STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus P. VENKATESHWARLU
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 262, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 262 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
P. VENKATESHWARLU 
(Criminal Appeal No.1317 of 2008) 
MAY06,2015 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND 
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
c 
PreventionofCorruptionAct, 1988-ss. 7and13(1)(d) 
rlw s. 13(2) - Case of illegal gratification - Trap laid and the 
accused caught demanding and accepting bribe - Conviction 
and sentence uls. 7 and 13(1)(d) rlw s. 13(2) by trial court, 
however set aside by the High Court - On appeal, held: 
D Essential ingredient of demand and acceptance of bribe 
proved by the prosecution - Recovery of tainted money 
proved- Same was witnessed by key eye witnesses and their 
testimonies corroborated by other material witnesses -
Offence u/s. 7 confirmed by the unchallenged recovery of 
E the tainted amount - Defense raised various presumptions 
to disprove the prosecution case - However, no evidence 
adduced by accused, to rebut the presumption u/s. 20 -
Further, the probability of the accused not being present 
cannot be considered - Suggestion that document writers 
F set up the trap to implicate the accused cannot be accepted 
- Thus, the order of acquittal by the High Court set aside 
and the order of conviction and sentence by the trial court 
restored. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the factum of 
demand and acceptance was proved by the recovery of 
the tainted amount and the factum of there being a 
H demand has also been stated. The essential ingredient 
262
STATE OF A. P. v. P. VENKATESHWARLU 
263 
of demand and acceptance has been proved by the A 
prosecution based on the factum of the case. It has been 
witnessed by the key eye witnesses and their 
testimonies have also been corroborated by other 
material witnesses. The offence under Section 7 of 
Prevention of Corruption Act has been confirmed by the B 
unchallenged recovery of the tainted amount. Thus, it is 
the obligation of the court to raise the presumption 
mandated by Section 20 of P.C. Act. It is for the accused 
respondentto rebutthe presumption, by adducing direct 
or circumstantial evidence, that the money recovered C 
was not a reward or motive as mentioned u/s. 7 of the 
P.C. Act. The defense raised various presumptions to 
disprove the prosecution case. However, it has not been 
able to adduce evidence, on the basis of which the 0 
presumption u/s. 20 could be rebutted. [Para 10, 11] [271-
D-G; 272-B-C] 
1.2 The accused has neither taken the plea of alibi 
for the visit on the 18.3.1995 and nor has proved the 
factum of not being present on the first date when the E 
alleged demand was made, beyond all doubt. Therefore, 
the probability of his not being present cannot be 
considered. The suggestion as to document writers 
setting up the trap to implicate the accused due to the F 
inimical relations seems to be very farfetched. All the 
remaining suggestions were not adduced by any direct 
or circumstantial evidence, as required under law. [Paras 
1'2-13]
[272-G-H; 273-A, D-E] 
1.3 The order of acquittal passed by the High Court G 
, is set aside. The judgment and order passed by the 
Principle Special Judge convicting and sentencing the 
accused respondent u/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) rw s. 13(2) is 
restored. [Para 14] [273-G] 
H
264 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat 2012 
(6) SCR 165: (2012) 7 SCC 80; State of Punjab vs. 
Madan Mohan Lal Verma 2013 (7) SCR 1130: (2013) 
14 SCC 153; C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High 
Court of Kerala 2009 (2) SCR 1021: (2009) 3 SCC 779; 
B 
Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2012 (4) SCR 
408:(2012) 6 sec 204- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2012 (6) SCR 165 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
c 
2013 (7) SCR 1130 
Referred to. 
Para 10 
2009 (2) SCR 1021 
Referred to. 
Para 11 
2012 (4) SCR 408 
Referred to. 
Para 12 
D 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 1317 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2006 of the 
High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 149 
E of2000. 
F 
S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Krishna Kumar Singh, D. 
Mahesh Babu for the Appellants. 
T. Anamika, B. V. Chandan for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. - 1. This appeal, by 
special leave, has been filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh 
G against the judgment and order dated 10.7.2006 passed by 
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby 
the High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of 
the respondent herein and acquitted him allowing the criminal 
appeal filed by him. 
H
STATE OF A. P. v. P. VENKATESHWARLU 
265 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
2. The facts of the present matter before us are that A 
the accused respondent was working as Sub Registrar in 
the office of Sub Registrar and Assurance, Sattypali, 
Khammam District. On 18.3.1995 one Sri Burra 
Venkateshwara Rao, complainant, approached the 
respondent to get a Will deed registered in the name of his 8 
wife for transfer of certain extent of land. As alleged, the 
accused respondent demanded a sum of Rs.1000/- for the 
said registration work. After some bargain the demand was 
reduced to Rs.500/. Since the complainant was not willing to c 
pay the said bribe amount, he approached the Deputy 
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption BurE?au, Warrangal 
(P.W. 8) and lodged a complaint on 20.3.1995, who registered 
a case in Crime No.17'ACB-WKH/95 under Sections 7 and 
11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, issued FIR and took up D 
investigation. Thereafter, P.W.8 requested the complainant to 
come to Neeladri Guest House at Penuballi on 21.3.1995 with 
the necessary amount. Accordingly the complainant along with 
his friend, namely, V. Edukondalu (P.W.1), went to Neeladri 
Guest House at Penuballi on a motorcycle at about 1.00 P.M. 
E 
and P.W.8 introduced the complainant to one V. Yugender 
(P. W. 7) and another. Thereafter, the complainant was asked 
to give the money only when the officer demanded it. The trap 
. party consisting of P. W.8, two mediators, two inspectors and 
F 
two
constables, left the Guest House in a Jeep while the 
complainant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went on a motorcycle. The raid 
party stopped the Jeep at a little distance from the office of the 
respondent at Sattupally. The complainant and P.W.1 went to 
a hut situated within the premises of Sub Registrar's office, G 
Where the complainant collected the Will document prepared 
by P.W.5 N.V. Chalapathi Rao, the document writer and stamps 
necessary for registration from P.W.4 B. Lakshmaiaha, the 
stamp vendor" Before handing over the Will document to the 
H
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A complainant, attestation was obtained from P.Ws. 1 and 2. 
Later on the complainant along with P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to 
the office of the respondent and gave the Will deed to the 
respondent, who after examining the Will deed, obtained the 
signatures of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 K. Srinivas Rao, who 
8 were present there. When the complainant enquired about the 
registration fee of the document, the responc:lent said it would 
amountto Rs.81/-. The complainant took out Rs.81/-from inner 
pocket of his banian (vest) and gave it to respondent, who 
c placed it in the table drawer. Thereafter, he prepared a receipt 
and handed it over to the complainant. It was subsequently 
alleged that the respondent demanded the bribe of Rs.500/-
and that the complainant took out the tainted amount from his 
shirt pocket and gave it to the respondent, who kept the amount 
D in the table drawer. Then P.W.1 came out of the office and 
gave the pre-arranged signal, pursuant to which the trap party 
entered into the office and P.W.8 -the Deputy Superintendent 
of Police (ACB) asked the respondent whether he has 
received the bribe amount to which the respondent denied. 
E Then the phenolphthalein test was performed on fingers of both 
the hands of the respondent and the test on the right hand 
fingers proved positive. The respondent denied having 
received any bribe even when he was so asked by the 
F mediators. On instructions of P.W.8, the mediators
searched 
the right side drawer of the office table of the respondent and 
found three batches of currency notes in it, out of which one 
bundle containing currency notes of Rs.500 and Rs.100 
denominations, tallied with .the numbers noted by the 
G mediators. The other bundle of Rs.9000/- was given account 
according to the records. An amount of Rs.9.50 paise was 
found in the drawer which was left by the customers due to 
non availability of change. Again on being asked, the 
respondent said that he did not know who kept the amount 
H
STATE OF A. P. v. P. VENKATESHWARLU 
267 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
in the drawer. Post trap Panchnama was prepared and the A 
respondent was arrested and released on bail. After 
completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police filed the 
charge-sheet. During the pendency of the trial, the de facto 
complainant Burra Venkateshwar Rao died on 10.6.1997. 
B 
3. In the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE 
& ACB cases, at Hyderabad, the learned judge after 
considering the material facts and evidence, found the accused 
guilty under Sections 7 and 13 (1 )(d) read with Section 13 (2) 
of Prevention of Corruption Act. He was awarded conviction C 
under Sections 7 and 13 (1 )(d) read with Section 13 (2) of 
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous 
imprisonment for one year under each count and also to pay a 
fine of Rs.1000/- under each count, and in default, he would D 
suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months. 
4. On appeal by the respondent before the High Court, 
the learned Single Judge was of the view that the lower Court 
erred in coming to the conclusion that the accused was guilty E 
of the offences under the above mentioned Sections of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act and the conviction and sentence 
imposed on the accused by the Court below were set aside · 
and the accused was acquitted of the charges against him. 
The reasons adduced by the High Court for acquitting the F 
accused respondent are as follows: The High Court
disbelieved 
the testimony of P.W.1 as truthful. The High Court considered 
the theory of the defence that the document writer had foisted 
a false case, from the cross examination of P. W.1 and came 
to the conclusion that Chepu Chennaiah had visited the room G 
of the Public Prosecutor. Another circumstance was that the 
prosecution did not record the statement of the so called 
complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecution got 
the statement of P.W.1 recorded, butnotthatofthecomplainant, H
268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, the High Court noticed 
that it was not imperative in the instant case. The alleged trap 
was dated 21.3.1995 and the complainant died on 10.6.1997. 
Thus, the prosecution cannot take the plea that the complainant 
was not available for the recording of statement under Section 
8 
164 Cr.P.C. Another circumstance favouring the accused as 
noticed by the High Court was that whether it was necessary 
for the complainant to execute a Will in favour of his wife. The 
High Court was of the view that the complainant was a petty 
c vendor, having no legal heirs, with only a second wife. In such 
a situation the property would automatically devolve upon her 
and there was no necessity to execute a Will deed. The Court 
was of the view that the positive result of the phenolphthalein 
test was not enough to hold the accused guilty. The High Court 
D observed that it was not disputed that the complainant was 
carrying one set of amount in his banian pocket and the other 
in his shirt pocket. So the possibility of his touching the tainted 
currency notes at the time of taking out the registration amount 
could not be ruled out. 
E 
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for 
the State of Andhra Pradesh as also the learned counsel· 
appearing for the respondent. 
F 
6. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Andhra 
Pradesh contended before us that it was evident that P.W.1 
accompanied the
complainant to the place where the trap 
was laid. In addition, he narrated the events in sequence 
and his evidence was corroborated with the evidence of 
G P.W.2 and other witnesses. The suggestion made by the 
accused respondent that P.W1 and P.W.2 were set up by 
Chepu Chennaiah and Nageshwar Rao was wrong, as nothing 
was elicited from their cross examination. As per the 
H prosecution, the High Court in the impugned judgment had
STATE OF A. P. v. P. VENKATESHWARLU 
269 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.) 
given more weightage to the evidence of defense with regard 
A 
to cancellation of the license of document writers than the 
evidence of prosecution with regard to the test conducted by 
P.W.8. Also the High Court failed to appreciate that non-
recording the statement of the complainant under Section 164 
is notfatal to the case of the prosecution. The High Court also 
8 
failed to appreciate that the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, 
who are subordinates to the accused respondent, would 
naturally be in support of their colleague. 
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on C 
the other hand, argued that mere recovery of money by itself 
cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the 
accused respondent in the absence of any evidence to 
establish payment of bribe or to show that the accused 0 
respondent voluntarily accepted the money. The positive 
phenolphthalein test is not the conclusive proof that the 
accused respondent took the bribe. The learned counsel 
cited a number of cases in support of the respective 
contentions raised by them. In addition, it was submitted E 
that the complainant in a trap case stands in the position of 
an accomplice and his evidence cannot be accepted without 
corroboration. 
8. We are of the opinion that the case of the prosecution 
F 
depends on the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 7 & 8. P.Ws. 1 and 2 
are alleged to be the eyewitnesses for the demand and
acceptance of the tainted money. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the 
mediators and Head of the raiding party that recovered the 
money from the table drawer in the office of respondent. The G 
evidence of P.W.1 makes it clear that on 21.3.1995, he went 
to the house of the complainant where he was informed that 
the de facto complainant had given a complaint against the 
A.O. for demanding a sum of Rs.500/-. Both of them went to H
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
the Penuballi Guest house, where they were introduced to the 
mediator (P.W.7) by the D.S.P. (P.W.8) and was given 
instructions regarding the trap. His evidence further showed 
that after the Will was presented and registration fee paid, the 
A. 0. demanded from the de facto complainant to pay the bribe 
B amount. From the evidence of P.W.2, it becomes clear that on 
21.3.1995, he went to the office of the M.R.O. on account of 
personal work and was reckoned by Bora Venkateshwara Rao 
and P.W.1 to attest the Will Deed. His evidence further goes 
c to show that he accompanied P. W.1 and de facto complainant 
to the office of the A. 0. where he witnessed that the A. 0. firstly 
collected the registration fee of Rs.81/- and later demanded 
and accepted the tainted amount. He has thus fully 
corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 on the question of 
D presence, on the question of signing as identifying witness 
and also on the fact of demand and acceptance of the tainted 
money. 
9. Coming to the testimonies of P.W.7 and P.W.8, their 
E testimonies fully corroborate the testimony of P.W.1. The 
testimonies of the material witnesses have been fully 
corroborated and we find them to be trustworthy. The 
Phenolphthalein test goes further to prove that there was 
demand and acceptance of the tainted money. The recovery 
F of the tainted money has gone unchallenged by the accused 
respondent. Thus, we find that the High Court has wrongly
disbelieved the testimony of P. W.1. 
10. We are aware of the position in law, as laid down 
G in cases involving the relevant provisions under the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, that mere recovery of the tainted 
amount is not a sine qua non for holding a person guilty under 
Sections 7, 11and13 of the Act. This Court has observed in 
H Narendra Champak/al Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat, (2012)
STATE OF A. P. v. P. VENKATESHWARLU 
271 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
7 SCC 80, that there has to be evidence adduced by the A 
prosecution that bribe was demanded or paid voluntarily as 
bribe. The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal 
gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under 
the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound 
to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance 8 
thereof and it has to be founded on facts. The same point of 
law has been reiterated by this Court in State of Punjab Vs. 
Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153. In the present. 
case.the factum of demand and acceptance has been proved c 
by the recovery of the tainted amount and the factum of there 
being a demand has also been stated. The essential ingredient 
of demand and acceptance has been proved by the 
prosecution based on the factum of the case. It has been 
witnessed by the key eye witnesses and their testimonies have D 
also been corroborated by other material witnesses. The 
offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act has been confirmed by the 
unchallenged recovery of the tainted amount. Thus, it is our 
obligation to raise the presumption mandated by Section 20 
of P.C. Act. It is for the accused respondent to rebut the E 
presumption, by adducing direct or circumstantial evidence, 
that the money recovered was not a reward or motive as 
mentioned under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. 
11. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High
Court F 
of Kera/a, (2009) 3 SCC 779, this Court stated: 
"It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under 
Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged 
with the offence cou Id rebut it either through the cross-
examination of the witnesses cited against him or by 
adducing reliable evidence. If the accused fails to 
disprove the presumption the same would stick and then 
it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has and 
G 
H
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
then it can be held by the court that the prosecution has 
proved the accused received the amount towards 
gratification." 
In the instant case, the defense has raised various 
B presumptions to disprove the prosecution case. However, it 
has not been able to adduce evidence before us, on the basis 
of which the presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act could 
be rebutted. 
c 
D 
12. On the question of demand, learned counsel for the 
respondent stated that the allegations in the complaint with 
regard to prior demand were false as the A.O. was on election 
duty on 9.3.1995 and 10.3.1995. The defense contended that 
the bribe was made for the first time on 9th or 10th of March 
1995 as alleged in the complaint. The defense has tried to 
take the plea of alibi. However, in the complaint the exact date 
of visit is not mentioned. On the basis of an approximation, we 
cannot assume that the demand was made on 9th or 10th of 
E March, 1995. The facts of the case also bring to light thatthe 
complainant went to the office of the accused on 18.3.1995, 
he again went to the office of the A.O. and as a result the 
demand was reduced from Rs.1000/- to Rs.500/-. This Court 
has observed in Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 
F (2012) 6 SCC 204, that "the plea of alibi in fact is required to 
be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the 
possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of 
occurrence and in the home of
their relatives." The accused 
has neither taken the plea of alibi for the visit on the 18.3.1995 
G and nor has proved the factum of not being present on the first 
date when the alleged demand was made, beyond all doubt. 
Therefore, we are of the view that the probability of his not 
being present cannot be considered. 
H
STATE OF A. P. v. P. VENKATESHWARLU 
273 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J.] 
13. One of the suggestions given by the accused A 
respondent is that the entire trap was laid down due to the 
inimical relations with document writers, Chepu Chennaiah and 
his son-in-law Nageshwar Rao. The defense also suggests 
that the complainant was a petty vendor who has no children 
and the second wife alone is in existence, and therefore, 
8 . 
execution of the Will Deed was not required. Another possibility 
as stated by the defense was that the complainant was carrying 
two sets of amounts, one in his banian pocket and other in the 
shirt pocket. The amount qf Rs.81/-'he was cari-Ying in the c 
banian pocket, whereas the tainted amount he was carrying in 
the shirt pocket and he could have touched the tainted amount 
at the time of taking out the registration fee. The suggestion 
as to Nageshwar Rao and Chepu Chennaiah setting up the 
trap to implicate the accused seems to be very farfetched. All D 
the remaining above mentioned suggestions are not adduced 
by any direct or circumstantial evidence, as required under 
law. 
14. Thus, the accused respondent has not successfully E 
rebutted the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. 
The prosecution, on the other hand, has established the 
demand and acceptance of the tainted money. The recovery 
also has gone unchallenged. Therefore, we strike down the 
order of acquittal passed by the High Court in CriminalAppeal 
F 
No.149 of 2000. We
restore the judgment and order dated 
24.1.2000 rendered by the Principle Special Judge for SPE 
&ACB cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C. No.10 of 
· 1996, convicting the accused respondent under Sections 7 G 
and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Actand sentence 
· him to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment under each count 
and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under each count, in default 
to suffer simple imprisonment for two months under each count. 
H

274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Both the substantive sentences are to run concurrently. This 
appeal is accordingly allowed. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeal allowed. 
B