V. KANNAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 24-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 540 
V. KANNAN 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE · 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1590 of 2009) 
AUGUST 24, 2009 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998: s. 7, s. 13(1 )(d) r. w. 
s. 13(2) - Conviction under, by courts below - Interference with 
c - Held: Not called for - Demand and acceptance of bribe 
amount proved by prosecution -
Independent witness 
corroborated the ·evidence of complainant - Courts below 
were right in rejecting the defence version. 
State of U.P. v. Dr. G.K. Ghosh (1984) 1 SCC 254, relied 
D on. 
E 
F 
Subhash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat (2002) 5 
sec 86, distinguished. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1984) 1 sec 254. 
relied on 
Para 20 
(2002) 5 SCC 86 
distinguished 
Para 16 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1590 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.7.2008 of the High 
Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2002. 
Altaf Ahmed; S. Thananjayan for the Appellant. 
T.V. Ratnam, M. Chandra Shekhar, B.K. Prasad for the 
G Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.,., "
' 
DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted. 
H 
540 
V. KANNAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 
541 
POLICE [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.] 
-+ 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High 
A 
...... 
Court of Madras dated 4.7.2008 delivered in Criminal Appeal 
No.664 of 2002. 
3. The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this 
appeal are recapitulated as under. 
B 
4. The complainant, A. Alexander, PW1 was the proprietor 
of M/s. OLOHV Engineering Services and the company was 
doing contract work for the Railways. The company had 
completed the contract work for Rs.1 crore from 1993 to 1997. 
According to the prevalent rules, the bills could be cleared only c 
after the signature of the 'Site Engineer' in the measurement 
book. The contract work was completed in the year 1997 and 
there was a balance of Rs.9 lacs due to the complainant PW1. 
5. The appellant was the Site Engineer during the relevant 
period and he had to verify the measurements and make entry 
D 
> 
in the measurement book. The appellant informed that the 
" 
complainant PW1 had to return the unused materials to the 
Railway department. The appellant demanded a bribe amount 
of Rs.5000/- from the complainant PW1 at 9.30 am on 
1.4.1998 to clear the final bill. The appellant also informed that 
E 
the bribe amount be paid during the lunch hour on that date. 
The complainant PW1 was not willing to give the bribe amount 
and consequently at about 10.30 a.m. on 1.4.1998 he filed a 
~ · 
report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai. 
The report was handed over to Prem Anand, Inspector of Police 
F 
by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and at about 11.30 a.m. 
the above Inspector introduced the independent witnesses 
Balachander and Prakash. The complainant PW1 handed over 
the currency notes of Rs.5000/- to the Inspector and the 
Inspector demor.strated the Phenolphthalein test in the G 
presence of the independent witnesses. Subsequently, the 
Inspector prepared the entrustment mahazar and the tainted 
currency notes were placed in the shirt pocket of the 
complainant PW1 and the Inspector informed that the above 
amount should be given to the appellant on demand. The 
H 
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009r13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A complainant PW1 was told that after giving the bribe amount 
on demand he should give a signal by wiping his face with 
.. 
·handkerchief. 
6. The above witnesses and the trap team were sent to 
B 
the office of the appellant at about 1.00 pm. The complainant 
PW1and Balachander PW2 also went to the room of the 
appellant and he (the appellant) took them to the room of the 
Deputy General Manager. The appellant demanded the bribe 
amount and the complainant handed over the bribe amount to 
the appellant. The appellant started counting the currency notes 
c and Balachander PW2 went out and gave the pre-arranged 
signal to the trap team. Immediately thereafter, the Inspector 
entered into the room and introduced himself. 
7.The Sodium Carbonate test was conducted on both the 
D hands of the appellant and there was a colour change in the 
solution. The above solutions were preserved in separate 
bottles and sealed. The appellant handed over the bribe amount 
to the complainant PW1 and the serial numbers were verified 
with the entrustment mahazar and they tallied. 
E 
8. The prosecution has examined seven witne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.