9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (10) TMI 558 - SC - Indian LawsChallenged the Order passed by HC recording a finding of acquittal - illegal gratification - Offences punishable under Sections 7 11 13(3) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ( the Act ) - Validity of sanction - Respondent herein was a Mandal Revenue Inspector - HELD THAT - A bare perusal of the order of sanction shows that the allegation as against the Respondent herein for taking into consideration that the Government of Andhra Pradesh who was the competent authority to remove the said Sri K. Narasimha Chari Mandal Revenue Inspector Cuddapah from the Government Service after fully and carefully examining the material placed before them in respect of the said allegations and having regard to the circumstances of the case considered that the Respondent should be prosecuted in the court of law; whereupon the order of sanction was issued in the name of the Governor. Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy Secretary to the Government merely authenticated the said order of sanction which was issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The order of sanction was thus issued by the State in discharge of its statutory functions in terms of Section 19 of the Act. The order of sanction was authenticated. The said order of sanction was an executive action of a State having been issued in the name of the Governor. It was authenticated in the manner specified in the Rules of Executive Business. The authenticity of the said order has not been questioned. It was therefore a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-6 proved the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy. He identified his signature. He was not cross-examined on the premise that he did not know the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy. In answer to the only question put to him he stated By the time the Secretary signed in Ex.P.17 I was in G.A.D. The Respondent therefore allowed the said document to be exhibited without any demur. He did not question the admissibility of the said document before the Trial Court either when the same was exhibited or at the final hearing before the trial court. He therefore could not be permitted to question the admissibility of the said document for the first time before the appellate court. So far as the merit of the matter is concerned as would appear from the discussions made hereinbefore that the prosecution case is not entirely free from doubt. PW-1 intended to obtain a signature as regard valuation of his lands so as to enable him to get himself registered with the Public Works Department as a contractor. He went to PW-3. PW-3 did not send the same to the Respondent by following the existing procedure. He merely initialed the same and handed over it back to PW-1 allegedly for the purpose of giving it to the Respondent who in turn asked to take it to PW-4. PW-1 appears to be an influential person. He could approach PW-3 directly. He was in a position to obtain a certificate copies of various documents from PW-4 on the same day as also obtain a certificate from him on the same day. Thus as the valuation certificate was sent to PW-3 by the Respondent on 04.03.1994 there does not appear to be any good reason as to why PW-1 would not come to know thereabout. According to him he came to know that PW-8 was at Cuddapah and be approached him in the early morning at 6.35 on 05.03.1994. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that two views are possible and the view of the High Court cannot be said to be wholly improbable; it cannot be said in view of the discussions made hereinbefore that the materials brought on records would lead to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused. The impugned judgment therefore is sustained. Thus we do not intend to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of sanction. 2. Merits of the prosecution case against the Respondent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order of Sanction: The High Court reversed the Special Judge's conviction of the Respondent on the grounds that the order of sanction dated 1.5.1995 was not proved in accordance with law. The Supreme Court scrutinized this finding and noted that the order of sanction, a Government Order No. GOMs. No.76 dated 02.03.1995, was issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh and authenticated by Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy, Secretary to the Government. The order was considered a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-6 identified the signature of Shri N. Madanmohan Reddy, and the document was admitted without objection at the trial court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in invoking Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the authenticity of the document was never in question. The Court emphasized that a public document can be proved in terms of Sections 76 to 78 of the Evidence Act and that the High Court misread the law laid down in Gulzar Ali vs. State of H.P. [(1998) 2 SCC 192]. 2. Merits of the Prosecution Case: The prosecution alleged that the Respondent demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000, later reduced to Rs. 600, for issuing a property valuation certificate. A trap was laid, and Rs. 600 was recovered from the Respondent. However, the Respondent claimed that the certificate was already issued, and the complainant (PW-1) falsely implicated him due to a grudge. The High Court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case: - PW-1's application was processed unusually quickly, with local verification and document collection completed within a day. - The demand for the bribe was allegedly made on 02.03.1994, but PW-1 did not complain until 05.03.1994. - The valuation certificate was sent to PW-3 by the Respondent on 04.03.1994, despite the alleged bribe demand. - PW-1 had direct access to PW-3, who could have intervened if there were any delays or hindrances. - The Respondent was merely a recommending authority, not the final issuing authority for the certificate. - The trap yielded not only the tainted amount but also Rs. 235 in different denominations, which was not subjected to a phenolphthalein test. The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's assessment that the prosecution case was not free from doubt. The Court observed that PW-1 appeared to be an influential person who managed to expedite the process unusually fast. The Court also noted the improbability of the Respondent forwarding the certificate if his bribe demand was unmet. Given these circumstances, the Supreme Court concluded that two views were possible and upheld the High Court's judgment acquitting the Respondent. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, sustaining the High Court's judgment on both the validity of the order of sanction and the merits of the prosecution case. The Court found that the materials on record did not conclusively establish the guilt of the Respondent, thereby affirming the High Court's decision to acquit.
|
