ground 
that CW 1 was not examined and the only explanation 
given was that he was not available in the country but no 
B 
details were given as to where the complainant was. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HEDL:1. It is an admitted case that the accused-
C 
respondent alone cannot give such marks. In view of the 
examination system prevailing such marks have to be 
approved by others. The respondent alone, therefore, is 
admittedly not in a position to allot higher marks. Apart 0 
from that, it is the case of the respondent that when CW 
1 met him in a hotel room, the respondent shouted that 
some currency notes had been thrust into his pocket by 
CW 1. Such shouts of the respondent were heard by PW 
1 and PW 2. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 were 
E 
recorded by the Trial Court. The evidence of PW 1 and 
PW 2 could not be, in any way, shaken by manner of 
cross-examination. PW 3 has also given evidence of the 
previous animosity between the college authorities and 
the respondent who had an occasion to file reports with 
F 
the college authorities on ttie basis of some inspection. 
In the background of these facts, especially the non-
examination of CW 1, was very crucial. When there was 
no corroboration of testimony of the complainant 
regarding the demand of bribe by the accused, it has to 
G 
be accepted that the version of the complainant is not 
corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the 
complainant cannot be relied on. [Paras 5 and 6] [868-G-
H; 869-A-E] 
H 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Pana/a/ Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra 1979(4) 
sec 526 - relied on. 
2. Mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the 
circumstances under which it is paid, is not sufficient to 
8 convict the accused when the substantive evidence in 
the case is not reliable. The presence of the complainant 
in a bribery case is necessary. The prosecution has to 
prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any other 
criminal offence and the accused should be considered 
c innocent till it is proved to the contrary by proper proof 
of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which 
is the vital ingredient to secure the conviction in a bribery 
case. [Para 10, 11, 12) [870-8-D; 871-A-B] 
C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kera/a 
D 2009(3)SCC779; A. Subair v. State of Kera/a 2009(6) SCC 
587 - relied on. 
E 
Suraj Mal v. 
State (Delhi Admn.) 1979(4) SCC 725 -
referred to. 
3. Further, it is a well settled principle that when the 
court has to exercise its discretion in an appeal arising 
against an order of acquittal, the Court must remember 
that the innocence of the accused is further re-established 
F

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