STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P. versus K. NARASIMHACHARY

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 197 · Decided: 07-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P. 
v. 
K. NARASIMHACHARY 
OCTOBER 7, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 197-Sanction for 
prosecution of a Government Servant given by Governor-Original order of 
sanction produced in court duly authenticated by authorized officer- C 
Admissibility of-Held, it is a public document and is admissible in evidence-
Any one conversant with signature of authorized officer can prove it-Proof 
by experts under Sections 45, 47 of Evidence Act not necessary and High 
Court wrongly held otherwise-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 76 to 78. 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections I 3(J)(d), 13(2)-Benefit D 
of doubt-Complainant applied for valuation of certificate of his property 
and obtained within 4 days-Allegation that accused demanded bribe of Rs. 
600 for issuance of certificate-Trap laid and sum of Rs. 600 recovered from 
his pocket-Another sum of Rs. 235 also recovered from same pocket-
Conviction under the Act-Acquitted by High Court for want of evidence- E 
Correcmess of-Held: Proof of giving and taking of bribe appearing 
doubtful-Sum of Rs. 2 3 5 taken out from same pocket not subjected to test of 
phenolphthalein-Complainant appearing ro be an influential person who 
could obtain certificate in 4 days-Two views possible and view of High 
Court cannot be said to be improbable. 
Appeal-New plea-Plea regarding inadmissibility of document not 
raised before trial court-Held: Respondent cannot be permitted to raise the 
plea for the first time before the appellate court. 
F 
Prosecution's case was that on 1.3.1994, PW-1 applied for the G 
property valuation certificate before the Revenue Officer PW-3. PW-3 
initialed the application and asked PW-I to submit it before the 
respondent. Respondent asked him to bring certain statements and 
accounts which PW-1 submitted the next day. At this stage, respondent 
made a demand of Rs. I 000 for issuance of the certificate. On negotiation, 
the amount reduced to Rs. 600. PW-I made a complaint on 5.3.1994 and H 
197 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A a trap was laid and a sum of Rs. 600 was stated to have been recovered 
from the pocket of respondent. Respondent raised defence that PW-1 
wanted valuation of land to be made Rs. 3 lacs and as he did not oblige, 
PW-I bore grudge against him and falsely implicated him. 
Special Judge held him guilty of offence punishable under Section 
B 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
c 
On appeal, High Court reversed the said findings, holding that the order 
of sanction dated 1.5.1995 was not proved by PW-6 in accordance with 
law. On merits also High Court held that the prosecution has not been 
able to prove its case against the Respondent. Hence the present appeal. 
-
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A bare perusal of the order of sanction shows that the 
Government of Andhra Pradesh, who was the competent authority to 
remove the respondent from the Government Service had after fully and 
D care(µBy examining the material placed before them in respect of 
allegations considered that he should be prosecuted in the court of law; 
whereupon the order of sanction was issued in the name of the Governor. 
Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy, Secretary to the Government, authenticated 
the said order of sanction in the manner specified in the Rules of Executive 
E Business. The authenticity of the said order has not been questioned. It 
was, therefore, a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the 
Indian Evidence Act. PW-6 proved the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan 
Reddy. Nothing was, thus, elicited in the cross-examination of the said 
witness to show that he was not a competent witness to identify the 
signature of Shri Madanmohan Reddy. The Respondent, therefore, allowed 
F the said document to be exhibited without any demur. He did not question 
the admissibility of the said document before the Trial Court, either when 
the same was exhibited or at the final hearing before the trial court. He, 
therefore, could not be permitted to question the admissibility of the said 
6ocument for the first time before the appellate court. 
G 
(202-G, H; 203-A, B, C, DJ 
Ranvir Singh and Anr. v. Union of India, (2005) AIR SCW 4565, relied 
on. 
1.2. A public document can be proved in terms of Sections 76 to 78 
H of the Evidence Act. A public document can be proved otherwise also. The 
High C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.