STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus KAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 13-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF WEST BENGAL 
A 
v. 
KAILASH CHANDRA PANDEY 
OCTOBER 13, 2004 
[D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 7-Demand of money by 
way of illegal gratification by accused-Trap laid, accused apprehended a~d 
currency notes recovered from his pocket-Conviction under-Acquittal by 
High Court on basis of infirmities in the prosecution case-Justification of- C 
Held: Non-signing of accused on seizure list, non-sending of currency notes 
and pant for Forensic Chemical Examination, non-seizure of pyjama given 
to accused to wear after taking the pant, money kept in the left hand pocket 
but hand wash taken of right hand, bills passed prior to tender of money to 
accused and non-production of envelope does not improbablise the D 
prosecution case-Prosecution case based on sufficient, cogent and reliable 
evidence-Hence, conviction justified and order of High Court set aside. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Re-appreciation of evidenc~ 
by appellate court-Scope of-Held: Since trial court is in a better position 
to appreciate evidence, appellate court should be slow in re-appreciating E 
evidence-It should not set aside the appreciation done by trial court except 
for cogent reasons. 
· 
According to the prosecution, complainant was sanctioned a cleaning 
contract at the International Airport for certain period. He raised the bills, 
for payment. Respondent - Deputy Manager (Airport) demanded illegal money p 
for passing the bills. Complainant filed a complaint Thereafter, trap was laid 
and respondent - accused was apprehended and currency notes were recovered , 
from his pocket. Charges were framed. Prosecution witnesses we.re examined. 
Trial Court convicted and sentenced the respondent under section 7 of the ' 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, the High Court acquitted the 
respondent on the ground that no signature of accused was taken on seizure' G 
list; that the currency notes and pant were not sent to Forensic Laboratory 
for chemical examination; that the pyjama given to the accused to wear after 
taking the pant was not produced; that the money was kept in the left hand 
pocket but the hand wash was taken of the right hand; that the amount covered 
437 
H 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A by impugned bills had already been released prior to the alleged tender of 
money; and that the envelope containing ~lleged money was not produced. 
Hence the present appeal. 
· 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. In the present case, there were no imp;obabilities in the 
prosecution case. The prosecution has led sufficient, cogent and reliwte 
evidence to fully substantiate the allegation against the accused but the High 
Court was not correct in taking a very easy approach to improbablise the 
prosecution case. (449-F-H] 
C 
1.2. With regard to the ground of non-signing of the .accused on the 
seizure list, the Investigating Officers stated that the accused refused to sign 
on the seizure list. The prosecution cannot force him to append his signature 
on the seizure memo if he refused to sign. Therefore, just because the accused 
did not append the signature on the seizure memo, it cannot be a ground to 
D improbablise the prosecution story. (447-G-H],-
1.3. When the currency notes which were mixed with the phenolphthalein 
powder were handled by the accused ihe hands of the accused and the pant 
pocket used with currency notes was washed in a water bowl and the colour 
of the water turned pink. The hand and pant wash which was kept in bottles 
E were sent for chemical examination, which is sufficient to conne~t the accused 
with the commission of the crime. Just because the notes and pant were not 
sent for F.S.L. examination, it cannot be~ ground to disbelieve the prosecution 
story. Furthermore, the pant of the accused was produced and exhibited in the 
Court and the pant has been identified by one of the prosecution witnesses. It 
is very strange that the pyjama which was given to the accused to wear that 
F was not requi.red.to be seized or produced before the court because the accused 
could not be permitted to go naked without wearing anything since his pant 
was already seized. [448·A-C] 
1.4. The entire prosecution story cannot be disbelieved on the ground 
G that when the money was allegedly received by the right hand of the accused, 
it was kept in the left hand pocket but hand wash was taken of the right hand 
only si

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