STATE OF A.P. v. M. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1Copy pinpoint1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who was convicted by a learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases for offence punishable H

70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation.

2Copy pinpoint2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

STATE OF A.P. V. M. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY 71 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J]

Copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused. The accused was examined and ..j charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the Act were framed, read over and explained to him for which F he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.15 and marked M.Os.1 to 10. The trial Court found the evidence to be acceptable and G " directed the conviction. In appeal the High Court held that since part of the prosecution version about demand and acceptance has not been proved, the remaining part of the case cannot be accepted. It was pointed out that according to the prosecution an amount of Rs.4,000/- was demanded and accepted and the H ,,.

72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R.

A first vital part of the prosecution version was that payment of Rs.2,000/- said to have been accepted by the respondent is not proved, therefore, when the part of the same is not accepted the remaining part of the case shall also not be accepted. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Hari Dev Sharma v. State B (Delhi Admn.) (1977 (3) sec 352) the conviction as recorded was set aside. The High Court found that the prosecution case was that there was demand and an amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid on 13.6.1989 which has not been proved and with regard to the trap conducted by the prosecution while the accused was c receiving Rs.2,000/- from P.W.1 on 19.6.1989. Even if the trap is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution version cannot be upheld in view of the aforesaid decision of this court.

3Copy pinpoint3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conclusions of the High Court are without any D foundation and legal basis.

4Copy pinpoint4. Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court contending that the decision of this Court in Hari Dev Sharma's case (supra) is clearly applicable. E

5Copy pinpoint5. On a bare reading of the judgment in Hari Dev Sharma's case (supra), it is clear that no rule of universal application was laid down that whenever a part of the case relating to demand and acceptance is not acceptable, the whole case would fail even if the case relating to trap, recovery of money and chemical test by the prosecution is established. When part of the prosecution version relating to demand and acceptance of bribe stands by itself, the ratio of the decision does not apply. Unfortunately, in the instant case the High Court has lost sight of the aforesaid aspects and by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision has directed acquittal. •

6Copy pinpoint6. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. H Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's

STATE OF A.P. V. M. RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY 73 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.]

theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out A of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant s to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. V Horton (1951 AC 737 at p.761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: c "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually D used by that most distinguished judge."

7Copy pinpoint7. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. (1970 (2) All ER 294) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech ..... is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J in (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: E "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board (1972 (2) WLR 537) Lord Morris said: F "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case." G

8Copy pinpoint8. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. H

74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R_

A 9_ The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, B in deciding such cases, one should avid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive." c *** *** ***

"Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in D thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it." •

10Copy pinpoint10. In that view of the matter the judgment of the High Court is clearly unsustainable and is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. E

11Copy pinpoint11. The appeal is allowed.

N.J. Appeal allowed.