The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This Criminal Appeal is filed under St:ction 378 (3) and (1) of Cr.P.C. by the appellant,i complainant, challengrng the judgment, dated 28.10.20|13 passed in C.C.No.25 of 2010 on the frle of the I Addil.ional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Adrlitiona,i Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the ,{ccused Off,rcer was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of tl-re Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the PC Act'').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties w.ill hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in C.C.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:- (i) One Nemuri Ramesh (P.W.1 lde facto complainant) and his relatives namely Nemuri Parmaeshw ar Goud and Srinivas, have purchased Ac.O.15 guntas of land in Sy.No.758 of Lalgadi Malakpet Village, Shamet,:rpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from Nemuri RamuluL (pW.S) and 2 EVV, J Crla 319 2014 others through registered sale deed bearing document No.290 of 2008, dated 25.01.2008. P.W. 1 and his relatives filed Ex.P1-application, dated O3.O2.2OOB in the office of Tahsildar (P.W.4) ald after conducting due enquiry, P.W.4 issued Ex.P8 proceedings, dated 28.04.2OO8, thereby effecting the mutation in favour of P.W. 1 and others and accordingly, issued directions to the Accused Ofhcer to effect necessary changes in the pattadar passbooks arrd other connected revenue records maintained under the provisions of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. The Accused Officer, with an ulterior motive to extract some illegal gratification from P.W. 1, dodged the process of effecting the necessar5r changes in the revenue records as per the proceedings issued by P.W.4 despite the fervent pursuit made by P.W. 1. About 15 days prior to the date of lodging Ex.P2-report, P.W. 1 and other purchasers have approached the Accused Officer at his residence in Old Bowenpally and requested him to enter their names in the record of rights but the Accused Officer demanded to pay a bribe of Rs.S,OOO- to do an offrcial 3 EVV,J Crla 379 2014 favour of enter ing the names of P.W. 1 and two others Again orr 12.O1.2OO9 P.W. 1 approached the Accused Officer at his residence in Bowenpally and repeate,d his request ald at that time also the Accused Officer ins;isted P.W.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.S,OOO- to do an official :avour and on the request made by P.W. 1 the Accused Off.cer reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000-. P.W. 1 was re luctarlt to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer :rnd hence on

15.01.2009 he went to the office of P.W.9 z:nd presented Ex.P2 (ii) In accordance with the standard procedure for trap cases, P.W.9 registered a case in Cr.No.!|ACB-HR2O09 under Section 7 of the PC Act and arranl,lements lvere made and the Accused Ofhcer was caught on 17.O1.2OO9 at about 10:00 a.m. when he received the tainted amount of Rs.2,O00/- from P.W. 1 and kept the sarne on a Tepai in front of Divan. Then as per the instruction s of the ACB officials, P.W. 1 gave signal and on which P.\tri.9 conducted chemical test on the Accused Officer, which yielded positive result. Then the tainted currency notes were recovered 4 EVV, J Crla 319 2Ol4 from the possession of the Accused Officer. After obtaining sanction order-Ex.P5 from the Government, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation a charge sheet was laid against the Accused Off,rcer for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with i3 (2) of the PC Act.

4. The learned trial Court on receipt of charge sheet and upon perusing the same and other material on record, framed the charges punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w I3(2) of the PC Act and explained to the Accused Officer, who denied the same and pleaded not guilty.

5. To prove the case against the Accused Officer, the prosecution had examined PWs.l to 1O and got marked Exs.Pl to P16 as well as MOs. I to 8.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused Oflicer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of the witnesses. One Nemuri Balraju was examined as D.W. 1 and copy of the representation, dated 29.03'2008 5 EVV,J Crla 319 2014 submittr:d by D.W. 1 to the Tahsildar, Shz,Lmeerpet was marked as trx.Xl 7 . After taking into consideration the material available on recor,C, the ora-l and documentary evidencr,: produced by the prosecution as well as the defence, thr: plea of the Accused Officer and the arguments advance<l on trehalf of both sides, the trial Court found the Accuserd Officer 'not guilty' and acquitted him under Section 248 (ll Cr.P.C. from the charges leveled against him.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment of i'rcquittal, the complainant-State preferred the present appei,[. L Heia.rd the iearned Special Pubiic: Prosecutor appearing for the appellant and the learned c,:)unsel for the respondent/Accused Offi cer.

10. Learned Standing Counsel for ttre appellant contended that there are demands made by the Accused Officer i.e., 15 days prior to 15.O1.2009 and on 12.O1.2019 for bribe and that the trial Court failed to a,ppreciate the oral and documentar5r evidence in proper perspective and 6 EW, J Crla 319 2014 I -.i erred in passing acquittal order against the respondent/Accused officer. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the witnesses have clearly stated with regard to the events that took place during post trap proceedings including recbvery of tainted currency ald a,lso with regard to the result of the chemical test which yielded positive, but the trial Court instead of drawing legal presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, had erroneously acquitted the respondent/Accused Officer. Though the case was established against the respondent/Accused Officer for the charges leveled against him, the trial Court erred in passing the order of acquittal. Hence, prayed to allow this appeal. 1 1 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/Accused Officer would submit that the learned trial Judge rightly acquitted the Accused Officer and has given cogent and elaborate frnding on facts since there are different versions given by the prosecution witnesses and passed the impugned judgment. Therefore, interference I 7 EW,J Crla 319 2O14 by this Court in the impugned judgment is unwarranted. Thereforr:, he prays to dismiss the Crimina_l Appeal.

12. Aftr--r hearing the learned Speciat publ Lc prosecutor appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Accused Officer, this Court has carefully gone through the impugned judgmen.-.

13. In Mallappa and. others a, State of .Karnatakat, the Honourable Supreme Court summarised the pr.inciples whereby appeals against acquittals can be inl.erfered with. At para-42 of the Judgment, it was held as foll()ws; "42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be cond,:)mned as guilty. Al1 ttre safeguards arrd the jurisprudent ia1 values of <:riminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while dec.iding an appeal from acquittal could be su:nmarised (t) l\ppreciation of evidence is the core elerrent ol-a criminal tria_l and such appreciation nlust be inclusive of aIl evidence, oral or com.prehensive - docu mentar5r; I 12024; 3 Supreme Courr Cases 544 8 EVV, J Crla 319 2014 (ir) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (i ) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, hnds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be foltowed: (iu) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversa-l of acquittal; (u) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appea-l on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specihcally address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (ur) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate arl illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial Court."

14. In view of the aJoresaid judgment, this being an appeal against acquittal, interference is impermissible unless the judgment of acquittal tends to be perverse or unless the inferences drawn in acquitting the Accused Officer are not reasonable.

15. In the instalt case, as seen from the impugned judgment, P.W. 1 is the de facto complatnant arrd P.W.2 is the accompanying witness. P.W.3 is the mediator, who speaks about the reports of the -pre and post-trap L I t,. 9 E\'V, J Crla 319 2O14 proceedings. P.W.4 is the then Tahsildar o[ Shameerpet Mandal. P.W.5 was the then Deputy Tahsrildar and he deposed about the submission of Ex. P. lO-z.pplication by D.W. 1 seeking mutation of the very same'srLbject land in his favotr and also submission of the report- IDx.P11 by the Accused officer. P.W.6 was the then Additiona-l Revenue Inspector, who is said to have jointly conductr:d arr enquiry along with the Accused Officer on Ex.P 1 l) application submitted by D.W. 1. P.W.S is the one of tlre vendors of P.W. 1 and two others and he deposed about lhe execution of registered sale deed, dated 25.O1.2008 in fa.vour of P.W. 1 and two others. P.Ws.9 and 1O are the Investigating Officers.

16. As seen from the evidence of prosecutirrn witnesses, P.W.4 had issued two different proceedings i.er., Exs.P8 and P9 on two different dates in respect of tkre very same property in favour of two different claimants, The record er shows that O.S.No.S of 2008 was p,::nding before F"',n the learned Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, in r:espect of the s€rme property and this fact was elicited from the evidence l0 EW, J Crla 319 2014 ri. of PWs.l, 8 and D.W. 1 arrd P.W. 10 also deposed that he had collected the relevant files from P.W.4. P.W.4 had exposed his ignorance about passing of the two orders and throwing the blame on his subordinates with an allegation that he was misled by the Accused Officer and due to that he passed two different proceedings contrary to law.

17. In B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P2 , athree-judge bench of the Honourable Supreme Court held that proof of demand is sine qua non to prove the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(dl rlw l3(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held that mere recovery of the bribe amount is not sufficient to prove the above offences. It was also held that proof of acceptance of a bribe cal only follow if there is proof of demald. Moreover, it was held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cal be drawn only if there is proof of acceptance of the demand for q' bribe. '12014(r3) scc 55 11 EW,J Crla 319 2O14

18. In N.Vijayakumar v. State of T.N3, i1 three-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld and follor','ed the above judgment in B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P. lg. In t.he instant case, as seen from the reccrd P,Ws.4, 5 ald 6 have categorically stated in their eviderrce that DW. 1 had subrnitted Ex.P10 on 18.01.2008 seeking, for mutation of the same subject iand and during the enrluiry held by P.W.4, Accused Officer and P.W.6 have condr.rcted enquiry and prepared Ex.P13 panchanama and Ex.P14 genealogrcal tree of Nemuri family and the A<:cused Officer had submitted Ex.Pl1 report and P.W.6 subr.ritted Ex.Pl2 report to P.W.s, who inturn forwarded the sime to P.W.4 and subsequently P.W.4 issued Ex.P9 proceetlings, thereby effecting the mutation in favour of D.W. 1. It is clear from the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6, Ex.P1O application of D.W.1 is prior to Ex.Pl-application of P.W.i and b1' the date of submission of Ex.Pl, Ex.P8 proceedings wt:re issued by P.W.4 in favour of DW. 1. P.Ws.9 and 1O havr,: categorically t zor z1a1 scc oaz t2 EVV,J Crla 319 2014 f.' deposed in their evidence that it was P.W.4 a-lone was competent to pass the orders for the purpose of mutation after considering the records before P.W.4. Since the Accused Officer and P.W.6 have not submitted any reports at any point of time after conducting due enquiry on Ex.Pl application of P.W.1, nothing can be taken to be wittrin the domain and competency of the Accused Officer so as to construe the same as an official favour pending with him in order to demand and accept the bribe from P.W. 1. Unless there is an evidence to prove that there is a demand for illegal gratification and also show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe, mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt. In the absence of any erridence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, the Accused Ofhcer cannot be held guilty.

20. As seen from the record, the prosecution failed to examine the persons, who have purchased the subject property along with P.W. 1 to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Accused Officer. "/ 13 E\TV, J Crla 319 2014 In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of 2I. Police, State of A.Pa, a three-judge b,:nch of the Honourable Supreme Court held that proof t:f demand for illega1 g,ratification is the gravamen of the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1Xd) r/u 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and, in the a:>sence of the same, ttre charge would fail. It . was also ht,rld that mere acceptar ce and recovery of the illegal gratif'cation would not be sufficient to prove the above charges.

22. In 'riew of the above said discussion, the contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that since the tainted 1 \ currency was recovered from the Accused O llicer the trap is proved, and therefore the trial Court ha:l erroneously held that the prosecution failed to prove the demrand and acceptance is misconceived and contrary tc, record. It is settled principle of law by the Hon'ble Apex Ccurt in catena of decisions that mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not sufficient and the prosecution has to pro,'e the 9.-"j1.! gJ It I t zo rs1ro1 scc 1s2 l4 EW,J Crla 319 2014 the accused beyond all reasonable doubt' Apart from that the trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence and assigned reasons for acquittal by holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges frdmed against the Accused Ofhcer beyond reasonable doubt' Hence, the appeal sans merit and is liable to be dismissed '

23. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed' Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, sha1l stand closed To, SD/- P. GOWRI SHANKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC o OFFICER i

1. The I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-Cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. One CC to Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy (SC FOR ACB SPL PP TS) [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri M. Vijaya Kanth, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/gh l i i I HIGH COURT DATED: 1110712025 ORDER ,a' I 'l ,-, 1E SEP 206 (, CRLA.No.319 of 2014 s o - .:)' i. DISMISSING THE APPEAL lr>