{"id":91076,"date":"2005-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005"},"modified":"2018-12-31T18:41:29","modified_gmt":"2018-12-31T13:11:29","slug":"union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  471 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India Thr. Inspector, CBI\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPurnandu Biswas\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/10\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & R.V. Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA,  J :\n<\/p>\n
 \tUnion of India is in appeal before us from a judgment and order dated
\n14.1.2003 passed by  a Division Bench of the Madras High Court whereby
\nand whereunder an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence dated
\n12th April, 1996 passed by the Special Court for Central Bureau of
\nInvestigation in O.P. No. 7 of 1995 was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Respondent herein was working as a Surveryor in the Mercantile
\nMarine Department of Government of India at Tuticorin Port.  While on
\nduty on 15.7.1992, he allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000\/- by way of
\nillegal gratification from one D.G. Rajan (PW 3) of M\/s. Raja Agencies for
\ngiving clearance certificate in respect of the vessel M.V. Lilly.  \tIt is not in
\ndispute that an inspection of the said vessel was made by the Respondent
\nherein and certain defects were found which having been rectified by the
\nMaster thereof, it was released.  It is alleged that the demand of gratification
\ncontinued purported to be on the premise that unless the amount was paid,
\nother vessels of which the said M\/s. Raja Agencies was acting as sub-agent
\nwould be detained.\n<\/p>\n
 \tHunter Shipping and Trading Company was an agent for loading and
\nunloading the goods carried out from the ships.  M\/s. Raja Agencies of
\nTuticorin was sub-agent of the said company.  It is alleged that normally the
\nships are anchored in sea upon entering into the harbour.  However, for
\nloading and unloading of the goods, ships are permitted to be berthed at the
\nplace allotted in harbour for two hours only.  If goods are not loaded or
\nunloaded within that period, penalty can be imposed.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe vessel M.V. Lilly came from Bombay.  It was brought to VOC 2
\nberth at 5 p.m. on 13.7.1992.  The Respondent by a letter addressed to the
\nDeputy Conservator asked him not to release the said vessel without his
\npermission.  An inspection of the said vessel was taken and some defects
\nwere found which were intimated to the Master thereof.  It is alleged that
\nPW3 was asked by the Appellant herein to see him at 7.30 p.m. on
\n15.7.1992.  He requested the Respondent to release the ship whereupon he
\ndemanded a sum of Rs. 50,000\/- therefor.  Allegedly, PW3 asked the
\nRespondent to reduce the amount and upon refusal on his part so to do,
\nallegedly he expressed his inability to pay the amount stating that as he is a
\nsub-agent and he would ask the agent therefor and he would inform him the
\nnext day.  PW3 allegedly informed Chandramohan (PW2) on the same night
\nthat the notice had been issued for the defects found in the ship and the ship
\nwas not being permitted to leave the harbour wherefor an amount of Rs.
\n50,000\/- was demanded by the Respondent.  PW2 allegedly told PW3 that
\nthe owner of the ship would be informed.  On 16.7.1992, PW3 met the
\nRespondent herein and told that the loading would be completed in the ship
\nand, thus, the ship may be permitted to leave the harbour.  It was further
\nalleged that PW3 promised to arrange the money from the main agent or
\notherwise another ship “Villa Ali” belonging to their agency anchored
\noutside the harbour may be retained.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOn 16.7.1992, PW2 informed PW3 that the owner of the ship refused
\nto pay the amount whereupon PW3 suggested that the same may be reported
\nto CBI.  PW2 as per the said suggestion gave a complaint to the
\nSuperintendent of Chennai Central Bureau of Investigation.  A trap was
\narranged on 17.7.1992.  The Superintendent of Chennai Central Bureau of
\nInvestigation having received the said report called the Inspector Ramasamy
\n(PW8) to register a case whereupon a First Information Report was prepared
\nand sent to Special Judge of Madurai.  A committee was formed under the
\ncontrol of the Deputy Superintendent Jones, Inspector Vijaykumar, R.S.O.
\nRaju who came to Tuticorin in a hired taxi bearing registration No. TSE
\n2828.  A room in a hotel known as Sugam International was booked.  PW3
\nwas asked by PW8 to meet him in the said room.  PW3 issued a cheque for
\nthe company’s account drawn on the Federal Bank of India Branch of
\nTuticorin (marked as Ex. P.7) for a sum of Rs. 50,000\/- and the same was
\nwithdrawn.  Azhagan Muthazhagan (PW7) and Shanmugam (not examined)
\nwere brought as witnesses.  In the bundles having currency notes of Rs.
\n50,000\/- upon having been obtained from PW3, Phinopthalene powder was
\napplied therein.  Sodium Carbonate solution was also prepared in a glass
\ntumbler and PW8 dipped the hands of Shanmugam therein resulting in no
\nchange in the solution.  Then the bundles filled in the Phinopthalene powder
\nwere given to Shanmugam whereafter his hands were dipped in the same
\nsolution and the colour thereof changed into light red.  This experiment was
\nexplained to all of them.  The said powder was thereafter applied on all the
\nbundles of the currency notes and were kept in a bag brought by PW2.  The
\nserial numbers printed in the currency bundles were also noted.  Four-five
\nvisiting cards of PW2 were taken and handed over to PW4 who was asked to
\nintroduce himself as Chandramohan (PW2).  They were told to use a signal
\nspecified to them.  When PW3 and PW4 went to the house of the accused,
\nhe was found absent.  The wife of the Respondent allegedly informed that he
\nwould return after 7 p.m.  As the pre-arranged signal of the decoy witness
\nmight not have been feasible in the night, it was changed to lighting of a
\ncigarette.  Vijaykumar and Rajan were waiting at some distance from the
\nhouse of the Respondent whereas PW8 and others were waiting 60 ft. away
\ntherefrom.  Upon noticing the Respondent entering his house, PW3 and PW4
\nentered the premises and pressed the door bell.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Respondent came out and permitted them to come inside.  PW3
\nintroduced PW4 as Chandramohan.  PW4 allegedly told the Respondent that
\nhe had brought the amount as per request and also gave his visiting card and
\nrequested for his cooperation.  PW3 allegedly then brought the bundles of
\nthe currency notes and handed over the same to the Respondent.  The
\nvisiting card and the money were taken by him by both hands and the
\ncurrency notes were allegedly kept by him in a suit case.  Upon noticing the
\nsignal given by PW4, Inspector Vijaykumar and Rajan came inside the
\nhouse of the Respondent and introduced themselves.  A glass of water was
\nbrought and sodium carbonate solution was prepared.  Allegedly when the
\nright hand was put in the glass, the colour of solution became red and when
\nthe left hand was put, it changed into a light red colour.  The Respondent
\nhaving been asked by PW8 as to where he had kept the amount, handed over
\nthe suitcase containing   the amount.  He allegedly compared the number of
\nnotes and seized the same.  His house thereafter was searched and a sum of
\nRs. 1,65,600\/- in cash was seized.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Respondent was put to trial on the aforementioned allegations.
\nThe learned Special Judge relying on the testimonies of the prosecution
\nwitnesses found him guilty of commission of an offence under Section
\n13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and imposed a punishment of
\nrigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 50,000\/- in default
\nwhereof he was to undergo a sentence of one year more.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt does not appear to be in dispute that some documents seized from
\nthe Respondent on 17.7.1992 were kept in a sealed box.  An application for
\nreturn of the said documents was filed after the arguments were closed and
\nthe judgment was reserved.  Although the same could not be exhibited
\nbefore the Trial Judge, it appears, the High Court relied thereupon.  At this
\nstage, we may notice that in paragraph 35 of its judgment, the Trial Judge
\nadversely commented upon the conduct of the Respondent herein stating that
\nthere was no evidence in writing that he had found defects in the ship and
\nafter rectification thereof it was allowed to leave the harbour.  A further
\ncomment was made by the learned Judge that if those defects were found the
\nsame should have been mentioned in P6 and P18.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe High Court, however, took notice of the said documents keeping
\nin view of the fact that the same should have been made a part of the
\nchargesheet stating:\n<\/p>\n
“But, however, the court cannot completely close
\nits eyes to the fact that the defects point out by the
\naccused were noted down by the Master of the
\nvessel and the defects were rectified and thereafter,
\nthe accused had given no objection certificate for
\nthe sailing of the vessel.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn its judgment, the High Court found the following improbabilities as
\nregard involvement of the Respondent in commission of the offence:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tPW2 nowhere in his complaint disclosed that he had received any
\ninformation from PW3.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tPW3 admittedly bore a grudge against the Respondent and he might
\nhave been involved by him in order to wreck vengeance for actions taken
\nagainst him<\/p>\n
 \tMr. A. Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General in support of the
\nappeal would submit that the High Court committed a manifest error in
\nrejecting the evidence of PW3 on the ground of enmity, which is irrelevant
\nin case of this nature as despite the same, his evidence  is admissible in
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
 \tTaking us through the evidences of PW3, PW4 and PW8, it was urged
\nthat the explanation of the Respondent to the effect that he had kept the
\namount in his hand and wanted to give the same back to PW3 and PW4
\ncannot be accepted in view of the fact that the money was recovered from a
\nsuit case.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was urged that in this case the fact that the amount of Rs. 50,000\/-
\nwas given to the Respondent is not denied and furthermore the recovery of
\nthe amount also stood accepted, the prosecution must be held to have
\nestablished its case.  If the Respondent was correct in his statement that he
\nkept the money in his hands and intended to give the same back to the
\nwitnesses, there is no reason, it was urged, as to why the same would be
\nfound in a suitcase.  It was furthermore submitted that the Respondent in
\nview of the aforementioned admitted position failed to rebut the presumption
\nin terms of Section 20 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. S. Balakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
\nRespondent, on the other hand, would submit that it is a case where over-
\njealousness on the part of the PW8 is writ large as the Respondent’s house
\nwas illegally searched.  There was no reason, the learned counsel would
\ncontend, as to why a complaint was made at Chennai and not at Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Balakrishnan would urge that admittedly no demand was made
\nfrom PW2.  It is also accepted that PW3 bore a grudge against the
\nRespondent and as such there was every possibility of foisting a false case
\nagainst him.  As regards the punch witnesses, the learned counsel would
\nsubmit that the prosecution has not disclosed as to how their presence was
\nsecured.  PW4 who was a bank manager allegedly was contacted through his
\nsuperior whose identity was not disclosed and another punch witness
\nShanmugam was not examined at all.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned counsel had pointed out the discrepancies in the
\nstatements of PWs-3 and 4 and further submitted that the entire incident,
\nviz., from entering into the house of Respondent by PWs 3 and 4 till the
\nsignal was given, could not have been completed within a couple of minutes
\nas stated by the witnesses.  It was pointed out that the bag wherein the
\nmoney was carried although was directed by PW-8 not to be opened till the
\nRespondent accepts the amount neither the same was seized nor put to the
\nchemical test.  The learned counsel would contend that PWs  3 and 4 did
\nnot take any prior appointment and they just barged into the house of the
\nRespondent which cannot be accepted.  No demand of illegal gratification
\nby the Respondent at any stage, it was submitted, has been established.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe suit case, although seized and marked as exhibit, was not put to
\nchemical test.  The learned counsel would submit that in view of the fact that
\nthe ship was released on 16.7.1992 itself, the prosecution story must be
\ndisbelieved.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Balakrishnan would point out that whereas, according to PW-3,
\nthe Respondent received the entire money in both hands, PW-4 alleged that
\nhe accepted the same with his right hand and accepted the visiting card given
\nby him with his left hand which apparently is improbable.  The witnesses,
\nthus, contradicted themselves in material particulars.  The prosecution has
\nfurther not disclosed as to how the suitcase was brought at the place where
\nthe witnesses were sitting.  Suppression of a vital document by the
\nprosecution and, particularly, in a case of this nature, it was argued, must be
\ndeprecated  by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOur attention was also drawn to the fact that prior to joining of the
\nRespondent, the average income of the Board was Rs. 62\/- which within a
\nperiod of four months was raised to Rs. 47,642\/-.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was further submitted that in a case where two views are possible,
\nthis Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
\nof India may not interfere with a judgment of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe charge framed against the Respondent in terms of Section 211 of
\nthe Code of Criminal Procedure was that while on duty on 15.7.1992, he
\ndemanded a sum of Rs.50,000\/- as illegal gratification from PW-3 of M\/s
\nRaja Agencies for giving clearance certificate for the vessel M.V. Lilly and
\npursuant to the said demand, he was offered the said amount which he
\naccepted on 17.7.1992 as a motive or reward for issuing clearance certificate
\nfor the said vessel.  No charge was framed against the Respondent that he
\ncontinued with his demand despite releasing vessel M.V. Lilly stating that if
\nthe said amount is not paid, he would detain another vessel of which PW3
\nwas the sub-agent.  It is not disputed that the Respondent had the authority to
\nmake inspection of the said vessel at the Port of Tutucorin.  It is further not
\nin dispute that when defects in the vessel were pointed out, the master
\nthereof was required to remove the same.   The surveyor is merely
\nconcerned with inspection of the vessel whereupon he may point out certain
\ndefects.  Only when such defects are rectified, the vessel is released.  All the
\nmaterials on records including the documents which were seized on
\n17.7.1992 disclose that the defects were pointed out to the master of the
\nvessel M.V. Lilly and the same  having been rectified , it was allowed to
\nleave the harbour on 16.7.1992.  The prosecution case, as disclosed by PW-
\n3,  was that on his request the same was done, as he had stated that a sum of
\nRs.50,000\/- would be paid by him failing which he may retain another vessel
\n(M.V. Villa Ali) of which he was the agent, was not the subject matter of
\ncharge.  It appears that the suggestion was made by PW-3 himself.  There
\nwas no demand to that effect by the Respondent .  PW-3, further disclosed
\nthat the said vessel was already anchored outside the port.  .  In the
\ncomplaint to the CBI made by PW-2 on 16.7.1992, it is stated that PW-3
\nhimself suggested on 15.7.1992 that another vessel may be retained by the
\nRespondent if the aforementioned sum of Rs.50,000\/- was not paid.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe have noticed hereinbefore that such charge was not framed.
\nFurthermore, the harbour master in his deposition stated that MV Villa Ali
\nwas anchored on 16.7.1992 at 1 p.m. and brought inside the harbour on
\n19.7.1992 at 5.30 p.m.    M.V. Villa Ali left the Port on 19.7.1992 at 6.45
\np.m.   Thus, evidently the statements of PW3 were not correct.  A trap was
\nlaid by the CBI on 17.7.1992  i.e. much prior to bringing of the said vessel
\nM.V. Villa Ali in the harbour on 19.7.1992.  Furthermore, having regard to
\nthe fact that the said vessel M.V. Villa Ali was anchored only at 1.p.m. on
\n16.7.1992, it cannot be believed that PW-3 could have said on the evening of
\n15.7.1992 or even in the morning of 16.7.1992 that the vessel was already
\nanchored outside the port.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW-3 did not say that the accused threatened that he would retain
\nanother vessel of which he was the agent, if the said sum of Rs.50,000\/- was
\nnot paid.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt has furthermore not been disputed that whereas average income of
\nthe harbour was only Rs.62\/- , after joining of the Respondent herein, within
\na period of four months, the income of the Port gone up to Rs.47,642\/-.  The
\nfact that PW3 was hostile to the Respondent is not in dispute.  In this view of
\nthe matter, the purported demand made by the Respondent cannot be said to
\nhave been established.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is furthermore not in dispute that PW-3 had been asked by PW-8 to
\ncarry the money in a bag.  On a conjoint reading of the deposition of PWs-3,
\n4 and 8, it would appear that the money was kept in a handbag with a zip in
\na room in the hotel.  The same was to be delivered by PW-3 only when the
\naccused would demand the same.  PWs-3 and 4 did not say that there any
\ndemand was made by the Respondent at that stage.  The evidence brought on
\nrecord shows that PW-3 took the handbag with the money inside the house
\nof the accused and handed over the same, but the same was retained by PW-\n<\/p>\n
3.  The said handbag was not seized.  PW-3 categorically stated that he kept
\nthe handbag in his car.  Why the said handbag was not seized or subjected to
\nphenolphthalein test  is beyond one’s comprehension.  PWs-3 and 4
\nfurthermore do not suggest that even any demand was made by the
\nRespondent when they went inside his house on 17.7.1992 .  PW-4 allegedly
\ntold the accused “not to stop the vessel” and that “we will abide by your
\nconditions”, to which the accused replied “yes I will look after everything”.
\nIf PW-3 is to be believed, he either on the evening of 15.7.1992 or on the
\nmorning of 16.7.1992 told the Respondent that his demand would be met.
\nBut when such demand would be met was not disclosed.  No appointment
\nwas taken from the Respondent.  PW-8 in his evidence categorically stated
\nthat when the accused was not found twice in his house, he had entertained a
\ndoubt that the claim of PW-3 that the accused had demanded Rs.50,000\/-
\nmay not be true.\n<\/p>\n
In the aforementioned context the prosecution ought to have proved as
\nto why the handbag was not seized or it and the suit case were not subjected
\nto the phenolphthalein test.  According to PWs-3 and 4, the entire
\ntransaction was over in a couple of minutes whereafter PWs-2 and 8 entered
\nthe room.  PWs-3 and PW-4 alleged that there had been some amount of
\nconversation between them and the Respondent; PW-4 introduced himself as
\nthe agent of the ship, meaning thereby PW-2; and he gave his card.
\nThereafter, only the amount was offered, accepted and kept in a suit case.  It
\nis doubtful that within such short time, the entire happenings could take
\nplace.  PW-3 says that the accused accepted the amount with both hands
\nafter the  bag was opened and sum of Rs. 50,000\/- was taken out and given
\nto the accused, who apart from accepting the same also accepted the visiting
\ncard from PW-4 and put the amount in a suitcase and then closed the  same.
\nIt is wholly unlikely having regard to the fact that admittedly PWs-3 and 4
\ncame to the Respondent’s house, he would keep a suitcase ready for keeping
\nthe said amount particularly when PWs – 3 and 4 did not come at an
\nappointed time.  PW-3 stated that the accused accepted the amount with both
\nhands, whereas PW-4 states that he accepted the amount in his right hand
\nand took the card in his left.   It appears improbable that a sum of
\nRs.50,000\/- offered at one go could be accepted by one hand by the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The conduct of  PW-8  is also not above board.  A complaint was
\nmade for a specific purpose.  He did not have any warrant with him to search
\nthe house.  He did so to show his over-zealousness.  It has also not been
\nexplained by the prosecution as to why the complaint had to be lodged by
\nPW-2 at Madras.  Admittedly, the CBI Court is situated at Madurai.  It is
\nexpected that when a demand was made by the Respondent to PW-3, he
\nwould go and lodge a complaint at the nearest place particularly when the
\ncomplaint was lodged at his instance.  The complaint of PW-2 was not only
\nentertained.  All the officers also came with him in a hired taxi.  They stayed
\nin a hotel.  PW-3 evidently had a bank account at Tuticorin.  The company
\nwas carrying on a business through its sub-agent.  Thus, even he could come
\nover to Tuticorin and ledge a complaint.  He did choose to do so, the reason
\nwherefor is not explained.  The natural conduct of PW-2 would have been to
\nverify the fact from the Respondent particularly when to his knowledge, the
\nvessel M.V. Lilly had already been released.\n<\/p>\n
 Evidence on record does not disclose in clear terms as to how PW-4
\nand Shanmugham were contacted.  According to PW-2 he was asked by his
\nofficer to comply with the request of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
It has not been disputed that PW-3 had been bearing a grudge against
\nthe Respondent.  It may be true, as has been submitted by the learned
\nAdditional Solicitor General that previous enmity alone may not be the
\nground for rejecting the testimony; but each case has to be considered on its
\nown merits and no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor.\n<\/p>\n
In State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah<\/a>  [(1998) 1 SCC 557], whereupon Mr.
\nSharan placed reliance, Thomas, J. clearly stated that evidence of such a
\nwitness would require the court to scrutinize it  with a greater care, but it
\ndoes not call for outright rejection of his evidence at the threshold.\n<\/p>\n
The test laid by this Court in the said decision if applied together with
\nother circumstances, it would appear that the prosecution story may not be
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
In B. Hanumantha Rao vs. State of U.P.<\/a> [(1993) Supp. 1 SCC 323],
\nthe conviction was based on concurrent findings of fact and appreciation of
\nevidence.  No legal principle was laid down in the said decision except
\nstating that the circumstances pointed out therein had been considered by the
\nHigh Court and  the same did not improbablise the demand and acceptance.\n<\/p>\n
It has not been disputed that a material document which was in favour
\nof the Respondent was not annexed with the charge-sheet. Had the said
\ndocument was disclosed by the prosecution, the learned Special Judge would
\nnot have arrived at a finding that had the vessel M.V. Lilly been inspected,
\nand defects pointed out in the report been rectified, the same would have
\nbeen mentioned in the document.  Had the said document been brought on
\nrecord, the learned Special Judge would not have commented against the
\nRespondent. The learned Special Judge, thus, committed an error of records.
\nSuch a statement had been made by the prosecution witnesses before PW-8
\nthat the Respondent had inspected the vessel M.V. Lilly and went on
\ndictating the defects and the master noted them, would by itself a pointer to
\nshow that the said defects were pointed out to the master of the vessel who
\nhad to rectify them before release of the vessel.\n<\/p>\n
This Court in Habeeb Mohammad vs. State of Hyderabad<\/a> [AIR 1954
\nSC 51], noted  a long series of decisions that “the view taken in India was
\nthat the purpose of a criminal trial is not to support at all costs a theory but to
\ninvestigate the offence  and to determine the guilt or innocence of the
\naccused and the duty of a public prosecutor is to represent not the police but
\nthe Crown, and this duty should be discharged fairly and fearlessly with a
\nfull sense of the responsibility attaching to his position and that he should in
\na capital case place before the court the testimony of all the available eye-
\nwitnesses, though they give different accounts, and that the rule is not a
\ntechnical one, but found on common sense and humanity”.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that onus of proof
\nwas upon the Respondent to explain as to how he came in possession of the
\namount.  Section 20 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under:
\n“20. Presumption where public servant accepts
\ngratification other than legal remuneration.
\n(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable
\nunder section 7 or section 11 or clause (a)  or
\nclause (b) or sub-section (1) of section 13 it is
\nproved that an accused person has accepted or
\nobtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to
\nobtain for himself, or for any other person, any
\ngratification  (other than legal remuneration) or
\nany valuable thing from any person, it shall be
\npresumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he
\naccepted or obtained or agreed to accept or
\nattempted to obtain that gratification or that
\nvaluable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or
\nreward  such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the
\ncase may be, without consideration or for a
\nconsideration which he knows to be inadequate.\n<\/p>\n
 \t(2) Where in any trial of an offence
\npunishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of
\nsection 14, it is proved that any gratification  (other
\nthan legal remuneration)  or any valuable thing has
\nbeen given or offered to be given or attempted to
\nbe given by an accused person, it shall be
\npresumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he
\ngave or offered to give or attempted to give that
\ngratification or that valuable thing, as the case may
\nbe, as a motive or reward  such as is mentioned in
\nsection 7, or, as the case may be, without
\nconsideration or for a consideration which he
\nknows to be inadequate.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in
\nsub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to
\ndraw the presumption referred to in either of the
\nsaid sub-sections, if the gratification or thing
\naforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no
\ninterference of corruption may fairly be drawn.”\n<\/p>\n
In this case demand of illegal gratification by the Respondent has not
\nbeen proved.  Furthermore, Section 20 of the Act is not attracted as the
\nRespondent had been charged for commission of  an offence under Section
\n13(1)(d)  read with Section 13(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
M. Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. [(2001) 1 SCC 691], relied upon by
\nMr. Sharan, was rendered having regard to the contention raised therein that
\nit was not  enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public
\nservant to make it as acceptance of gratification; prosecution has a further
\nduty to prove that what was paid amounted to gratification.  Such a question
\ndoes not arise for consideration in this case.\n<\/p>\n
Moreover, the High Court has recorded  a  judgment of acquittal.  It
\nfor reasons assigned therein opined :\n<\/p>\n
“Taking into consideration overall aspects of the
\ncase, I am unable to completely disagree with the case of
\nthe accused that the trap was a stage managed affair, for
\nthe reasons already indicated supra.\n<\/p>\n
We, albeit for other reasons also agree with the conclusion of the High
\nCourt.  The Appeal, therefore, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 471 of 2004 PETITIONER: Union of India Thr. Inspector, CBI RESPONDENT: Purnandu Biswas DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/10\/2005 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & R.V. Raveendran JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-91076","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nUnion Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-31T13:11:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-31T13:11:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4625,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005\",\"name\":\"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-31T13:11:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-31T13:11:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005","datePublished":"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-31T13:11:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005"},"wordCount":4625,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005","name":"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-31T13:11:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-thr-inspector-cbi-vs-purnandu-biswas-on-7-october-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India Thr. Inspector, Cbi vs Purnandu Biswas on 7 October, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91076","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=91076"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/91076\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=91076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=91076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=91076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}