Holding

The Supreme Court held that without proof of a demand, the presumption under Section 20 cannot be raised and the illegalities in the trap proceedings render the conviction unsustainable, leading to the appellant’s acquittal.

Summary

V. Venkat Subbarao, a surveyor, was accused of accepting a bribe of Rs.2,000 after intervening in a demand of Rs.5,000 made by a Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) for allowing the removal of casurina trees. The prosecution relied on a pre‑trap operation conducted by the Anti‑Corruption Bureau, but the Supreme Court found numerous irregularities: the trap was poorly planned, involved unknown persons, and lacked proper documentation. Crucially, the demand itself was never proved, so the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not arise. The trial judge’s finding that the prosecution’s witnesses were unreliable was upheld, and the High Court’s reversal of the acquittal was held erroneous. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant discharged.

Issues considered

Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be invoked when the demand for gratification is not proved.
Whether the evidence arising from the pre‑trap operation is admissible and reliable.
Whether the procedural irregularities in the trap proceedings vitiate the prosecution’s case.
Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid in view of missing documents.
Whether the High Court erred in overturning the trial court’s acquittal.

Legislation cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 11, s. 13(1)(d), s. 13(2), s. 20, s. 7

Subjects

corruptionSection 20 presumptionpre‑trap operationevidentiary reliabilityacquittalprocedural irregularitiesillegal gratification

Judgment

- V.VENKATASUBBARAO A
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P.

DECEMBER 12, 2006

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

s.20-Demand of illegal gratification made by a Manda/ Revenue Officer
(MRO) for allowing PW-3 to cut and remove casurina trees-Intervention by c
appellant resulting in reduction of amount to Rs.2000-Trap laid-Offer
alleged to have been made to appellant which he accepted and caught red
handed-Acquittal by trial court-Conviction by High Court-On appeal,
held, an innocent officer falsely implicated on account of animosity-
Illegalities committed in the trap proceedings are galore-Trap proceeding D
envisages secrecy and not a wide publicity-Trap party consisting of 8
persons-No explanation as to why services of an unknown person, were
taken-In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the
presumption under s.20 would not arise-Conviction set aside.

Prosecution case was that a demand of Rs. 5000 was made by a Manda! E
Revenue Officer (MRO) for allowing PW-3 to cut and remove casurina trees.
The land on which these trees were standing was purchased by PW-3 from
PW-2. The MRO restrained PW-3 from cutting the trees on the premise
that_ the part of said land belonged to the Government :While the talks were
going on, the appellant who was working as a Surveyor in the Mandal Revenue
Office, allegedly, intervened and asked him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-. On
F
the basis of the complaint, a purported pre-trap proceedings started. The trap
party consisting of 8 persons, allegedly started for the village of which
Appellant was a resident. They reached the village in the evening. The
informant did not know the location of the residential house of the appellant.
According to P.W.2, an unknown person examined as DW-1 had led them G
thereto. Offer of the said sum of Rs.2000/- was, allegedly, made to the
appellant by way of gratification, which he allegedly accepted. He is said to
~
have been caught red handed.

The appellant categorically took the plea of false implication stating that
729 H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A he had animosity with the local M.L.A 'Y' and the Sarpanch 'R' who nurtured
grudge against him for not granting pattas to him. The raid was conducted
at the instance of 'R'. The Special Judge acquitted the appellant On appeal,
High Court held that the tainted money had been recovered from the possession
of the appellant and that he had abetted the offence which is also punishable
B with equal rigour. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Apparently an innocent officer appears to have been
prosecuted for no fault on his part. PW.2 had sold away his land to P.W.3.
The casurina growth was being cut by its owner, namely, P.W.3. The
C purported obstruction in his activity came from the MRO and not from the
appellant. A complaint was made against four persons, the MRO being one
of them. Indisputably, it was the MRO who had asked for the said sum. PW.2,
although, went to the said MRO continuously for a few days, no attempt was
made by him to offer the sum to the said officer himself. The complaint was
D made 15 days after the alleged demand. Jn the meanwhile, the casurina growth
was cut and removed by PW.3 without any further hindrance purported to be
relying on or on the basis of the assurances made by P.W.2 that the dispute
had been settled. (735-B-D]

1.2. The purported role played by the appellant, when the demand was
E made by the MRO, was said to be a mere intervention resulting in reduction
of the amount of demand from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/- which could not be
substantiated. It is not the case of the prosecution that he demanded any sum
for himself. If the casurina growth had already been cut and lifted by P. W.2,
question of any demand being persisted would not arise. The deliberate and
F planned manner in which the trap is said to have been made; the purported
demand mad~ by the MRO and the role played by the appellant, betrays all
comprehensions. The prosecution did not explain as to why the complaint
had been made after 15 days. No evidence has been led as to on what basis
P.W.2 could assure P.W.3 that he had already talked to the MRO, and thus
the latter could remove the casurina growth, which he did. The Special Judge
G found the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 wholly unreHable, inter alia, on the
ground that they had made a lot of improvements in their testimonies. They
failed to explain delay in lodging report and in the process prevaricated the
case from stage to stage. (735-E-H)

2. It is a matter of great concern that the investigators would interpolate
H
V. VENKATA SUBBARAO v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P. 73 }

documents. It was found to have been done by the Special Judge. The High A
Court did not reverse the said finding. The Special Judge found that 'R', who
was inimical towards the appellant, had scribed Exhibit P.3 report Even the
Investigating Officer did not disclose as to who was the author thereof.
Therein the purported amount of bribe demanded was corrected to Rs. 2000.
What was the original sum mentioned therein is not stated. PW2 is said to B
have met the D.S.P., A.C.B., but P.W.6 says that the said Officer was on leave
and he had himself collected the said Exhibit P.3 report from P. W.2.
1736-A-Bl

3.1. Illegalities committed in the trap proceedings are galore. The
complaint-Exhibit P.3 was made on 11.12.1988. P.W.2 did not state that he C
was asked to report on the next day. According to P.W.2, he had attended his
office on 12.12.1988 at 2.30 p.m., but the documentary evidence brought on
records established that he met the Inspector at 12.30 p.m. According to
P.W.6, it takes at least 2 to 3 hours to commence pre-trap proceedings, but in
this case it was arranged within 40 minutes. The trap party proceeded in an
official car. Eight persons travelled in the same car. Why so many persons D
travelled in one car, is not explained. Why so many persons had to travel
together is also beyond comprehension. A trap proceeding envisages secrecy
and not a wide publicity. P.W.2, admitted:y, was not travelling with them. He
was taken to the spot by 'R'. [737-C-E)

3.2. PW.2 did not know D.W.1 at all. It was DW.1 who not only led the E
raiding party to the house of the appellant, he pressed the call bell also. Why
services of an unknown person, who was not known to P.W.2, were taken
remained to be explained. Even the circumstances in which his services had
to be obtained were not disclosed. The appellant, at that time, had already
taken his dinner. They were, allegedly, taken inside a bed room, which is F
again wholly unlikely. According to P.W.2, after him several other persons
entered the room whom he did not know. Why persons who were not connected
with the raid gathered and entered into the room and even could know in which
room the money was lying is a mystery. Although, according to PW.2, he and
the appellant met in one room alone, when the Inspector asked him to disclose
as to where the money was, response came from three other persons and not G
from the appellant. Strangely P.W.2 did not disclose the fact of availability of
the money in a particular room to the Inspector. [736-F-H; 737-A)

3.3. PW.2 stated the appellant had counted the money with both of his
hands, but only the fingers of his right hand, when dipped in the sodium
carbonate solution, rendered the positive result. It is not understandable as H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

, A to why in post trap panchanama - Exhibit P7, the words that 'the money was
found to be in a bed room corner and the cash had been picked up by A.O. and
handed over to the Inspector', had to be interpolated. f737-B-C)

4. It is mystery as to why no offer was made to the MRO directly or why
the raiding party did not visit his house. The prosecution witnesses even did
B not know in which village the MRO, Surveyor and Revenue Inspector had their
respective residences. A short intervention made by the appellant was
purported to be in relation to the quantum of amount The offer, therefore,
should have been made to the MRO directly. He was named in the complaint,
but along with him and the appellant, two others were also named. Why no
C action had been taken as against three other persons, is not known. Why
MRO, had escaped prosecution has not been explained. 1737-D-E)

5. It is also accepted that before the Sanctioning Authority, the vital
documents showing involvement of the MRO had not been produced. The
Sanctioning Authority, therefore, did not have any occasion to apply their mind
D to the entire materials on record and in that view of the matter, the sanction
is, therefore, vitiated in law. Conduct of the officers of the respondent who
had taken recourse to suppressio veri deserves serious condemnation.

6. The submission of State that presumption has rightly been raised
against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had
E not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising
the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
would not arise. Furthermore, even in such a case, the burden on an accused
does not have to meet the same standard of proof, as is required to be made by
the prosecution. 1737-G; 738-C)

F MS. Narayana Menon @Mani v. State of Kera/a & Anr., 120061 6 SCC
39; Union of India through Inspector, CBI v. Purnandu Biswas, [20051 12
SCC 576; State through Inspector of Police, A.P. v, K. Narasimhachary, 12005)
8 SCC 364 and Kalyan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 12 SCALE 577,
referred to.
G 7. Moreover, the High Court recorded a judgment of acquittal. The High
Court should not have dealt with a detailed judgment of acquittal in such a
slipshod manner.1738-F, G)

Samghaji Hariba Patil v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 10 SCALE 283
H and Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR (2006) SC 2152, relied on.
V. VENKATA SUBBARAO >: STA TE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE. A.P. [S.B. SINHA,J] 73 J

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 970 of A
2000.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.6.2000 of the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1106/
1994.
B
Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Y. Ramesh and Y. Vismai Rao for the Appellant.

P. Vinay Kumar and CH. Leela Sarveswar (for D. Bharathi Reddy) for the
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
S.B. SINHA, J. Appellant herein was working as a Surveyor in the
Manda! Revenue Office. He was a military personnel.

Admittedly, a demand was made by a Manda! Revenue Officer (MRO)
of P. Bhemavaram village of Butchayyupate Mandalam in Vishakhapatnam D
District for allowing P.W.3 (M. Subrahmanya Raju) to cut and remove casurina
trees. P.W.2-Amaraneni Ammarao sold the land in question to P.W.3. He
made a· complaint before the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau
alleging that he had purchased 4 acres of land with casurina growth and the
same was being objected by the MRO on the premise that a part thereof E
belonged to the Government.

The MRO, allegedly, wanted determination of the said question and
restrained him from tifting any casurina growth. He met the said MRO on the
next day informing him that no part of the Government land was mixed up with
his land. Allegedly, a demand for a sum ofRs.5,000/-was made from him by F
the MRO. While the talks were going on, the appellant, allegedly, intervened
and asked him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-. When he again met the MRO, he
was informed that he would not be permitted to remove the casurina trees
until the demanded amount was paid. On the basis of the said complaint
dated 11.12.1988, a purported pre-trap proceedings started at 3 p.m. on
12.12.1988. The trap party consisting of 8 persons, allegedly, started for the G
village of which Appellant was a resident. They reached the village in the
evening. The informant did not know the location of the residential house
of the appellant. According to P.W.2, an unknown person had le<:! them
thereto. The said person examined himself as D.W.l being Yannamsetti
Appalanaidu and not by the prosecution. Offer of the said sum of Rs.2,000 H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A was, allegedly, made to the appellant by way of gratification, which he allegedly
accepted. He is said to have been caught red handed.

Apart from usual pleas, the appellant categorically took the plea of false
implication stating that he had animosity with the local M.L.A. Shri Yeeri
Naidu and one Shri Rama Murthy, the Surpanch of P. Bhimavaram village.
B Admittedly, son of the appellant was working as an assistant to Shri Yeeri
Naidu. The said Shri Ram Murthy nurtured grudge against the appellant for
not granting D-Form pattas to him and his family members. The raid was
conducted at the instance of Shri Ram Murthy.

The learned Special Judge analysed the evidences brought on record
C by the. prosecution in great details. In his judgment, the learned Trial Judge
considered the matter from various angles, viz., (i) peculiar facts of the case;
(ii) nature and conduct of P.W.2 the complainant (who was held to be wholly
untrustworthy); (iii) the manner in which trap proceedings were undertaken
by the Anti Corruption Bureau and which were, thus, held to be not reliable
D as it was brought on records that Shri Ram Murthy also indirectly participated
in the said trap proceedings and, in particular, P.W.2 was brought by him to
the village; (iv) although, the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that
the appellant, upon acceptance of the tainted amount, counted the same with
both of his hands, only fingers of one of his hand turned pink; (v) the trap
party came in and asked the A.O. to produce the amount, which he denied
E to have accepted; and allegedly, at that time three more people entered the
house and stated that the amount was available in one of the rooms; (vi) in
Exhibit P.7 post trap panchanama, the words 'from bed room comer, th.e cash
has. been picked up by A.O. and handed over to the Inspector', has been
interpolated; and (vii) there were contradictions and inconsistencies in the
F evidences of the prosecution witnesses, vis-a-vis, their statements before the
Investigating Officer.

On an appeal made by the respondent, the High Court, however, allowed
the criminal appeal, principally relying on the provisions of Section 20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, on the premise that the tainted money had been
G recovered from the possession of the appellant. As regards the prosecution
case that the amount was meant to be given to the Manda! Officer, the High
Court opined that the appellant had abetted the offence which is also
punishable with equal rigour.

Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
H
V. VENKATA SUBBARAO v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 735

appellant, in support of this appeal, inter a/ia, would submit that the High A
Court should not have interfered with a well-reasoned judgment of the learned
Special Judge.

Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent would support the judgment.
B
It is one of the few cases where apparently an innocent officer appears
to have been prosecuted for no fault on his part.

P.W.2 had sold away his land to P.W.3. The casurina growth was being
cut by its owner, namely, P.W.3. The purported obstruction in his activity
crune from the Manda! Revenue Officer and not from the appellant. A C
complaint was made against four persons, the MRO being one of them.
Indisputably, it was the MRO who had asked for the said sum. P.W.2,
although, went to the said MRO continuously for a few days, no attempt was
made by him to offer the sum to the said officer himself. The complaint was
made 15 days after the alleged demand. In the meanwhile, the casurina D
growth was cut and removed by P. W.3 without any further hindrance purported
to be relying on or on the basis of the assurances made by P.W.2 that the
dispute had been settled. The complaint was made to the Inspector of Police
after a period of fifteen days from the date of original demand.

The purported role played by the appellant, when the demand was E
made by the MRO, was said to be a mere intervention resulting in reduction
of the amount of demand from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.2,000/-, which could not be
substantiated. It is not the case of the prosecution that he demanded any
sum for himself.

If the casurina growth had already been cut and lifted by P.W.3, the F
question of any demand being persisted would not arise. The deliberate and
planned manrier in which the trap is said to have been made; the purported
demand made by the MRO and the role played by the appellant, betrays all
comprehensions. The prosecution did not explain as to why the complaint
had been made after 15 days. No evidence has been led as to on what basis G
P.W.2 could assure P.W.3 that he had already talked to the Manda! Revenue
Officer, and thus the latter could remove the casurina growth, which he did.
The learned Trial Judge found the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 wholly
unreliable, inter a/ia, on the ground that they had made a lot of improvements
in their testimonies. They failed to explain delay in lodging report and in the
process prevaricated the case from stage to stage. H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A It is a matter of great concern that the investigators would interpolate
documents. It was found to have been done by the learned Special Judge.
The High Court did not reverse the said finding. The learned Special Judge
found that Shri Ram Murthy, who was inimical towards the appellant, had
scribed Exhibit P.3 report. Even the Investigating Officer did not disclose as
to who was the author thereof. Therein the purported amount of bribe
B demanded was corrected to Rs.2,000/-. What was the original sum mentioned
therein is not stated. P.W.2 is said to have met the D.S.P., A.C.B., but P.W.6
says that the said Officer was on leave and he had himself collected the said
Exhibit P.3 report from P. W.2. "'·
c ExhibitIll~galities committed in the trap proceedings are galore. The complaint-
P.3 was made on 11.12.1988. P.W.2 did not state that he was asked
to report on the.next day.

According to P.W.2, he had attended his office on 12.12.1988 at 2.30
p.m., but the documentary evidence brought on records established that he
D met the Inspector at 12.30 p.m. According to P.W.6, it takes at least 2 to 3
hours to commence pre-trap proceedings, but in this case it was arranged
wi.thin 40 minutes. The trap party proceeded in an official car. Eight persons
travelled in the same car. Why so many persons travelled in one car, is not
explained. Why so many persons had to travel together is also beyond our
comprehension. A trap proceeding envisages secrecy and not a wide publicity.
E It reached Chodavaram at about 6.10 p.m. P. W.2, admittedly, was not travelling
with them. He was taken to the spot by the said Shri Ram Murthy.

P. W.2 did not know D. W. l at all. It was D. W. l who not only led the
raiding party to the house of the appellant, he pressed the call bell also. Why
services of an unknown person, who was not known to P.W.2, were taken,
F remained to be explained. Even the circumstances in which his services had
to be obtained were not disclosed.

The appellant, at that time; had already taken his dinner. They were,
allegedly, taken inside a bed room, which is again wholly unlikely.
G According to P.W.2, after him several other persons entered the room
whom he did not know. Why persons who were not connected with the raid
gathered and entered into the room and even could know in which room the
money was lying is a mystery.

H Although, according to P.W.2, he and the appellant met in one room
V. VENKATA SUBBARAO "· STA TE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 73 7

alone, when the Inspector asked him to disclose as to where the money was, A
response came from three other persons and not from the appellant Strangely
P, W.2 did not disclose the fact of availability of the money in a particular room
to the Inspector.

P. W.2 stated the appellant had counted the money with both of his
hands, but only the fingers of his right hand, when dipped in the sodium B
carbonate solution, rendered the positive result

We fail to understand as to why in post trap panchnama - Exhibit P.7,
the words that 'the money was found to be in a bed room corner and the cash
had been picked up by A.O. and handed over to the Inspector', had to be C
interpolated.

It is a mystery as to why no offer was made to the M.R.O. directly or
why the raiding party did not visit his house? The prosecution witnesses
even did not know in which village the M.R.O,, Surveyor and Revenue
Inspector had their respective residences. A short intervention made by the D
appellant was purported to be in relation to the quantum of amount The
offer, therefore, should have been made to the M.R.O. directly. He was named
in the complaint, but along with him and the appellant, two others were also
named. Why no action had been taken as against three other persons, is not
known. Why M.R.O,, who had made a demand, on whose behalf the appellant
had accepted the amount, had escaped prosecution has not been explained. E

It is also accepted that before the Sanctioning Authority, the vital
documents showing involvement of the M.R.O. had not been produced. The
Sanctioning Authority, therefore, d.id not have any occasion, to apply their
mind to the entire materials on record and in that view of the matter, the
sanction is, therefore, vitiated in law. Conduct of the officers of the respondent F
.
---1
who had taken recourse to suppressio veri deserves serious condemnation .

Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has
rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia,
the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, G
the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, I 988 provides for raising of a presumption only
if a demand is proved. It reads as under :

"20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other
than legal remuneration--{ I) Where, in any trial of an offence H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R.

A punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b)
or sub-section ( 1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person
has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to
obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other
than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or
B obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification
or that valuable thing, as the ·case may be, as a motive or reward such
as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without
consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate."

c Furthermore, even in such a case, the burden on an accused does not
have to meet the same standard of proof, as is required to be made by the
prosecution.

In MS. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kera/a & Anr., [2006] 6
D sec 39, this Court held :
"Moreover, the onus on an accused is not as heavy as that of
the prosecution. It may be compared with a defendant in a civil
proceeding."

E In Union of India through Inspector, CBI v. Purnandu Biswas, [2005]
12 sec 576, it was opined :

"In this case demand of illegal gratification by the respondent has
not been proved. Furthermore, Section 20 of the Act is not attracted
as the respondent had been charged for commission of an offence
F under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.".

Moreover, the High Court recorded a judgment of acquittal. The High
Court should not have dealt with a detailed judgment of acquittal in such a
slipshod manner.

G In State through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary, [2005]
8 SCC 364, this Court held that when two views are possible, a judgment of
acquittal is to be justified.

In Kalyan Singh v. State of Maharashtra, {2006) 12 SCALE 577, this
• Court has held :
H
...
.v. VENKATA SUBBARAOv. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.P. (S.B. SINHA, J.) 739

"The High Court while dealing with the matter, in our considered A
opinion, failed to apply the proper tests in deciding a case where a
judgment of acquittal has been recorded. The views of the learned
Trial Judge cannot be said to be wholly unsustainable. It is now well
known that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court shall not
ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. We do not, however,
mean to lay down the law that the High Court, in a case where a B
judgment of acquittal is in question, would not go irito the evidence
brought on records by the prosecution or by the State but we would
like to point out that even if the High Court reversed the judgment
of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, it is incumbent on the High
Court to arrive at the conclusion that no two views are possible." C
[See also Samghaji Hariba Patil v. State of Karnataka, (2006) IO
SCALE 283 and Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR (2006) SC 2152.]

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The D
appellant is on bail. He· is discharged from the bail bonds.

D.G. Appeal allowed.