LexSYED YOUSUF HUSSAIN versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 2 S.C.R. 528 SYED YOUSUF HUSSAIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2013) APRIL 05, 2013 [K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: c ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with s.13(2) of the Act, read with s. 34 /PC - Demanding and accepting of illegal gratification - Conviction of two accused by courts below - Plea of appellant that he did not demand nor did he receive the amount - Held: It has been established by the evidence on record that both D the accused persons were on duty at the relevant time and place, the vehicle was intercepted, tainted currency notes were recovered from co-accused, documents were returned back to complainant and no case for any traffic violation was registered - Conclusion arrived at by trial court that the E appellant was involved in commission of the crime, as affirmed by the High Court cannot be found fault with - Penal Code, 1860 - s.34. The appellant and A-2, who were members of Traffic Police, were prosecuted for demanding and accepting F illegal gratification. The case of the prosecution was that on 4.1.1994 the vehicle driven by PW-2 was intercepted by the appellant and A-2. The appellant took the documents of the vehicle. A demand for Rs.100 was made to return the documents and not to book any case G for traffic violations. PW-2 made a complaint. A trap was laid. A-2 accepted the bribe in presence of the appellant and returned the documents. On signal being given, the trap party reached the place and seized the amount from A-2. The trial court convicted both the accused persons H 528 SYED YOUSUF HUSSAIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA 529 PRADESH u/ss 7 and 13(1)(d) read with s.13(2) of the Prevention of A Corruption Act, 1988 and s. 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for 1 year u/s 7 and 2 years u/s 13(1 )(d) read with s.13(2) of the Act. The High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to six months and one year respectively. The SLP of A-2 was B dismissed. In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to establish the common intention. Dismissing the appeal, the Court c_ HELD: On a careful appreciation of the evidence, certain aspects are absolutely clear, namely, (i) interception of the vehicle at the instance of the appellant, D (ii) the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence along with A-2 (iii) the direction given by the appellant to PW~2 to contact A-2 who was standing nearby (iv) his presence at the police station in the central room when PW-2 went to meet A-2, (v) recovery of tainted E currency from Aft2; (vi) delivery of docu.ments of the vehicle; and eventually, (vii) non-registration of any case for traffic violation against Pw-2: The conclusion arrived at by the trial Judge which has been concurred with by the High C.ourt that the" appellant was involved in the commission of the crime, cannot be found fault with. [para 15] (538-A-D] F Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab 1962 Suppl. SeR 848 =AIR 1963 SC 174; Suresh and Another v. State of U.P. 2001 ( 2) seR 263 = (2001) 3 sec 673; Lal/an Rai and Others v. G State of Bihar 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 188 = 2003 (1) sec 268; Rotash v. State of Rajasthan 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 264 = 2006 (12) sec 64. relied on. H 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 2 S.C.R. A Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor AIR 1925 PC B c D E F 1; Mahbub Shah v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118 • referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 1925 PC 1 referred to para 9 AIR 1945 PC 118 referred to para 10 1962 Suppl. SCR 848 relied on para 11 2001 (2) SCR 263 relied on para 12 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 188 relied on para 13 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 264 relied on para 14 CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.02.2012 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2005. Subrat Birla, Subhash Chandra Birla for the Appellant. D. Mahesh Babu, Mayur R. Shah, Pinaki Shishir for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2005 passed by the G High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the Division Bench, while maintain
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.