T. SUBRAMANIAM versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 180 · Decided: 04-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T. SUBRAMANIAM 
V. 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
JANUARY 4, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Ser\!ice law: 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Section 5(1 )(d) rlw Section 5(2)/ 
C Penal Code, 1860; Section 161.-
lllegal gratification ullegedly accepted by un executive officer of a 
temple---Complaint ugainst- --Acquilla/ by Trial Court as ingredients uf the 
offence alleged not established--Reversed by High Court- -On appeu/, Held: 
D The High Court did not consider the explanation given hy the uccused officer 
immediately afier being caught accepting bribe that the amount so received 
by him was toward~ the arrear of rent due-Nor did it hold the decision of the 
trial Court erroneous by re-appreciating evidence to the effect--The evidence 
throws out a clear alternative that the accused was falsely implicated at the 
instance of the complainant and others---Since two views possible from the 
E very same evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved beyond 
reasonable doubt acceptance of illegal gratification-Under the circumstances, 
Trial Court rightly held that the charge against the accused nut proved--
Thus, High Court was nut justified in interfering with the order of the Trial 
Court-Hence, order of the Trial Court restored. 
F 
The complainant-PW I along with his friend-PW2, when approached 
the appellant-Executive Officer of the Temple for securing patta in his 
favour in respect of certain land, the accused allegedly demanded bribe 
from him. The complainant paid part of the sum demanded to the 
appellant. In the meantime, he filed a complaint against the officer for 
G demanding bribe. Officers of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, 
with the help of Police, caught the appellant red-handed, accepting bribe 
from PW2 on behalf of the complainant. Trial Court held that the accused 
employee had given a satisfactory explanation for receiving the amount 
in question towards lease rent arrears due from him and also the 
prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt three essential 
H 
180 
) 
T. SUBRAMANIAM r. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
181 
ingredients of illegal gratification, namely, the demand, delivery and A 
acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification against the accused and 
acquitted him. On appeal, the High Court reversed the order of the trial 
Court and convicted the accused under Section 5(1 )(d) r/w Section 5(2) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD. 1.1. Mere receipt of a sum of Rs.200/- by the accused-
appellant from PW-I would not be sufficient to fasten guilt under Section 
5(1)(a) or Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in the 
B 
absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal C 
gratification by him. If the amount in question had been paid as lease rent 
arrears due to the temple or even if it was not so paid, but the appellant 
was made to believe that the payD)ent .was towards lease rent due to the 
temple, he cannot be said to have committed any offence. If the reason 
for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and 
reasonable, then the appellant had to be acquitted, as rightly done by the D 
Special Court. 1185-G-H; 186-A 1 
Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra, 120021 to SCC 371; Chaturdas 
Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat, AIR (1976) SC 1497 and State 
through Inspector of Police, Andhra Pradesh v. K. Narasimhachary, (2005) 
8 SCALE 2669, relied on. 
E 
1.2. The High Court did not consider the explanation offered by the 
appellant for the receipt of the money and the previous enmity harboured 
by PW-I, PW-2 and PW-6 towards him. Nor did it hold that the decision 
of the trial Court was erroneous or perverse. High Court by re-
apprei:iating the very evidence on which the Trial Court had reached the F 
conclusion that the payment was not by way of an illegal gratification but 
was towards lease rent due by PW-6 and paid through PW-I, and relying 
on the evidence of PW-I, PW-2 and PW-6, it concluded that the payment 
was by way of illegal gratification. in particular, it relied on the denial by 
PW-6 that he had sent any amount through PW-I, against the appellant. G 
But the mere denial by PW-6 cannot be a ground to hold the appellant 
guilty. If PWs.l, 2 and 6 had hatched a conspiracy to involve the appellant 
in a criminal case, naturally PW-6 would deny having sent the amount 
through PW-I. The e

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