Holding

The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside as the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The appellant, a Mandal Development Officer, was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding a Rs.500 bribe in connection with a loan for a community irrigation well. The complainant alleged that the demand was made on 31‑12‑1993 and reiterated on 6‑1‑1994, leading to a trap on 12‑1‑1994 where the accused allegedly received the money, threw the notes away, and his fingers tested positive for phenolphthalein. The trial court and the High Court convicted him, relying mainly on the complainant’s testimony and the chemical test. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had fixed a time and place for receiving the money, that there was no corroboration of the complainant’s account, and that the untreated currency notes were never recovered. The Court also found the chemical test of the accused’s fingers insufficient as sole evidence of acceptance of a bribe. Consequently, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused and the conviction was set aside. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was discharged on bail.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused fixed a time and place to receive the bribe money.
Whether the chemical test of the accused's fingers is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Whether the failure to recover the treated currency notes defeats the proof of acceptance of the bribe.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was adequate to uphold the conviction.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 7

Subjects

briberycorruptionPrevention of Corruption Actchemical testcircumstantial evidencebenefit of doubtacquittal

Judgment

[2011) 9 S.C.R. 656

A ~ PARASURAMI REDDY
v.
STATE OF A.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 462 of 2003)
AUGUST 2, 2011
B
[V.S.SIRPURKAR AND T.S.THAKUR, JJ.]

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988:

c ss. 7 and 13 (1) (d) rlw s. 13 (2)- Conviction by trial court
for demanding and taking illegal gratification - Upheld by
High Court - HELO: Prosecution has not been able to prove
that the accused had fixed the time and place to receive the
money - As per the complainant, when he approached the
D accused on 12.1.1994, he was driven away by the accused-
There is no evidence as to what happened thereafter -
Besides, the treated currency notes could not be found out
nor is there any explanation for the same - The only
circumstance that the test of fingers of accused was positive
E would not be sufficient to convict him - Accused given benefit
of doubt and acquitted accordingly.
The appellant-accused was prosecuted for
committing offences punishable ulss 7 and 13 (1) (d) read
with s. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
F The prosecution case was that the appellant, who was
working as the Mandal Development Officer, demanded
a bribe of Rs. 500/- from the complainant on 31.12.1993
for releasing the loan amount granted to him for digging
a community irrigation well. The demand was reiterated
G on 6.1.1994. On 11.1.1994, the complainant approached
the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption; a trap was
laid and the accused was apprehended on 12.1.1994. The t
trial court convicted the accused of the offences charged

H 656
P. PARASURAMI REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 657

-· and the High Court upheld the conviction. Aggrieved, the
accused filed the appeal.
A

Allowing the appeal, the Court
:- HELD: 1.1 Considering the overall circumstances, the
prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused B
~
had fixed the time and place to receive the money. The
dates 31.12.1993, 6.1.1994 and 11.1.1994 mentioned in the
complaint are rather speaking. It is further admitted in the
evidence of the complainant (PW1) that on 11.1.1994,
when the accused was tried to be approached, he was c
not found present in his office. It was, therefore, that the
accused was approached on the second day i.e. on
12.1.1994. [Para 8] [661-E-G]
1.2 As per the complainant, when he approached the
J D
accused on 12.1.1994, he was driven away by the
~ accused. The complainant then remained silent as to
what happened when he was turned away by the
accused on his first meeting with the accused in his
office. This circumstance creates doubt. There is no
evidence to suggest as to what transpired between the E
accused and the complainant when the accused was first
approached by the complainant. [para 8-9) [661-H; 662-
A-C-F]

.;"' 1.3 The second circumstance, which is really F
suspicious, is not finding of the treated currency notes
which were thrown away by the accused. It cannot be
accepted that a raiding party which consisted of nine
persons would not be able to recover the currency notes
.._ which were thrown away by the accused in the open G
space and which were allegedly taken away by the
~ members of public. There is absolutely no evidence given
by the investigating officer (PW-9) as to what efforts he
made to find out the currency notes. [para 9] [662-E-G] .
1.4 Both the courts below seem to have been H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A Impressed by the chemical test of the fingers of the
accused, which would not be sufficient to convict the
accused. It could have been the possibility that the
complainant had touched the currency notes and had
shaken hand with the accused or it could be that any one
B of the investigating officer or the member of the raiding •
party had touched the fingers of the accused. That
circumstance itself cannot be ruled out. The accused is,
therefore, given the benefit of doubt and accordingly
acquitted. [para 10-11) [663-B-0]
c CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 462 of 2003.

From the Judgment & Order dated 12.08.2002 of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
D 1071 of 1996.

R. Sundervardhan, T. Anamika for the Appellant.
I. Venkatanarayana, D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allanki, V.
Pattabhi Ram, Savita Dhanda for the Respondent.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SIRPURKAR, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the
appellantaccused who was found guilty by the trial court for the
F offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)((d) read with
Sec:tion 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter
referred to as "The Act").
2. The story of the prosecution in short is as under:-
G The complainant had applied for loan for digging a
community irrigation well in his land and for that purpose, he
was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 23,400/-. The complainant was t
paid Rs. 19,240/- on furnishing evaluation certificates and the
remaining balance was due. The accused-appellant, who was
H working as Mandal Development Officer, was dealing with the
P. PARASURAMI REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 659
[V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.]
>-+
implementation of the scheme by allotting necessary amounts A
from time to time. It is the case of the complainant that when
he approached the accused for the payment of the remaining
amount and also for sanction for installing a electric motor near
' ,. the well, the accused demanded Rs. 500/- as bribe. According
to the complainant, this happened on 31.12.1993 at the office B
~
of accused. The complainant again approached the accused
on 6.1.1994. However, the demand was again reiterated by
~",...
accused. Therefore, on 11.1.1994 the complainant approached
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Tirupati-
PW9 and gave a report to this effect. Thereupon, PW-9 asked c
the complainant -PW1 to bring Rs. 500/- which were treated
with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, the raiding party
reached the office of accused at 4.50 p.m. However, up to 7.00
J
p.. m. the accused was not found present in the office. Therefore,
not finding the accused in his office, the raiding party returned
D
y
to the office of PW9. The shirt in which the currency notes were
kept was kept in the office of the Investigating Officer.
3. It is further the case of the complainant that next day on
12.1.1994, the raiding party started from the office of PW-9 at
about 9 a.m. and reached the office of accused by 10.00 a.m .. E
On seeing the complainant, who alone went to the office of the
accused, the accused asked him as to whether he has brought
(
the bribe amount. On this, the complainant gave the money to
/""' accused who took the same with his right hand and kept the
same in his right hip pocket. The complainant came out of the F
offic~ and gave the agreed signal. On getting signal from
complainant, raiding party immediately rushed towards the
accused. They noticed accused also coming out of office room.
PW9 then apprehended the accused. On disclosing the identity
by PW9, the accused threw the currency notes in the open G
\ ground towards the public and shouted "take away, take away".
When the right hand fingers and back side pocket were
subjected to sodium carbonate test, the solution turned pink.
Interestingly, the currency notes of Rs. 200/- found from the
open space, which were claimed by the accused as his own, H
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A were returned to him by PW9

4. Be that as it may, on this basis, the investigation started
and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The accused
claimed that he never demanded and had never accepted the
bribe money.
8
5. The trial court did not accept the defence of the
accused. He was convicted and sentenced for the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)((d) read with Section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act The appeal against the
C conviction was also dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the
appellant is before us.

6. Mr. S. Sunderavardhan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant very strenuously urged before us
0 that this case is full of doubts. He points out that very strangely,
there is nothing on record to corroborate as to what transpired
between the accused and the complainant when the
complainant allegedly approached the accused to give him the
bribe. Learned counsel further points out that there is no
E evidence except that of the complainant to suggest that when
the complainant approached the accused, he actually
demanded the money and in pursuance to that demand, the
complainant paid him the money. The couns~I urged that there
was no corroboration to the evidence of complainant. The
second contention is that there is enough gap between the time
F. of bribe demanded and paid. Though the money was
demanded as back as on 31.12.1993, there is nothing on
record to suggest that any time or place to accept the money
was fixed in any manner. Learned counsel further points out that
though the accused was approached by the complainant on
G 6.1.1994, he never made any disclosure about the bribe.
Learned counsel further points out that on 11.1.1994 when the >
'
complainant along with the raiding party reached the office of
accused, he was admittedly not present in the office. There was
no prior commitment between the accused and the complainant
H fixing the time and place for receiving the bribe. This, according
P. PARASURAMI REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 661
[V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.]
~_.

to the learned counsel, is a suspicious circumstance. He further A
points out that it is very strange that no one was present to hear
as to what transpired between the accused and the complainant
when bribe was paid and to add further chaos to the
prosecution story, there was no seizure of the treated currency
~ notes either. Learned counsel wonders as to how it could have B
happened that the currency notes, which were given by the
' complainant to accused, could not be recovered.

7. Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent~State supported the concurrent
judgments of the courts below and contended that the findings c
of facts were concluded by the courts below. Mr.
Venkatanarayana points out that there was no reason for the
complainant PW-1 to falsely implicate the accused. In fact, that
I was also no reason why the investigating agency, particularly
PWs 4, 6 & 9 should be disbelieved. According to Mr. D
" Venkatanarayana, the fact that money was accepted by the
accused stands proved on the basis of sodium carbonate test
which was done on the right hand fingers and the back side
pocket of the accused.
E
8. Considering the overall circumstances, we do feel that
the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused
had fixed the time and place to receive the money. The dates
31.12.1993, 6.1.1994 and 11.. 1.1994 mentioned in the
/');
complaint of the complainant are rather speaking. It is further F
admitted in the evidence of PW1- complainant that on
11.1.1994, when the accused was tried to be approached, he
was not found present in his office. ltwas, therefore, that the
accused was approached on the second day i.e. on 12.1.1994.
what surprises us is that when two panchas were present in the
G
•; raiding party and if one of them had accompanied the
complainant and noted the conversation between the
complainant and the accused, that would have given a definite
corroboration to the version of the complainant. But that did not
happen. Further even as per the complainant, when he
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

._.
A approached the accused on 12.1.1994, he was driven away
by the accused. In his cross examination, the complainant
states as under:

"When I went there the accused on seeing me became
irritated and asked me to go away and that I need not
B
approach him"

9. Though thereafter the complainant asserted that the
accused demanded bribe from him. It is rather strange that the
complainant was driven out of the room when he first
c approached the accused. The complainant then remained silent
as to what happened when he was turned away by the accused
on his first meeting with the accused in his office. This
circumstance, according to us, creates doubt. If the accused
had to accept the bribe, he would never have driven away the
D complainant when he was approached by the complainant in '
his office. When both of them were alone in the office of
accused, that would have been the best opportunity for the
accui;ed to accept the bribe if there was any such demand on
his behalf and if there was any such transaction. In short, there
E is no evidence to suggest as to what transpired between the
accused and the complainant when the accused was first
approached by the complainant. The second circumstance,
which is really suspicious, is not finding of the treated currency
notes which were thrown away by the accused. We cannot
imagine that a raiding party which consisted of nine persons •
F
would not be able to recover the currency notes which were
thrown away by the accused in the open space and which were
allegedly taken away by the members of public. There is
absolutely no evidence given by the investigating officer PW9
as to what efforts he did. to find out the currency notes. The only
G
explanation which has come out from the evidence of
investigating officer is that it was not possible. In his cross- '
examination, PW 9 stated as under:

"We did not surround the people at that place as there was
H no possibility. I did not subject the amount 200 to any
P. PARASURAMI REDDY v. STATE OF A.P. 663
[V.S.SIRPURKAR, J.]

chemical test. It is not true to say that I did not seize Rs. A
200 from any vacant space and that the said amount is in
the pocket of accused. I returned Rs. 200 as it is his
personal money."

10. This was rather strange. Learned counsel appearing
8
for the State very heavily relied on that circumstance. That '
circumstance by itself may not be able to establish that money
was demanded and it was accepted as bribe. It could have
been the possibility that the complainant had touched the
currency notes and had shaken hand with the accused or it
could be that any one of the investigating officer or the member C
of the raiding party had touched the fingers of the accused.
That circumstance itself cannot be ruled out.

11. We have seen the judgments of the courts below
~· wherein the sole evidence of the fingers being soiled in sodium D
carbonate turned pink has been relied upon. Both the courts
below seem to have impressed by this situation alone. We do
not feel it sufficient to convict the accused on this evidence
alone and we would choose to give him the benefit of doubt.
E
12. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is on bail. His
bail bonds are discharged.

R.P. Appeal allowed.