L. LAXMIKANTAversusSTATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA

                         [2015] 1 S.C.R. 1022


A                           L. LAXMIKANTA
                                    v.
    STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LOKAYUKTA
             (Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2012)
                         FEBRUARY 5, 2015
B
        [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
               ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

        Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
c
        ss. 7, 13(1)(d) rlw s. 13(2) - Demand of illegal gratification
    and its acceptance - Conviction by courts below - Held:
    There was no infirmity in the evidence of complainant and
    shadow witness which was consistent on the issue of demand
0   and acceptance of illegal gratification from the complainant
    and is without any contradiction - Conviction upheld.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. A perusal of evidence of complainant (PW-
E 3) and the shadow witness (PW-4) showed that it was
  consistent on the issue of demand and acceptance of
  illegal gratification from the complainant and was without
  any contradiction. There w,as, therefore, no reason to
  disbelieve the testimony of PW-3 (complainant) when he
F deposed that the appellant made a demand of Rs. 20001
  - from him for allotment of a room in the hostel. It is not
  in dispute that PW-3 was staying in the Hostel, and had
  applied for re-admission for allotment of room in the
  hostel. The appellant being the Warden of the hostel
G knew the complainant. Four currency notes (each Rs.
  5001- denomination) were given to the appellant which he
  kept in his trousers' pocket and they changed their
  colour (pink) when mixed in solution along with his
  hands and trousers' pocket. PW-7, a police inspector
H                                 1022
 L. LAXMIKANTA v. STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF         1023
              POLICE, LOKAYUKTA

(1.0.) of Lokayukta, who investigated the case, duly          A
proved the articles. There was no evidence of the defense
to discard the evidence of prosecution on this material
issue. [Para 14) [1028-E-H]

     2. The courts below, rightly did not believe the
version of DW-1 and DW-2. DW-1 is the student who was         B
occupying one room in the hostel. According to him,
when he was coming out from the bathroom, he saw that
complainant and his friend were forcing the appellant to
accept the money, which the appellant was refusing to
accept while standing in the passage. DW-2 deposed that       C
he saw appellant along with the complainant and one
person standing in the passage where complainant was
seen offering money to the appellant. There was nothing
in the defence version which deserves acceptance to
acquit the appellant of the charges leveled against him.      D
The story that complainant was forcing the appellant to
accept the money and which he was not accepting is
unbelievable in the light of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution because the trap was arranged in room No.5
and not in the passage. Both the students (DW-1 and 2)        E
were the chance witnesses who came forward to help the
appellant and even according to appellant, he did not
dispute that money was recovered from his body. It was
not the case of appellant that there was some previous
lawful money transaction between him and complainant          F
pursuant to which complainant repaid the said money to
appellant. [Paras 15 and 16) [1029-A-F]

     3. Once the demand and voluntary acceptance of
illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are proved   G
by evidence then conviction must follow under Section
7 against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements
are sine qua non for proving the offence under Section
7. [Para 18) [1030-B-C]

                                                              H
    1024     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2015) 1 S.C.R.


A        4. Twin requirements of demand and acceptance of
    illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- were proved on the basis
    of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the
    appellant and hence the appellant was rightly convicted
    and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section
8   7 read with and Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2)
    of the Act. [Para 19) [1030-D, E]

       C.M. Sharma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 15
    sec 1: 201 o (13) SCR 1105 - relied on.
c                        Case Law Reference :
        2010 (13) SCR 1105          relied on            Para 18

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 593 of 2012.
D
        From the Judgment and Order dated 24.05.2011 of the
    High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.
    1792 of 2004.

       Anurag Tomar, Dharam Singh, Naik H. K. (For Naresh
E   Kumar) for the Appellant.

        8. V. Niren, V. N. Raghupathy, Prasouk Jain for the
    Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
          ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This criminal appeal
    is filed by the accused against the judgment and final order
    dated 24.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in
    Criminal Appeal No.1792 of 2004.
G
       2. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the
  appeal filed by the appellant (accused) and confirmed the
  judgment of the trial court which convicted the appellant for the
  offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with
H Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for
  L. LAXMIKANTA v. STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF 1025
  POLICE, LOKAYUKTA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.)
short "the Act') and sentenced him to undergo two years' RI and        A
to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in respect of conviction for the offence
punishable under Section 7 and to undergo four years' RI and
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in respect of conviction for the
offences punishable under Section 13{1){d) and Section 13 (2)
of the Act with respective default clauses therein to suffer further   B
imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.

    3. The question which arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the Courts below were justified in convicting        C
and awarding sentences to the appellant for the offences
specified above?

      4. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant,
relevant facts, which lie in a narrow compass, need mention
infra.                                                                 D

     5. The appellant was working as a Warden of a hostel of
college known as "Medical and Engineering College {SC/ST)
Hostel at Banashankari I Stage, Bangalore". The Hostel is run
by the Social Welfare Department of the State. The
                                                                       E
complainant {PW-3) was the student of B.E. Course during
1999-2000 and was occupying one room in the hostel. He
failed in second semester and, therefore, appeared in the
examination and was declared pass in 2001. This enabled him
to join the third semester. However, the complainant was
                                                                       F
required to apply afresh to seek re-admission in the hostel
because he could not clear the examination as provided in the
Hostel Rules. The complainant, therefore, made a fresh
application to the Hostel Authorities seeking re-admission and
allotment of a room. His application was to be forwarded to the
District Officer through the appellant,after getting countersigned     G
from the Principal of the College. The appellant did not provide
hostel facilities to the complainant and compelled him to
frequently visit his office to clear his file. The accused also told
the complainant that he {complainant) would get re-admission
                                                                       H
    1026     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   in the hostel only after paying to him (appellant) Rs. 2000/- as
    illegal gratification.

         6. The complainant finding that he would not get re-
    admission in the hostel unless he pays Rs. 2000/- to the
    appellant by way of illegal gratification, went to the Office of
8
    Lokayukta and lodged complaint (Ex-P-9) about this incident
    against the appellant. The Lokayukta officials found substance
    in the appellant's complaint and accordingly registered the
    complaint for giving effect to it. Four currency notes of Rs.500/
C   - denomination (total Rs. 2000/-) were, accordingly, prepared
    by smearing sodium carbonate on each note and were given
    to the complainant by CW-3. The complainant was asked to
    keep four notes in his pocket by CW-14. The complainant and
    raiding party sleuths (CW-2, CW-3 and CW-14) went to the
    Hostel in Lokayukta's Police Jeep on 03.12.2001 at around
D   4.15 p.m. At about 6.30 p.m, the appellant came in the office.
    The appellant entertained the complainant and shadow witness
    (PW-4) and first took them to his chamber and then told them
    to go to room No. 5 and wait in the room. The appellant then
    around 7.00/7.15 p.m. came in the room and demanded the
E   amount from the complainant. The complainant then gave the
    currency notes of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant, which were
    smeared with the solution. The appellant took the notes in his
    right hand and then kept them in the left hand side pocket of
    his trouser. The raiding party then arrived and trapped the
F   appellant. His hands were immersed in the chemical solution,
    which on being dipped, turned into pink colour. The appellant's
    paint was also immersed in the solution, which also turned into
    pink colour (M0-2).

G      7. The raiding party then prepared the panchnama (Ex-P-
  18) and after completing the investigation and obtaining
  necessary sanction, filed charge-sheet (Ex-P-4) against the
  appellant for his prosecution in relation to the offences
  punishable under Sections 7, 13(1 )(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The
H prosecution examined 8 witnesses, whereas the appellant, in
 L. LAXMIKANTA v. STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF                1027
 POLICE, LOKAYUKTA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

his defense, examined 6 witnesses. His statement was also            A
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

    8. The trial court, by judgment dated 16.12.2004, held that
mandatory requirements of Section 7 read with Section 13
namely; demand of illegal gratification and its acceptance were      8
proved against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt by
the prosecution and hence, the appellant was liable to be
convicted for the offences in question. He was, accordingly,
convicted and directed to undergo sentences as mentioned
above.
                                                                     c
    9. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal before
the High Court. The High Court by impugned judgment,
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence
awarded by the Sessions Court. It is against this judgment; the
accused felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by special leave.       D

     10. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the
legality and correctness of the impugned judgment contended
that twin requirements of Section 7 namely; demand of illegal
gratification and its eventual acceptance by the appellant from      E
the complainant were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by
the prosecution and hence, the conviction of the appellant is
bad in law. Learned counsel urged that the Courts below should
have believed the defence version which was more plausible.
Learned counsel elaborated these submissions by taking us
                                                                     F
through the evidence on record. Learned counsel lastly
submitted that since the High Court decided the appeal on
merits in the absence of appellant's counsel, hence the case
be remanded to the High Court for rehearing of the appeal on
merits afresh.
                                                                     G
     11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, in reply,
contended that no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment as according to him twin mandatory
requirements of Section 7, namely; demand of gratification and
its acceptance by the appellant from the complainant were            H
    1028     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015) 1 S.C.R.


A   made out by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and
    hence the appeal deserves dismissal.

         12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
    on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in any of
    the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
8
        13. With a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether a case
  of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification which are
  sine qua non for sustaining conviction under Section 7 read
  with Section 13 ibid of the accused are made out, we perused
C the entire evidence. Having so perused, we are also of the view
  that twin requirements of demand and acceptance of illegal
  gratification were rightly held proved against the appellant by
  the Courts below and hence, no fault can be found in the
  findings of the Courts below on this material issue for upholding
D the conviction of the appellant.

       14. On perusal of evidence of complainant (PW-3) and the
  shadow witness (PW-4), we find that it is consistent on the
  issue of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from
E the complainant and is without any contradiction. There is,
  therefore, no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-3
  (complainant) when he deposed that the appellant made a
  demand of Rs. 2000/- from him for allotment of a room in the
  hostel. It is not in dispute that PW-3 was staying in the Hostel,
  and had applied for re-admission for allotment of room in the
F hostel. It is also not in dispute that appellant being the Warden
  of the hostel knew the complainant. It is also not in dispute that
  four currency notes (each Rs. 500/- denomination) were given
  to the appellant which he kept in his trousers' pocket and they
  changed their colour (pink) when mixed in solution along with
G his hands and trousers' pocket.( Ex-P-18 ). PW-7 a police
  inspector (1.0.) of Lokayukta, who investigated the case, duly
  proved the articles. We have not been able to find any evidence
  of the defense to discard the evidence of prosecution on this
  material issue.
H
   L. LAXMIKANTA v. STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF 1029
   POl,.ICE, LOKAYUKTA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

        15. We are not inclined to believe the defence version of    A
  DW-1 and DW-2 as, in our considered view, the Courts below,
- rightly did not believe their version. OW-1 is the student who
  was occupying one room in the hostel. According to him, when
  he was coming out from the bathroom, he saw that complainant
  and his friend were forcing the appellant to accept the money,     B
  which the appellant was refusing to accept while standing in the
  passage. He further deposed that he does not know as to what
  happened thereafter because he went to his room. So far as
  DW-2 is concerned, he is also the student like DW-1. He
  deposed that he saw appellant along with the complainant and       c
  one person standing in the passage where complainant was
  seen offering money to the appellant. He said that he then
  proceeded to his room and did not see what had happened
  tQ_ereafter.

       16. This evidence, in our considered view, does not help      D
 the appellant in any manner for more than one reason.
 Firstly, there is nothing in the defence version which deserves
 acceptance to acquit the appellant of the charges leveled
 against him. Secondly, the story that complainant was forcing
 the appellant to accept the money and which he was not              E
 accepting is unbelievable in the light of the evidence adduced
 by the prosecution because the trap was arranged in room No.5
 and not in the passage. Thirdly, both the students (DW-1 and
 2) were the chance witnesses who came forward to help the
 appellant and lastly, even according to appellant, he did not       F
 dispute that money was recovered from his body. It was not the
 case of appellant that there was some previous lawful money
 transaction between him and complainant pursuant to which
 9omplainant repaid the said money to appellant. So far as the
 evidence of other defence witnesses is concerned, we have           G
 perused their evidence and find no relevancy in their evidence.
 None of these witnesses have witnessed the incident and hence
 their evidence does not in any way help the appellant.

      17. The two Courts below, therefore, rightly rejected the      H
    1030     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1 S.C.R.


A   defence version being totally devoid of any merit. We concur
    with the reasoning of the Courts below on this issue and
    accordingly uphold the same.

       18. It is a settled principle in law laid down by this Court in
B a number of decisions that once the demand and voluntary
  acceptance of illegal gratification knowing it to be the bribe are
  proved by evidence then conviction must follow under Section
  7 ibid against the accused. Indeed, these twin requirements are
  sine qua non for proving the offence under Section 7 ibid. (See-
C C.M. Sharma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2010) 15 SCC
  1].

       19. In the light of our own re-appraisal of the evidence and
  keeping in view the above-said principle in mind, we have also
  come to a conclusion that twin requirements of demand and
D acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- were proved on
  the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution against the
  appellant and hence the appellant was rightly convicted and
  sentenced for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with
  and Section 13 (1 )(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act.
E
       20. Coming now to the last argument of the learned
  counsel for the appellant that the appeal should be remanded
  to the High Court for its rehearing afresh because no one
  appeared for the appellant in the High Court at the time of
F hearing of appeal which caused prejudice to the appellant. In
  our view, the High Court in such circumstances should have
  appointed any lawyer as amicus curie on behalf of the appellant
  to argue appellant's case instead of proceeding to decide the
  appeal ex parte on merits. Indeed, in our considered opinion,
  it was the appropriate course which the High Court should have
G followed for deciding the appeal finally on merits to meet such
  eventuality.

        21. Be that as it may and keeping in view the aforesaid
  infirmity noticed in the case, we considered it proper and in the
H interest of justice to undertake the exercise of appreciating the
  L. LAXMIKANTA v. STATE BY SUPERINTENDENT OF 1031
  POLICE, LOKAYUKTA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

entire evidence in our appellate jurisdiction. We, therefore, do       A
not find any necessity or ground to remand the case to the High
Court for its fresh hearing.

      22. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit
in this appeal. It fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Since the     s
accused is on bail, he be taken into custody forthwith to serve
out the remainder of his sentence.

Devika Gujral                                     Appeal Dismissed.