LexSYED AHMED versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2012] 7 S.C.R. 887 SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (Criminal Appeal No. 1323 of 2007) JULY 31, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 & 13(1)(d) rlw A 8 s. 13(2) - Offences under - Prosecution case that appellant- a police official, demanded and accepted illegal gratification C from PW1 for inquiring into a complaint lodged by him against his neighbour - Trial court acquitted the appellant - High Court, however, reversed the acquittal of appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months - On appeal, held: There was sufficient evidence of the appellant D demanding illegal gratification from PW1 and receiving and accepting it when given by him - Testimony of PW1 was unshaken which was corroborated by the evidence of the independent eye witness PW2 - Case proved beyond any doubt - High Court justified in convicting the appellant - E However, it erred in awarding a sentence of only three months rigorous imprisonment inasmuch as s. 13(2) of the Act prescribes a minimum sentence of one year imprisonment - Nevertheless, since the State did not appeal against the quantum of sentence and the incident occurred about 19 F years back, sentence imposed by High Court not interfered with. The appellant, a police official, allegedly demanded and accepted illegal gratification from PW1 for inquiring into a complaint lodged by him against his neighbour. G Two independent persons including PW2 allegedly witnessed the transaction of delivery of the tainted currency notes to the appellant. On these broad facts, the 887 H 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A prosecution charged the appellant for committing offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court did not accept the version of the prosecution and acquitted the appellant. On appeal by the State, the High B Court held that there was no reason to disbelieve PW1, nor was there any reason to disbelieve PW2 the independent witness and accordingly, reversed the acquittal of appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved, the appellant c preferred the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The inquiry by the Trial Judge ought to have been somewhat limited and confined to the D question of a demand for illegal gratification by appellant, meeting that demand by PW1 and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the appellant. The appellant was entitled to put forward his defence, which was required to be considered by the Trial Judge. However, in this E case, no defence was put forward, but an attempt was made to discredit the witnesses. The High Court did not commit any error in reappraising the evidence for arriving at the truth of the matter and also rightly confined itself to the core issues before it in concluding the guilt of the F appellant. [Paras 27, 28] [899-E-G] 1.2. The testimony of PW1 was unshaken which was corroborated by the evidence of the eye witness PW2. PW2 specifically stated that the appellant asked PW1 if he had brought what he was told to bring; that PW1 G replied in the affirmative and thereupon gave the tainted currency notes to the appellant, which he accepted and thereafter, the appellant kept the tainted currency notes in a purse which was then placed in the pocket of his trousers hung on the wall. There is, therefore, a clear H SYED AHMED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 889 statement of PW2, which has not been shaken in cross- examination, to the effect that there was a demand for some gratification by the appellant from PW1 and that PW1 paid some money to the appellant by way of gratification. The ingredients of Section 13(1 )(d) of the Act are fulfilled in this case and have been proved beyond any doubt. In view of Explanation (d) to Section 7 of the Act, the issue whether the appellant could or could not deliver results (as it were) becomes irrelevant in view of the acceptance of the testimony of PW1 and PW2. [Paras 30, 31) [900-A-F] 1.3. The submission made by the defence that a Rs.10/- currency note recovered from the wallet of the appellant as also the wallet were not sent for forensic examination, is not relevant. The tainted currency notes given to the appellant as illegal gratification are material and not the untreated Rs.10/- currency note or the wallet in which a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.