2004 INSC 0167
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                 K. Rajamani

                                                      Vs.

                                            State of Tamil Nadu

                                          Crl.A.No.1188 of 1997

                               (Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat JJ.)

                                                 05.02.2004

                                                   ORDER

The Order of the Court is as follows

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge
of the Madras High Court which confirming conviction recorded against the appellant by the
Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences punishable under Section 5(1)
(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act") and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (for short "the IPC"). The
accusation which led to the trial of the accused were that while acting as Village
Administrative Officer, he demanded bribe from PW 1 for issuing a Company Certificate and
Income Certificate. The complaint was lodged by PWs 1 and 2 before the Anti Corruption
Cell. A sum of Rs. 50/- was paid by PW 1 by six currency notes to the accused in the
presence of PW 2. The trap operations were monitored by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Anti Corruption Cell (PW 10). After the money was handed over to the accused, PW
1 came out and gave a single whereafter the official witnesses went in and money was
recovered from the accused person. Test was conducted by dipping the hands of the accused
in the Sodium carbonate solution, and his hands become pink in colour. Certain documents
were seized and ultimately the accused faced trial. The accused took the plea that he has been
falsely implicated at the behest of PW 2 who has not in good terms with him. He further
contended that PW 2 had to pay some arrears of rent as house tax which were paid by soiled
currency notes. Since the accused did not want to keep the solid currency notes, PW 2 was
asked to give asked to give other currency notes which he did and the notes which were
handed over by PW 2 were kept by the accused in his pocket and were seized. Ten witnesses
were examined to further the prosecution version, while the accused examined one witness.
Documents were also exhibited by the prosecution and the accused.

3. On consideration of the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court found the accused guilty.
He was convicted and awarded a sentence of one year and fine of Rs. 500/- with default

1  SpotLaw
stipulation for the offence relatable under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. No. separate sentence
was imposed in respect of the offence relatable to Section 161 IPC. In appeal, the stand taken
by the accused was reiterated but the High Court by the impugned judgment held that the
accusations were brought home.

4. In support of the appeal Mr. KBS Rajan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the prosecution version has not been established, more particularly, when the complainant
PW 1 did not support the prosecution version in its entirety. The courts below should not
have relied upon the evidence of PW 1, 2 and PW 3. It was further contended that PW 3 did
not actually witness the handing over of the money. In response, the learned counsel for the
respondent-State supported the judgments of the courts below.

5. We find that in the case at hand, both the trial court and the High Court have analysed the
evidence in great detail and have come to the findings that the accusations were established.
Merely because PW 1 did not support the prosecution version in its entirety that cannot be a
ground to discard the prosecution version. In fact, PW 2 is an eye witness to the demand of
money and the payment thereof. PW 3 has also substantiated the prosecution version to a
great extent. When the accused took the stand and that the money was paid towards the
arrears of house tax it was incumbent for him to adduce some material to substantiate that, in
fact, there were some arrears of house tax which were to be paid. That material was
obviously not produced. Keeping in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the trial
court and affirmed by the High Court, there is no scope for our interference in this appeal,
which is accordingly dismissed.

2  SpotLaw