KANNAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[2018] 11 S.C.R. 650, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
650
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
KANNAN
v.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1580 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7 and 13(2) r/w.
s.13(1)(d) – Prosecution case was that Deputy Commercial Tax
Officer (PW-4) along with A-1, who was then working as Assistant
Commercial Tax Officer, inspected a grocery shop (owned by father
of PW-2) and seized the accounts book – PW-2 approached A-1 to
return the accounts book for which A-1 demanded bribe – PW-2
lodged a complaint before Anti-corruption wing – Trap was arranged
to catch the accused – Accordingly, PW-2 went to the office of A-1
where A-1 asked him whether he brought the money and when PW-
2 stated that he brought the money, A-1 asked PW-2 to pay the
money to A-2 and directed A-2 to receive the money – Trap team
took the sodium carbonate test, which led to arrest of A-1 and A-2
– Trial Court convicted both accused u/ss.7 and 13(1)(d) of the
Act, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years – However, High Court reduced the sentence to one year
imprisonment – On appeal, held: PW-2 clearly stated in his statement
about demand and acceptance of bribe amount by  A-1 and A-2 –
PW-3, the accompanying witness clearly supported prosecution case
– Furthermore, the evidence of PW-6, the office assistant, also
corroborated the version of PW-2 – Courts below, rightly found
accused guilty on basis of
the evidence of PW-2 and test conducted
in the sodium carbonate solution.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. PW-2 clearly stated about the demand and
acceptance of the bribe amount by A-1 and A-2.  PW-3,
accompanying witness, though turned hostile, in his Chief-
Examination clearly stated that he accompanied PW-2 who went
and met A-1 and on the direction of A-1, PW-2 paid the money to
A-2.  To that extent, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the
[2018] 11  S.C.R. 650
650
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
651
evidence of PW-3.  That apart, the evidence of PW-6, the office
assistant, also corroborates the version of PW-2.  In his evidence
PW-6 has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and that
A-1 told A-2 that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must take
and keep it with him.  Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 who
received the same.  Thus, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated
by the evidence of PW-6, the Office Assistant.  Based on the
evidence of PW-2 and test conducted in the sodium carbonate
solution the Trial Court and the High Court had rightly found the
appellants-accused guilty of the offences.  There were no grounds
to take a different view.  [Paras 4 and 5][652-G; 653-A-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1580 of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.08.2008 of the High Court
of Madras at Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 875 of 2002
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 2011.
Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Babita Sant, P. B. Suresh, Vipin Nair,
Vikrant Yadav, Anshumaan Bahadur, Karthik Jayashankar, Advs. for
the appellant.
M. Yogesh Kanna, S. Partha Sarathi, Advs. for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the conviction
of the appellants under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellants were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. A grocery shop under the name and style
“Ambika Stores”
was run by father of Sabapathy-(PW-2).  On 19th October, 1994 Deputy
Commercial Tax Officer (PW-4) along with accused no.1, M. Nadimuthu,
who was then working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, inspected
the grocery shop and seized the accounts book.  Case of the prosecution
is that PW-2 approached A-1 and asked for return of accounts book for
which A-1 demanded bribe amount of Rs.2000/-.  On 22nd October,
1994, PW-2 gave an application for registration and produced a challan
for Rs.100/-.  On 22nd November, 1994 PW-2 again went to the Office
KANNAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officers and asked A-1 to return of
accounts book on which A-1 is said to have reiterated the demand for
Rs.2000/-.  On 30th November, 1994, PW-2 again approached A-1 who
stated that the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- which was subsequently
reduced to Rs.800/-, to be paid on 1st November, 1994 failing which the
application for registration certificate would be rejected.  On 1st November,
1994, PW-2 lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Wing, based on which an F.I.R. was registered and trap was arranged.
On the same day i.e. 1st November, 1994 PW-2 accompanied by PW-3
went to the office of A-1 where A-1 asked him whether he brought the
money and when PW-2 stated that he brought the money, A-1 asked
PW-2 to pay the money to A-2, Kannan, and directed A-2 to receive the
money.  Accordingly, PW-2 paid the bribe amount of Rs.800/- to A-2.
PW-5 and the trap team went inside and after completion of the test
with sodium carbonate solution turning red and other formalities  arrested
A-1 and A-2.
3. The Trial Court convicted both accused under Section 7 and
Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.  In
appeal, the High Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence
of imprisonment to one year.
4. We have heard Ms. Malini Poduval and Mr. P.B. Suresh, learned
counsel appearing for
the appellants.  Both learned counsel submitted
that the evidence of PW-2 remains uncorroborated and that A-1 was
not in receipt of money.  So far as A-2 is concerned, it was submitted
that there was no evidence to show that there was any demand by A-2
and therefore conviction of A-2 is not sustainable.  Learned counsel
have taken us through the depositions of the witnesses and the relevant
portion of the judgment.  We have considered the submissions and also
perused the impugned judgment and the materials on record.
5. So far as the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by
A-1 and A-2 are concerned, PW-2 has clearly stated about the demand
and acceptance.  PW-3, accompanying witness, though turned hostile,
in his Chief-Examination clearly stated that he accompanied PW-2 who
went and met A-1 and on the direction of A-1, PW-2 paid the money to
A-2.  To that extent, the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence
of PW-3.  That apart, as submitted by Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
653
counsel for the respondent-State, the evidence of PW-6, the office
assistant, also corroborates the version of PW-2.  In his evidence PW-6
has stated that PW-2 went inside the room of A-1 and that A-1 told A-2
that PW-2 would give money and that A-2 must take and keep it with
him.  Accordingly, PW-2 gave money to A-2 who received the same.
Thus the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-6,
the Office Assistant.  Based on the evidence of PW-2 and test conducted
in the sodium carbonate solution the Trial Court and the High Court had
found the appellants-accused guilty of the offences.  Having regard to
the concurrent findings of the courts below, we do not find any good
ground to take a different view.
6. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
7. The appellants are to surrender to custody within a period of
eight weeks to serve the remaining sentence failing which they shall be
taken to custody.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for
necessary action.
Ankit Gyan
              Appeals dismissed.
KANNAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
[BANUMATHI, J.]