Creditworthy Deposition Of Hostile Witness Can Be Looked At: Supreme Court Restores Conviction In Corruption Case
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by the State challenging an acquittal order passed in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While restoring the conviction of a Taluk Supply Officer in a corruption case, the Supreme Court has held that every court considering the deposition of a hostile witness has to look at the extent of the deposition, which is creditworthy to provide proof of the case set up.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the State challenging an acquittal order passed in a case registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “With this in mind, as a matter of prudence, every court considering the deposition of a hostile witness has to look at the extent of the deposition, which is creditworthy to provide proof, of the case set up.”
“Herein the demand was raised as a complaint before the vigilance and the statements to that extent made in the complainant before the Vigilance Officer in the presence of independent witnesses were affirmed by the complainant when he was examined as PW1, which PW2 the independent witness fully corroborated. This was further corroborated by the Vigilance Officer, the lead trap officer PW17, who wrote down the allegations on the oral complaint of PW1. He also spoke of the complaint having been read over to the complainant who confirmed it to himself; the scribe, and the independent witnesses present. We allow the appeal setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the order of the trial court”, it added.
Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate P. B. Suresh Kumar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The case emanated from a prosecution initiated under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial court convicted the accused and imposed a sentence of two years, both under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) to be suffered concurrently. The High Court found that the prevaricating deposition of the complainant, who was examined as PW1, failed to establish the necessary ingredients to prove offences under both sections; particularly the demand. The accused was thus acquitted. The complainant was an Authorised Ration Dealer (ARD) whose activities were subject to the control and supervision of the Civil Service Department through the Taluk Supply Office. The ARDs were required to produce the weekly accounts before the Revenue Inspector (RI) in the Taluk Supply Office and get the ‘Abstract’ of the changes in the ration cards verified every three months. The accused was the TSO responsible for the ARD run by the complainant, who consistently refused to countersign the ‘Abstract’ and, as per the prosecution case, he demanded a bribe of Rs 500, which was handed over pursuant to a trap laid.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the fact that the complainant had approached the vigilance department was not denied. It was also the statement of PW1 that he had approached the vigilance department only because he was unwilling to bribe the TSO to get the counter signature. The Bench found that there was no case of any offer made by the bribe giver, which, along with the proof of acceptance of money, could have enabled a presumption under Section 20 of the Act, to bring in the guilt of the accused under Section 7.
The Bench also noticed that the complaint was admitted, the pre- and post-trap proceedings were spoken to by the complainant and corroborated by one of the independent witnesses. The Bench further emphasised that the acceptance of the Rs 500 note was not only established but also admitted by the accused.
The Bench further noticed that the demand was raised as a complaint before the vigilance, and the statements to that extent made in the complaint before the Vigilance Officer in the presence of independent witnesses were affirmed by the complainant, which the independent witness fully corroborated. This was further corroborated by the lead trap officer. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of the trial court. “Considering the fact that the sentence awarded is the statutory minimum for the offences we find no reason to tinker with the same”, it concluded.
Cause Title: The State of Kerala v. K.A. Abdul Rasheed (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 365)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant, AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad, Mahabir Singh, Muhammed Siddick, Hima Bhardwaj, Kaushitaki Sharma, Arunender Thakur
Respondent: Senior Advocate P. B. Suresh Kumar, AOR Pranav Krishna, Advocates Akhil Suresh, Pattathil Pranav Menon