UNION OF INDIA THROUGH INSPECTOR, CBI versus PURNANDU BISWAS

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 181 · Decided: 07-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH INSPECTOR, CBI 
A 
V. 
PURNANDU BISWAS 
OCTOBER 7, 2005 
[S.B. SINHA AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Corruption Act, I 988: 
Section I 3(J)(d) read with Section I 3(2)-lllegal gratification-
Presumption under-Accused, a Surveyor in Mercantile Marine Department C 
of Government of India at a Seaport, demanded a certain sum as illegal 
gratification from a subagent for clearance of a merchant vessel-Accused 
made inspection of the said vessel and found certain defects, which were 
rectified by the Master of the vessel-The vessel was subsequently released-
However, demand of gratification continued on the premise that unless the D 
amount was paid other vessels of the subagent would be detained-
Subsequently, complaint was made to CBI and a trap was arranged-Accused 
accepted currency notes which were kept by him in a suitcase-Trial court 
convicted accused-But High Court acquitted him-Correctness of-Held: ft 
is wholly unlikely that the accused would keep a suitcase ready for keeping 
the currency notes-The Inspector searched the house of the accused without E 
a warrant which showed overzealousness-Moreover, the subagent bore a 
grudge against the accused-A material document which was in favour of the 
accused not annexed to the charge sheet-Presumption under S. 20 not attracted 
as the accused was charged under S. I 3(1)(d) dw S. I 3(2)-Hence, acquittal 
justified. 
F 
The respondent was working as a Surveyor in the Mercantile Marine 
Department of Government of India at a Seaport. While on duty the 
respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 by way of illegal gratification 
from PW-3 who was a subagent for giving clearance certificate in respect 
of a merchant vessel. An inspection of the said vessel was made by the G 
respondent and certain defects were found which having been rectified 
by the Master, it was released. However, the demand of gratification 
continued on the premise that unless the amount was paid other vessels 
of the said subagent would be detained. 
181 
H 
182 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Subsequently, a complaint was made to the CBI and a trap was 
arranged. PW-4 told the respondent that he had brought the amount as 
per request and also gave his visiting card and requested for his 
cooperation. The respondent kept the currency notes in a suitcase. PW-8 
compared the number of the currency notes and seized the same. The 
B suitcase was not put to the chemic11l test. 
The trial court convicted the respondent under Section 13(1 )( d) read 
with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, 
the High Court acquitted the respondent. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent-accused, it was contended that PW-3, 
C admittedly, bore a grudge against the respondent for his purported 
demand of money, and that the prosecution had suppressed a material 
D 
document which was in favour of the respondent. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The charge framed against the respondent in terms of 
Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was that while on 
duty on 15.7.1992, he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000 as illegal gratification 
from PW-3, the subagent, for giving clearance certificate for the merchant 
vessel and pursuant to the said demand, he was offered the said amount 
E which he accepted on 17.7.1992 as a motive or reward for issuing clearance 
certificate for the said vessel. No charge was framed against the respondent 
that he continued with his demand despite releasing the said vessel stating 
that if, the said amount is not paid, he would detain another vessel of which 
PW-3 was the subagent. It is not disputed that the respondent had the 
authority to make inspection of the said vessel at the seaport. It is further 
F not in dispute that when defects in the vessel were pointed out the Master 
thereof was required to remove the same. The surveyor is merely 
concerned with the inspection of the vessel whereupon he may point out 
certain defects. Only when such defects are rectified the vessel is released. 
All the materials on record including the documents which were seized 
G on 17.7.1992 disclose that the defects were pointed out to the Master of 
the vessel and the same having been rectified, it was allowed to leave the 
harbour on 16.7.1992. The prosecution case, as disclosed by PW-3, was 
that on his request the same was done, as he had stated that a sum of Rs. 
50,000 would be paid by him failing w

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