Supreme Court - Daily Orders
R. Manthra Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2015
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, Arun Mishra
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1620 OF 2007
R. MANTHRA MURTHY ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.987 of 1999, dated 14.03.2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant while confirming the conviction by the Trial Court under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”).
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are: the appellant was working as an Assistant Registrar of Companies at Bangalore. The complainant (PW-1) is the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2015.09.14 17:59:29 IST Reason: 2 Director of M/s. Cosmos Audio Video Cassettes Private Limited (for short, “the Company”). In the Cauvery riots occurred during 1991, the books of accounts of the Company were ransacked and destroyed. PW-1 had lodged a complaint to that effect before the police. The appellant issued notice to PW-1 to produce all the books of accounts of the Company. When PW-1 expressed his inability to produce the books of accounts due to the destruction of the same in the riot, the appellant agreed to extend the time for production of the books of accounts in return for a bribe of Rs.5000/-. PW-1 feeling offended by the conduct of the appellant reported the matter to the C.B.I by written complaint.
3. The Investigating Officer registered a case and secured PW-2, an independent witness to assist him in the trap proceedings. The trap was arranged and accordingly bait money was smeared with phenopthaline powder. PW-2 met the appellant in his chambers and he 3 gave a signal after coming out of the chamber. The Investigating Officer rushed to the scene and conducted the post trap proceedings, the appellant’s fingers were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution which turned into pink colour. After taking the sanction, chargesheet was filed, the Sessions Court framed the charge against the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, the appellant pleaded not guilty and the case was committed to trial.
4. The Trial Court after a detailed examination of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty and convicted him under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced the appellant to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, in case of default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months; simple 4 imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1,000 for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, in case of default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months, by order dated 29.09.1999. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
5. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Trial Court, the appellant carried the matter in an appeal to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, by order dated 14.03.2006.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
7. We have heard the parties to the lis and perused the records of the case.
8. After going through the judgment and order passed by the High Court, we are of the considered opinion 5 that the High Court without appreciating the evidence on record by a cryptic order has confirmed the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court against appellant for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
9. Since the judgment and order passed by the High Court is without the appreciation of evidence on record, we have no other alternative but to set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matter back to the to the High Court for its consideration and decision in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
11. The interim bail granted by this Court shall enure to the benefit of the appellant for a period of one month from today. However, the appellant is at 6 liberty to file appropriate application before the High Court seeking for a regular bail. It is for the High Court to decide the application for bail on merits.
12. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open.
13. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Ordered accordingly.
...........CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) .............J. (ARUN MISHRA) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 08, 2015.
7
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1620/2007
R. MANTHRA MURTHY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
(with office report)
Date : 08/09/2015 This appeal was called
on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Appellant(s) Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B. Raghunath, Adv.
Mr. Shriram P., Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Parimal, Adv.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balramdas, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
As a sequel to the above, pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(Neetu Khajuria) (Vinod Kulvi)
Sr.P.A. Assistant Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file.)