NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.(s)            924­925                   /2022
(@SLP (Crl) No.(s)            6241­6242/2022 @ D. No. 6034 OF 2020)
The State of Kerala      ..Appellant(S)
Versus
M. Karunakaran Etc.                  ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   and   the
offence alleged against the accused is punishable under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the issue involved in
the   present   appeal   is   a   pure   question   of   law   and   facts,
therefore, the delay caused in preferring the present appeal
is hereby condoned. Leave granted.    
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common   judgment   and   order   dated   22.02.2018   passed   by
the   High   Court   of   Kerala   at   Ernakulam   in   Criminal   Appeal
1

Nos.   915/2008   and   1021/2008,   by   which,   the   High   Court
has   allowed   the   said   appeals,   preferred   by   the   original
accused Nos. 1 and 2 and consequently has acquitted both
the   accused   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections   7
and   13(1)(d)   read   with   Section   13(2)   of   the   Prevention   of
Corruption   Act,   the   State   has   preferred   the   present
appeal(s). 
2. As   per   the   prosecution   case,   accused   Nos.   1   and   2   while
working   as   Excise   Prevention   Officers,   Excise   Range,
Hosdurg   visited  Toddy  Shop  No.36,  Ambalathara,  Hosdurg,
Taluk at about 7:30 pm on 21.03.2001 and threatened Shri
P.J.   Joseph,   who   was   looking   after   the   affairs   of   the   shop
and   demanded   Rs.   2,000/­   from   him.   They   asked   him   to
bring   the   said   amount   at   the   Excise   Range   Office   on
24.03.2001.   As   PW1   –   original   complainant   lodged   a
complaint   against   the   accused   persons   with   the   Vigilance
Department on 24.03.2001, a FIR was registered on the said
complaint   by   the   Vigilance   Dy.SP.   After   completing   the
necessary   formalities   at   3:15   pm   the   raid   party   and   PW8
reached the Excise Range Office and the PW1 was informed
to   give   signal   to   the   Policemen   who   were   standing   on   the
2

road side after giving the money to the accused persons. As
per   the   case   of   the   prosecution,   in   pursuance   of   the
demand,   accused   Nos.   1   and   2   accepted   an   amount   of   Rs.
1,000/­ and Rs. 500/­, respectively from the complainant at
3:35   pm   on   24.03.2001   at   the   Excise   Range   Office   and
thereby,   committed   offences   punishable   under   Sections   7
and   13(1)(d)   read   with   Section   13(2)   of   the   Prevention   of
Corruption   Act.   The   investigating   officer   filed   the
chargesheet   against   the   accused   for   the   aforesaid   offences.
Both came to be tried by the learned Special Court and they
denied the charges levelled against them. 
2.1 To   prove   the   charges   the   prosecution   examined   in   all   nine
witnesses   including   PW1   –   complainant   and   PW2   –   an
independent   witness.   The   accused   examined   DW1,   the
owner  of the shop in  their  defence. That  on  appreciation  of
the evidence on record, learned Special Court held both the
accused guilty for the aforesaid offences and convicted them
and   imposed   a   sentence.   The   learned   Special   Court
sentenced   accused   No.   1   to   undergo   two   years   rigorous
imprisonment   (RI)   each   and   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.   2,000/­
each and in default to six months RI and sentenced accused
3

No. 2  to  undergo  one  year  RI  each  and to  pay  a  fine  of  Rs.
1,000/­ each and in default to undergo three months RI.
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and
order   of   sentence   and   conviction   passed   by   the   learned
Special Court, the original accused preferred appeals before
the   High   Court.   By   the   impugned   common   judgment   and
order the High Court has allowed the said appeals and has
acquitted   the   accused   for   the   offences   for   which   they   were
convicted. 
2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
acquitting  the  accused,  the State  has preferred the  present
appeals with a delay of 632 days in preferring the appeal(s). 
3. Having  gone through  the impugned common judgment  and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court   acquitting   the   accused   for
the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is apparent that
the   High   Court   has   acquitted   the   accused   mainly   on   the
ground that the twin conditions of demand and acceptance
has   not   been   established   and   proved.   The   High   Court   has
heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of
4

Mukhtiar   Singh   (since   deceased)   through   his   LR   Vs.
State   of   Punjab ;   (2017)   8   SCC   136 .   On   the   other   hand,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied
upon a three­judge bench decision of this Court in the case
of  M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P.; (2001) 1 SCC 691.
3.1 It   is   brought   to   our   notice   that   having   found   conflict   with
the   decisions   of   two   and   three   judge   benches   of   this   Court
in   the   cases   of   B.   Jayaraj   Vs.   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh;
(2014)   13   SCC   55   and   P.   Satyanarayana   Murthy   Vs.
District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and
Another;   (2015)   10   SCC   152   with   that   of   an   earlier   three
judge   bench   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   M.
Narsinga Rao   (supra) regarding nature and quality of proof
necessary   to   sustain   conviction   for   the   offences   under
Sections   7   and   13(1)(d)   read   with   Section   13(2)   of   the
Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   when   the   primary
evidence is unavailable, subsequently the three judge bench
of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Neeraj   Dutta   Vs.   State   (Govt.
of   NCT   of   Delhi);   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1669/2009 ,   has
referred the following question of law for determination by a
5

larger bench: ­
“whether   in   the   absence   of   evidence   of
complainant/direct   or   primary   evidence   of
demand   of   illegal   gratification,   is   it   not
permissible   to   draw   inferential   deduction   of
culpability/guilt   of   a   public   servant   under
Section   7   and   Section   13(1)(d)   read   with
Section   13(2)   of   Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,
1988 based on  other  evidence adduced by  the
prosecution?”
It is reported that the said reference is pending and the
aforesaid   question   of   law   is   yet   to   be   determined   and/or
considered by a larger bench. 
3.2 The issue arising in the present appeal is somewhat similar
and   the  decision   of  a  larger  bench   may   have  a  direct  effect
on the decision of the present appeal(s). Therefore, we are of
the   opinion   that   the   decision   in   the   present   appeal(s)   be
deferred till the question of law, which is referred to a larger
bench,   referred   to   hereinabove,   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.
1669/2009, is decided by the larger bench.        
4. Hence   these   appeal(s)   is/are   adjourned   sine   die   till   the
aforesaid   question   of   law   framed   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.
1669/2009   is   decided   by   the   larger   bench.   The   Registry   is
to notify the present criminal appeal(s) for final hearing after
6

the   decision   on   the   question   of   law   by   the   larger   bench   of
the reference is made hereinabove. 
…………………………………J.
  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B. V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
July, 11 th
  2022
7