RAJA KANTHAM N. Vs. STATE: INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-Appellant was, at the relevant time, working as a Senior Accountant in the District Treasury Office, Warangal. On 4th June, 1991, a salary bill pertaining to 23 employees of Irrigation Division No. 2 amounting to Rs. 43,178/- was submitted in the District Treasury Office, Warangal. As per the prosecution story, the very same evening, the complainant Venugopal PW-1 and his colleague K. Srinuvas Rao PW-2 approached the accused and enquired about the bill. The accused demanded Rs. 700/- as a bribe for getting the bill passed. As the complainant was not willing to pay this amount he approached the DSP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Warangal and lodged a complaint, Ext.P.1 On the basis of this complaint a trap was arranged on 6th June, 1991 when the accused allegedly accepted the amount from PW.1. The tainted money was recovered from the Appellant and on the phenolphthalein test, the solution turned pink. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 11 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and brought to trial.

(2.) The prosecution, in support of its case, examined P Ws 1-6 and put on record Exhibits P.1-P.20 and M. Os. 1-8. Four witnesses in defence, D Ws.1 - 4, were also examined by the accused. The trial Judge went through the evidence on record very carefully and in the course of a very elaborate judgment, discussing all aspects of the case held that the evidence of P Ws.1 and 2 was not worthy of credence as it was clear that the payment of Rs. 700/- had been made towards repayment of a loan which one Prasad, a nephew of P.W.1 the complainant had taken from the accused, and that the record indicated that the accused and the complainant represented two different factions of employees union and that was an additional reason for what could be a case of false implication. It was further held that as the accused and PW.1 were residents of the same village it appeared that there was some rivalry between them inter se. The Trial Court also observed that the very fact of the trap being struck was itself in doubt as PW.2 who was to give a signal after the money has been passed over had not made any signal on which the DSP had sent Constable Satyanarayana to find out whether the money had been paid, and it was after Satyanarayana reported to the DSP that the money had in fact been handed over that the raid had been carried out. The Court concluded that as Constable Satyanarayar a had not been produced as a witness also indicated the falsity of the case. The Court accordingly acquitted the accused for the offence charged. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High Court and on the basis of a casual examination of the evidence and a brief discussion in one or two paragraphs, the exhaustive judgment of the Trial Court has been set aside and the accused convicted. This matter is before us by way of special leave.

(3.) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned senior counsel for the Appellant, has first and foremost submitted that if the Trial Court had taken a decision which could be possible on the evidence, interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal on the plea that a different view was also possible, was not called for. He has also pointed out that the cash recovered was a re-payment of the loan which had been taken by Prasad and the factum of the loan stood proved not only from the statement of the defence witnesses but even from the cross-examination of P.W.1 himself. He has also pointed out that as Satyanarayana, the Constable had not been produced in evidence, it appeared that the trap had in fact not been struck but the whole matter concocted for the reason that P.W. 1 Venugopal have deep animosity towards the Appellant.