Holding

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence, including the anthracene powder test, conclusively established both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and therefore upheld the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Summary

Baliram, a Minimum Wages Inspector, demanded Rs 100 from Shivaji Padwal for dropping an action for not maintaining a service register. Padwal complained, and a trap was arranged using currency notes treated with anthracene powder and two independent witnesses. The treated notes were offered, accepted by Baliram, and recovered; the anthracene powder test showed the powder on Baliram's hands and pocket. He was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether a demand and acceptance were proved, the admissibility of the anthracene powder test, and the permissibility of conviction under both sections. The Court found the evidence, including the powder test, established both demand and acceptance, and upheld the conviction. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved a demand for illegal gratification by the public servant.
Whether acceptance of the bribe by the appellant was established.
Whether the anthracene powder test on the currency notes and the appellant's hands is admissible and reliable evidence.
Whether conviction under both Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is permissible and what punishment is appropriate.
Whether the appellant's claim that the money was thrust upon him negates the existence of a demand.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 71
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 7

Subjects

briberydemand of illegal gratificationanthracene powder testtrap operationPrevention of Corruption Actdouble punishmentevidence admissibilityconviction

Judgment

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 447

BALIRAM S/O IRRAPPA KAMBLE
... -+ II.
A

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Crl. Appeal No.1130 of 2001)
NOVEMBER 20, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
,#- ·--t SHARMA, JJ.]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(1)(d)
rlw s. 13(2) - Demand of illegal· gratification - Complaint- Trap c
arranged - Participation of two independent witness in the trap
- Recovery of treated currency from the accused - Conviction
by courts below - On appeal, held: Prosecution has
established the case of demand as well as acceptance of
bribe money - The Anthracene Powder Test gives D
considerable support to the prosecution version.
~ ,.,_ Appella.nt-a Minimum Wages Inspector (Agriculture)
,
' was alleged to have demanded illegal gratificati~n from
PW-1 (Comp1ainant) for dropping action for not
maintaining register with regard to seriice conditions of E
his yearly servant. On 20.7.1989, since PW-1 had no
money, he wa$ asked to come on 27.7.1989. On 27.7.1989,
he made a complaint about the demand. A trap was
arr~nged. In '~he trap, when the treated currency notes
recovered from the poc~et of the appellant and his pocket F
--r. and his· hanc~s were put to Anthracence Powder Test, it
went against the appellant.
Special Judge held that prosecution proved demand
of bribe money, offer of tainted money by PW-1,
acceptance of tainted money by the appellant and G
recovery of the tainted money. The appellant was
-+ convicted u/ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w s. 13(2) of Prevention
of Corra.tption Act, 1988. Hig·h Court upheld the
447 H
~·

448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A conviction. Hence, the· present appeal. +- . .
Appellant contended that there was no demand of
bribe, as the tainted money was. thrust on him; and that
after the case against the compl.ainant was closed on
; , 26.6.1989, there was no occasion for making any
8 demand . . . ' .,.., ., !
• < • ' - "·• ~ .... ~ J .... -

Dismissing the appeal, 'the· Court
HELD: The evidence of the witnesses clearly
establishes not only ttie demand, but also the'acceptance
C of bribe money. The.Anthracene Powder test conducted
l~nds consid~ra.ble' support,~~ the p~~secuti~n version.
0

_The making of demand of bribe money is established from
the fa_cts_ th~t on ~0.7.1989, PV\1.-1 (complainant) had gone
to tile office of appellant, who deman.ded Rs.100/- from
D him. Since PW-1 had no mone.y with him o'n that day he
promised to come later. Appellant asked PW-1 to maintahi
the register and--·asked him to.come•on·.27.;i.. 1989.
·Thereafter, PW-1 contacted Deputy SR (PW-11)·and told
him about the demand.t The complaint was. recorded as
E Exh.16;·Two independent witnesses were called from the
Accounts ·Department of Zilla Parishad. They ,were
apprised of the demand of ·bribe ... Trap was .thereafter
arran·ged. The fact that in Exh.18 there is:an endorsement,
·is ·a clear indication that the. case against PW-1 ..was to
F continue, falsifies the stand of the .appellant. that no
proceeding was continuing. [Paras 4 .and 6] [454-8-D;
456-B] I • . . #' . ;.

State Represented by Inspector of Police1 Pudukottai,
T.N .. v. A Parthiban 2006-(11) SCC 473, :relied on.•~ 11.
G 'l ·• I~ ~ 1' lo, • , , !". ' . t I ,t ~

. Case Law Reference:
-·Cf ' '
. ' J • ' t .. ,.. J ... ,. • ~

· --' '200G'(11) sec 473 · ·Relied on. ·Para 5 .... .t
~ •.;;"t'·
1
1 ·., .• ···-· .. r··,.,;f •• _,· ..... ./ _.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
, H No. 1130 of 2001.
BALIRA.M S/O IRRAPPA KAMBLE v. STATE OF 449
..
MAHARASHTRA

... --+ From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.2.2001 of the A
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench atAurangabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1990.

Arun R. Pednekar and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant.
'•

Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Respondent. B
. The .Judgment ofthe Court was dellvered by
"' 't
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of tre Bombay High
Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence c
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act').
The learned Special Judge; Osmanabad, convicted the
appellant and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one
year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. D
2 .. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as
~ )· follows:

The appellant was appointed as a Minimum Wages
Inspector (Agriculture), in the month of June, 1984, by the E
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad. At the relevant'
time he was serving at Osmanabad. The appellant visited the
land belonging to complainant, Shivaji Bandu Padwal which is
situated at village Upala, taluka .and district Osmanabad on
22nd of April, 1989. In fact, this land stands in the name of the F
. --r . wife and two sons of Shivaji Padwal in the revenue record.
Laxman Kadam (PW-5) was in the ·employment of Shivaji
Pad"Val on yearly basis. He was present in the field at the
relev.ant time. Appellant made enquiry with regard to his service
conditions. Laxman Kadam (PW5) told that his yearly salary
G
was fixed at Rs.3,000/-. He did not supply necessary
-t information with regard to holidays and hours of the work. He
was not aware about. the register to be maintained by the
employer with regard to yearly servants.

The appellant issued a notice dated 24.4.1969 to Shivaji H
450
-.~-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q08] 19 S.C.R

A. Padwa1 (P\/Y-1) and asked him to see. him in his office in
+- <
connection with ser\tiee conditions of his yearly servant. Shivaji
Padwal{PW-1) did not respond to the said- n9tice'. Thereafter,
appellant issued another notice on 25 .5 .1989 to Sh ivaji Padwal
and asked him to see him in his office wi.th required registers.
s However, Shivaji Padwal did not respond to the second notice.
s~ivaji Padwal visited the office of the appellant or:11.e.1'9a9
and 15.6.1989. However, appellant was not present in the offiee.
a~d. therefore, ShivajJ Padwal could :nqt see_ appellant-. .
Shivaji Padwal went. to the office, of the appellant on.
C 22.6.1989. He met acQused in the office at 'about· 2.00 ·p.m.
Appell.ant made enquiry with Shivaji°Padwal and as~ed him.
whether he had maintained register with regard to service
conditions of his yearly servant Laxman Kadam, Shivajl Padwal
a
told appellant thathe had riot majntained register. t:f owever;
D he prqmised him to keep the 'register in future arid produce the
same ·before· h·im .. for" the· 'purpose 'ofllispection. 'lfis the
prosecution's case that appellant demanded Rs.100/- from
S..~ivaji Padwa~ for dropping the,action. for .nofmaihtaining the
register. Shivaji Padwal had no money that day and therefore
E promised
. ..., .
him
~.
to pay Rs.1001:- later. . ·
.
·· ·
On 20.7.1989, Shivaji Padwal went to the office of the.
appellant. Appellant demanded Rs.100/- fr9rrl him. Shivajf
Padwal (PW1) had no money with him that day, however, he
promised appellant to fulfil his demand. Appellant a~keg Shivaji
F Padwal (PW 1.), to maintain register 'and a$ked him to come
on 2i7.1989:0n 27:7.19'8~ at 10.30 a.in. Shivaji P~dwa1 (pW-
1) went to 'the office of Anti Corruption .Bure.au ~arid contacted
the
Dy. S. P: 'Shetkar (PW 11) and told. him' apout demar}d, of
appellant for illegal gratification. Shetkar (PW'."11}.recorded,the,
G complaint Exh. 16 lodged'by Shivaji Padwal (PW-1). Dy. SP.
I
Slietkar (PW.1,1) immediately called two'. ind¢pemdent panchas, .'t
namely; Kasfiinafh Gore (PW-:-2) ,a·nd Madhukar kµlkami f~om
the.Accounts Departmenfof Zilla.Parishad. In re$ponse io the
. re9uisition,. Ka.s~inat,h .G9re {PW-~) a~d,,Madhu.kar Ku.lkarni
H -~~peared in the office of the Anti Corruption Bureaµ. Shetkar
BALIRAM S(O IRRAPPA KAMBLE v. STATE OF 451
MAHARASHTRA [DR. AR~JIT PASAYAT, J.}

.. -+ apprised them about the complaint of Shivaji Padwal. Shetkar A
(PW-11) then arranged a trap. Shivaji Padwal presented one
currency note of denomination of Rs.50/- and five currency notes
of denomination ofRs.10/'-. The currency notes were treated
with anthracene powder. Shetkar (PW-11) told Shivaji Padwal
and two panchas ab.out the properties of anthraeene powder. a
He told them that if treated currency notes are seen by naked.
eye in ordinary light, the currency notes do not emit any light·or
shining. He further told them that if the treated currency note is
examined in the light of ultraviolet lamp, the treated currency
notes emit a particular colour or shining. He gave a c
demonstration with the help of an ultraviolet lamp. He gave usual
instructions to the members of the raiding party. Treated
currency notes were kept in the right side pant pocket of Shjvaji
Padwal. Complainant Shivaji Padwal (PW-1) was asked to
offer the treated currency notes to appellant only on demand.
P.anch Kash.inath Gore was asked to accompany $hivaji D
Padwal. Panch Madhukar Kulkarni was. asked to accompany
the members of the raiding party. A deta.iled. pre-trap
panchanama Exh .20 was prepared.
. . .$hivaji Padwal (PW 1) .and Kashinath Gore (PW 2) went E
to. th~ offic~ .of appellant at 3.45 p.m. 011 27. 7.1989. Appellant
was nqt present· in the office. Shivaji Padwal and Pan ch
Kashinath Gore contacted Dy. S.P; Shetkar (PW 11) and told
him that accused was not present in the office. Shetkar (PW-
11) asked them to wait in the office of appellant and accordingly F
both of them returned to the office of the appellant. After some
time, appellant came to the. office and occupied his chair.
Shivaji Padwal (PW 1) and panch Gore (PW-2) sat on the
Bench. Shivaji Padwal (PW-1) opened the topic. Appellant
asked him whether he had brought the money. ~hivaji Padwal G
replied in the affirmative. Appellant then took out Exh. 18 and
made endorseme.nt. Appellant put his signature (Exh. 17).
Thereafter, Shivaji Pad\f!al took out the treated currency notes
from his right side pant pocket and. offered the .treated money
to the appellant. The appellant accepted the treated money with H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
. . ,-

A his,right;hand. Appellantcounted_the gurrency notes by both the
hands and kept the currency notes in the right-sidepoc~et'of +-
his pant,.· · · ,. \' · - -
. ;· _ , . I · ' "' '." ( ··· # • f ·- • , ·:.

,· After delivery of the tainted money, .Shivaji Padwa.tgave.
sig.nal to the m~mbers of the raiding party ...The mernbers of ~he
8 raiding party immediately entered_ the. office of the appellant. •
Police Head . Constable. Mane immediately caught bpth tlJe
hands of the appellant. On enquiry, appellant told Shetkar (PW-:
11) that currency.notes were in the right side pocket of_ his pant.
Shivaji PadwaL was asked to go outside .the office .and
c accordingly he went outside the office. Inspector, Gaedade who
was member of the raiding party put on the ult_raviolet lamp and
in the said light hands of all the members of the 'raiding party
including two panchas and Shetkar 'f
(PW-11) we~e examined.
Anthracene powder wa·s not seen on the hands of the members
D of the raiding party .. Thereafter, bot~ the ~ands of accused were
examined in the light of.ultraviolet lamp. Antnracene. Powqer
was found on both the hands of the appellant. In the light of
ultraviolet lamp, the finger tips of both the hands of th~ appeUant.
emitted a particular shining. Shetkar (PW-11) then asked panch
·E Madhukar.Kulkarni to take-out the treated cur(ency notes from
the right .side pocket-of the pant of the appellant and in response
to the- instructions, Panch Madhukar Kulkarni took out the
treated currency notes: The treated currency. notes and the inner
portion of the right side pant: pocket of the- appellant were
F examined in the light of ultrayi_o1et lamp. The treated currency
notes and the inner portion of the right side pant pocket of the
appellant emitted a shining. A.currency note of.den9mination
of Rs2/"l.which was found in the right side pant pocket of the·
accused was also recovered_and was exami.ned in the light,of
G ultraviolet lamp. the currency note of ~s.2/- emitt~d,ashihJng.
However, anthracene·powder was not noticed on the remaining .
three currency note.s of Rs.2/- which were found -kept inside the
fold of the upper currency note of denomination of Rs.2/- which .t
emitted the shining. All the articles were attached undec
H panchnama. -The document i.e. Ext:i. 18 ori, which-appel!ant hacf -
BALIRAM S/O IRRAPPA KAMBLE v. STATE OF 453
MAHARASHTRA [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~ -1 made endorsement was also attached from the custody of the A
appellant. Complainant Shivaji Padwal was called inside the
office. His right hand and inner portion of his right side pant
pocket were examined in the light of the ultraviolet lamp. The
finger tips of his right hand and inner portion of the right side
pocket of his pant emitted shining. A detailed post trap B
j
panchnama Exh. 21 was prepared.
...t .,
Dy. S.P. Shetkar lodged FIR, Exh.39 on 28.7.1989. On the
basis of FIR Exh.39 crime No.29/1989 was registered under
Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Dy. S.P.
Shetkar (PW-11) carried out the investigation of the crime. After
c
obtaining the sanction (Exh.37) from Dy. Commissioner of
Labour, Aurangabad, Shetkar submitted charge sheet on
31.12.1989. Learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, framed
charge (Exh. 10) against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty
to the charge and claimed to be tried. D
~

_,/
. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution
examined 11 witnesses. The appellant accused put forth the
plantation theory. According to him, Shivaji Padwal forcibly
inserted treated currency notes into his right side pant pocket E
on 27.7.1989. He offered resistance to Shivaji Padwal at that
time. In the process of resistance, the anthracene powder was
transmitted to the finger tips of both his hands.

The learned Special Judge held that the prosecution
F
-t proved the demand of bribe money, offer of tainted money by
PW 1 and acceptance of tainted money by the appellant and
recovery of tainted money from the person. Accordingly, he was
convicted.

The stand of the appellant before the High Court was that G
money was thrusted on him and there was no scope for making
1 any demand. The relevant dates are 24.4.89, 25.5.89, 1.6.89
and 15.6.89. That being so, the complaint which was filed on
27.9.89 appears to be ma/a fide and which is apparent from
the fact that the raid was made on 27.7.89. The endorsement H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A on Exh.18 on 26.6.89 has not been established ·to have been
done by the appellant. After the case was closed on 26.6.89,
~ .
there was no occasion for making any d·emand. ,_
)...
3. ·Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand l
supported the judgmen~ of the High Court.
8
4. So far as the stand that there was no demand made, E
as noted above on 20.7.1989, PW-1 had gone to the office of -r ......
appellant who demanded Rs.100/- from him. Since PW-1 had I
no money with him on that day he promised to come later. l
c Appellant asked PW-1 to maintain the register and asked him ~

to come on 27.7.1989. Thereafter, PW-1 contacted Deputy SP
(PW-11) and told him about the demand. The complaint was
recorded as Exh.16. Two independent witnesses PW 2 and one \
Madhukar Kulkarni were called from the Accounts Department I
D of Zilla Parishad. They were apprised of the demand of bribe.
Trap was thereafter arranged.The fact that in Exh.18 there is
an endorsement, is a clear indication that the case was to r

continue, falsifies the. stand of the appellant that no proceeding ~ ~
was continuing. 'I.__
E ~

· 5. So far as the question regarding no demand is
concerned, this Court in State Represented by Inspector of ""°
Police, Pudukottai, T.N. v. A. Parthiban (2006 (11) SCC 473)
observed as follows:

F · "5. The stand that respondent could not have been
simultaneously convicted for offences relatable to Section ~ <
~

7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act,
as held by the High Court is clearly unacceptable. Section )-

71 IPC provides the complete answer. The same reads
G as follows:

"71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of
several offences. - Where anything which is an
.t- r-
offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is
itself an offence, ·the offender shall not be punished
H
BALIRAM S/O IRRAPPA KAMBLE v. STATE OF 455
MAHARASHTRA [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

with the punishment of more than one of such his A
offences, unless it be so expressly provided.

Where anything is an offence falling within two or
more separate definitions of any law in force for the
time being by which offences are defined or 8
punished, or

where several acts, of which one or more than one
would by itself or themselves constitute an offence,
constitute, when combined, a different offence,
c
the offender shall not be punished. with a more
severe punishment than the court which tries him
could award for any one of such offences."

Xx xx xx
D
8. Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether
preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by
Section 7 of the Act. But if the acceptance of an illegal
gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public
servant, then it would also fall under section 13(1)(d) of the E
Act. The act alleged against the respondent, of demanding
and receiving illegal gratification constitutes an offence
both under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
The offence being a single transaction, but falling under two
different Sections, the offender cannot be liable for double F
penalty. But the High Court committed an error in holding
that a single act of receiving an illegal gratification, where
there was demand and acceptance, cannot be an offence
both under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
As the offence is one which falls under two different G
sections providing different punishments, the offender
should not be punished with a more severe punishment
than the court could award to the person for any one of the
two offences. In this case, minimum punishment under
Section 7 is six months and the minimum punishment H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A under Section 13( 1)(d) is one year. If an offence falls under
both Sections} and 13(1)(d) and the court wants to award
qnly the minimum punishment, the.n the punishment would
• be.one year. "- . - .
' ... . ~ - ,,
6. The evidence of the witnesses dearly establishes not
8
only the demand, but also the acceptance. The anthracene
powder test conducted lends considerable support to the
prosecution version. + "'
7. Above being the position, there is no merit in this appeal
C which is dismissed accordingly.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

+

..-. ,.. •'