The High Court · 2025

Judgment

7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.567 OF zOLz JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.6.2012 in C'C' No' 34 of 2006, passed by the Principal Special t'earned Learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Civil City Court, at Hyderabad, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a hne of Rs 1,O00, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a hne of Rs 2,000, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d). Both sentences were directed to run concurrentlv.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that PWl is the complainant. According to him, his father, Bhoomanna, retired from service as Head Master from Government High School, Jumaratpet, Nirmal District. PW1's mother, Susheela, aged about t/ - .- ""*E%EGiW:j - 2 48 years, underwent bypass surgery at Care Hospital on

5.3.2005 a-nd was discharged on 20.3.2005. In this regard., pW1,s father applied for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred, arnounting to around Rs 1,22,000.After scrutiny in the office of the Director of Medical Education, the eligible reimbursement amount was determined to be Rs 1,09,815, and the f,rle was forwarded to the Director of School Education of A.p., Hyderabad, in October 2005.

3. It is the case of PWI that he approached Sri p. Ranga Rao/appellant, who was working as a Senior Assistant in the off,rce of the Director of School Education, on 18. 10.2005 and enquired about the status of the file. The appellant informed him that the eligibility had been assessed under G.O. No. Z4 dated,

15.3.2005 instead of G.O. Ms. No. 175 dated 29.5.t997, asa result of which an additional amount of Rs 5O,OOO would be sanctioned. PW1 alleged that the appeltant demanded a bribe of Rs 5,000 to process the file accordingly and stated that he would then forward it to the District Education Ofhcer.On 10. 11.2005, when PWl again approached the appellant, the appellant allegedly reiterated the earlier demand and informed him that n 3 unless the amount of Rs 5,OOO was paid, the file would not be processed. He instructed PWl to bring the amount on the following day.

4. As PW1 was unwilling to pay the bribe, he lodged a complaint with PW5, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, on 10.11.2OO5 at 11:30 hrs. PW5 registered the complaint as Cr. No. 15/ACB-CR/2OO5 under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, on

11.11.2005 at 9:3O a.m., after verihcation and preliminary rnqulry

5. During investigation, PWs secured the services of PW2 and LW9 to act as mediators. A trap was organized on 11.11.2005, following all legal procedures, and details were recorded in ExP3/Mediators' Report I.

6. During the trap on 11.11.2OO5, at about 1:30 p.m., when PWl met the appellant at the oflice premises of the Director of School Education, the appellant demanded and accepted Rs 5,0OO as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from PWl with his right hand and placed the amount in his right-side i'J T 4 trouser pocket. Upon receiving the pre-a-rranged signal from PWl, the trap party apprehended the appellant.

7. Subsequently, the phenolphthalein test was conducted on the appellant's hands, and his right-hand fingers yielded a positive result. The tainted amount of Rs.S,OOO/- was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his right-side trouser pocket. When the inner lining of that pocket was tested with sodium carbonate solution, it also gave a positive result. The appellant was arrested on 1 1. 1 1.2005 and sent to judicial remand. He was later granted bail.

8. Investigation revealed that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe arnount of Rs 5,000 from PW1 for doing an ofhcial favour, i.e., for processing the medical reimbursement hle of PW1's father. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Government of A.P., being the competent authority to remove the appellant from service.

9. A charge sheet was hled against him for offences under Sections 7 and L3(21 read wittr 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 5

10. The learned Special Learned Special Judge, relying on the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 (prosecution witnesses) and Exs.Pl to P14 (marked documents), found in favour of the prosecution version that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe on the date of the trap. The learned Special Judge held that an offrcial favour was pending with the appellant as on the date of the trap, as even though he had put up the note on 31.10.2005 and signed the same, relying on PW3's evidence, it was found that after approval of PWl's father's file by the Director of School Education, the Iile would be returned to the Senior Assistalt, Rl's section, for drafting the proceedings of the sanction order. The learned Special Judge stated that upon approva_l of the hle by the Director, the appellant was still required to prepare the proceedings and dispatch the same to the concerned individuals.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant argued the following points: i. That ttre father of PWl submitted the medical reimbursement bills with several defects. While processing the bills, the appellant found discrepancies and retumed them after noting the same. Thereafter, on 76.7.2OO5, pwl approached the appellant u,ith a letter, a new dispatch summarJr, and other documents. PW1 then picked up a . .rtsr. ... -.aa&tl&e-.r e* I I 6 quarrel with the appellant, accusing hirn of intentionally delaying the frle and even threatened that he would see how the appellant continued to work in the office. PWl bore a grudge against the appellant. ii. That according to PWl, the demand was made by the appellant on 18.10.2005, but the report-was lodged only on 10.11.2005, and the delay was not explained. It was attempted during PWl's evidence to justifr the delay by stating that he was unwell; however, this explanation does not appear either in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Hence, the unexplained delay is fatal to the case. iii.That the investigating officer did not secure copies of G.O.Ms. No. 74 and 175 and did not examine whether an additional Rs 5O,OO0 would be sanctioned if the old G.O. was applied. Thus, the claim of PWl that the appellant informed him of a higher reimbursement under G.O.Ms. No. 175 is not substantiated. On the contrarJr, the appellant argued that a lesser amount would be sanctioned under the old G.O., thereby showing PWl's willingness to give false evidence. iv. That no oflicia-l favour was pending with the appellant since he had processed the frle by 31.10.2005, and it was then pending with the Director of School Education. v. That while the appellant was parking his two-wheeler under a tree in front of his ofhce, PWl suddenly came from behind and thrust some cllrrency notes into the pant pocket of the appellant's trousers. The appellant tried to stop him with (^ 7 his hand, but PWl ran away and ACB officials apprehended the appellant. DW2 supported the appellant's version. The appellant stated about the thrusting incident immediately upon being apprehended, and due weight should be given to this representation. Admittedly, several people would usually be present under the tree, yet the prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses. Hence, DW2's evidence must be accepted. vi. PW4's evidence indicated that the sanction order was merely copied from the draft sent by the ACB, and therefore, there was no application of mind in issuing it. Consequently, the sanction to prosecute the appellant is not valid.

12. Firstly, what needs to be considered is whether the appellant had any official favour pending as on the date of the trap.

13. PWl's evidence is that during March 2005, his mother underwent b5rpass surgery at Care Hospital and was discharged on 2O.3.2OO5. In this connection, PW1's father, who retired as Head Master from Government High School, applied for medical reimbursement of approximately Rs. |,22,OOOI- arrd submitted the application along with supporting documents to the Head Master, Government High School, Jummeradpet. r 8

14. PWl stated that after submission to the Head Master, the application was forwarded to the District Education Officer (DEO), Adilabad, who in turn sent the documents to the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh. The Director of School Education then transmitted the file to the Director of Medical Education for approval. The Director of Medical Education sanctioned reimbursement of Rs i,09,850 as per G.O. No. 74 of 2OO5. The file was thereafter returned to the Director of School Education by the Director of Medical Education, confirming the sanctioned amount. Since the Iile was received by the Director of School Education in October 2OO5, PW1 approached the appellant on 18.10.2005 to enquire about tJle status of his mother's reimbursement.

15. According to PW1, ald as reflected in ExP1, when he met the appellant regarding the reimbursement application, the appellant informed him that eligibility had been gralted under G.O. No. 74 dated i5.3.2O05 instead of G.O. Ms. No. 175 dated

29.5.1997, which would have resulted in an additional sanction of Rs 5O,OO0. For processing the frle accordingly and forwarding i it to the DEO, the appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,O00/-. l 9

16. The key issue is whether the appellant was authorized to determine the eligible reimbursement arnount and whether he could have applied G.O. Ms. No. 175 to secure an extra Rs 50,0oo/-.

17. Although PW1 denied knowledge during cross-examination that eligibility is hxed by the Director of Medical Education and not by the Director of School Education, he later admitted that the latter's office merely forwards the medical reimbursement bills received from the DEO to the Director of Medical trducation, where eligibility is decided. PW1 also acknowledged that the Director of Medical Education determined the reimbursement amount as Rs 1,09,815 on 19.9.2005 and returned the hle to the Director of School Education in October 2OO5.

18. PW3, who was then Superintendent 1n the Director of School Education's office, confirmed that their department had no power to finaJize the reimbursement amount, which solely lies with the Director of Medical Education.

19. PW6, Inspector, ACB, further a{Ermed during his testimony that his investigation revealed that only of{icials in the Director of Medical Education's ofhce are authorized to fix such arnounts. .:+-^re.!;-,!r,L..^ 10

20. The testimonies of PWs 1, 3, and 6 collectively make it clear that the authorit5z to determine the admissible reimbursement amount vests exclusively with the Director of Medical Education ald not with the Director of School Education, where the appellant was posted. Even ExP4, the photocopy of File No. 646/Rl-2/O5 relating to PWl's father's reimbursement frle, includes a letter from the Director of Medical Education to the Director of School Education outlining the calculated admissible amount. The letter confirms that the sanctioned amount of Rs. L,O9,8l5l- had the approval of the Additional Director of Medica,l Education. 2l . Therefore, the evidence confrrms that the appellant, being in the Director of School Education's office, lacked the authority to determine the eligible reimbursement a-rnount and could not have applied G.O. Ms. No. 175 to sanction an extra Rs.50,O00/-. Since PW1 admitted awareness that the reimbursement amount had already been hxed by the Director of Medical Education on L9.9.2OOS and the file had been received by the Director of School Education in October 2OO5, there is no plausible reason for him to have believed ttre appellant's claim of securing an additional Rs.50,000/-. 11

22. It is also unclear why PW1 did not contact the offrcials of the Director of Medical Education for nearly a month-from the alleged demand on 18.10.2005 until he hled the complaint on

10. 11.2o05-to verify whether an additional amount could be sanctioned.

23. Furthermore, PW5, DSP, ACB, admitted that he did not verify with the appellant's office regarding who was competent to determine reimbursement eligibility and whether it fell under the jurisdiction of the Director of School Education or Medica_l Education. This was a_lso admitted by pW2, the mediator. pWS stated that apart from seizing the frle from the Deputy Director, he did not verify its contents or review Exp4. He also acknowledged his lack of awareness regarding the content of PW1's complaint, including the claim that G.O. No. 74 was applied instead of G.O. No. lZS, resulting in a potential additional reimbursement of Rs.5O,OO0/- and a related bribe demand of Rs.5,000/-. Moreover, pW5 admitted that he did not seize copies of either b.O. trrt". No. 74 or G.O. Ms. No. 175 at the time of the trap. PW6 similarly stated that during his investigation, he did not examine any witnesses concerning G.O. r I I I I ,l I L2 Ms. No. 175 to determine whether an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- could actually have been sanctioned, as claimed in PW1's complaint/ExPl. It remains unascertained why neither the ACB nor the Inspector investigated whether the appellant had any authoritSr to approve an extra Rs.SO,OOO/- or whether such a beneht could have arisen under G.O. Ms. No. 175. The ACB also failed to obtain or examine G.O. Ms. No. 74 or G.O. Ms. No. 175 to assess the legitimacy of PW1's claims.

24. Nonetheless, the record clearly establishes that only the oflicials in the Director of Medical Education's ofhce could determine the eligible reimbursement arnount, and the appellant had no power to sanction additional sums. It was not within his scope of duties to determine reimbursement eligibility, and PW1 was aware of this. Therefore, the alleged bribe demand for performing an act outside the appellant's ofhcial functions does not a-rlse.

25. Now what needs to be considered is whether the appellant did not process the file of PW1's father until the date of the trap due to a demand for bribe and whether he intentionally kept the hle pending until that date. _tJ

26. PW3's evidence is relevant. He stated that the R1 section in their ofhce dealt with subjects of medical reimbursement and pension for retired gazetted officers in the state and that the appellant was working as a Senior Assistant in tJ e said section. The appellant's duty was to process medical reimbursement bills.

27. PW3 admitted that the fi.le pertaining to pWl,s mother was received in their ofhce on 29.4.2OO5. He further admitted that the hle was forwarded to the appellant, who raised five objections on

2.6.2005. These objections were approved by higher officials, and the hle was returned to the DEO. Later, the hle was again received in their office on 6.7.2005, and the appellant put up a note on 11.7.2OO5. Based on this note, the then Superintendent, H.Ramesh Babu, pointed out on |2.7.2OOS that the discharge date in the EssentialiQr Certificate did not match the Emergency Certificate ald Discharge Summar5r, and that an original Appendix II, duly signed by the forwarding authorit5r, was a_lso required. Subsequently, PW1 submitted a letter dated 16.7.2005 (ExP2) complying with the objections. 74

28. Thereafter, the appellant put up a note on 2L.7.2OO5, recommending the bills be sent to the Director of Medical Education. This note was approved by the Deputy Director, and a letter was addressed to the Director of Medical Education on

27.7.2OO5. The office of the Director of Medical Education later fixed the admissible amount for PW1's mother at Rs 1,09,815 and sent the fiIe back to their office on 6.10.2OO5. The appellalt then put up a note on 31.10.2005, which was signed by PW3 on

5.11.2005. LW2, J.Satyarrarayana, Assistant Pension Officer, approved it on 9. 11.2005 and forwarded it to the Special Officer, Text Books (LW3/Sri Salam), who approved it on the same day and forwarded the f,rle to the Director of School Education, the hnal sanctioning authority.

29. From the above, it is evident that the Director of Medica-l Education fixed the admissible amount at Rs. 1,09,815/- and returned the file on 6.10.2005. Thereafter, the appellant put up a note on 31.10.2005. PWl admitted only that the Director of Medical Edr.rcation hxed the medical reirnbursement amount for PW1's mother as Rs.1,09,815/- on 19.9.2005 and sent the file to the Director of School Education in October 2OO5. He denied that the appellant put rp.- a note on 31.10.2005. 7', 15

30. PW5 also admitted that when he questioned the appellant about the hle, the appellant stated that it was not with him and that he had already forwarded it on 31.10.2005 to the Superintendent for onward submission to the Deputy Director and Director, which was also confirmed by PW2. PW5 further stated in his cross-examination that, according to his investigation, the appellant processed the file on 31.10.2OO5 and sent it to the Superintendent on 5. 11.2005, who then forwarded it to J.Satyanarayana, Assistant Director. He, in turn, sent the frle to the Deputy Director on 9.11.2OO5, who recommended and sent it to the Director of School Education the same dav. In Expg (Mediators' Report II), it is recorded that when the DSp, ACB questioned the appellant regarding the official trarrsaction of the file for PW1's father's reimbursement, the appellant replied that the hle was received from the DEO on 8.7.2O05 and a note was put up to the Assistant Director on 11.7.2OO5. Another note was made on 21.7.2OO5. The hle was returned on 2Z.T.2OOS after approval and dispatched to the Director of Medical Education for scrutiny. The file was received back from DME on T.LO.2OO5 and again forwarded to the Assistant Director on 31.10.2005 for sanction. '{*&f8 r 16 ,, 3 i. According to PW3's evidence, unless the Director, Directorate of School Education, gives an order for issuing proceedings and forwards the same, the appellant cannot proceed furttrer. However, there is no evidence that the Director issued such an order. In fact, PW5 stated that on the date of the trap, the Director of School Education was not available in the oflice. He was unaware that the Director was on election duty in other states. There is no explanation as to why PWs did not examine the Director to establish whether an order had been issued and if the appellant deliberately kept the frle pending.

32. Most significantly, the file concerning PWl's father was not found with the appellant on the date of the trap. PWS, in his chief exarnination, deposed that during post-trap proceedings, he examined LW2, J Sat5ranarayana, Assistant Director, who stated that the file related to PW1's mother was with the Special Officer, Text Books (Deputy Director cadre). LW2 obtained ExP4 from the Special Ofhcer during post-trap proceedings. PW2 also confirmed that the Assistant Director produced the file related to the medical reimbursement bill of PW1's mother, and the ACB officials seized it from the ofhce room of the Director of School Education on the trap date. Further, in ExPg (Mediators'Report I!, it is record.ed that DSP, ACB, examined J Satyanarayana' who stated that the hle related to PW1's father was received on 6. 11.2005 from the Superintendent, R1 Section, for note processing for sanction. He forwarded it to the special ofhcer, Text Books (Deputy Director), who cleared it on 9'11'2OO5' The file was pending with the Special ofhcer. He also stated that after approval from the Director, the hle would be returned to the Senior Assistant, R1 Section, for drafting sanction orders'

33. Lastly, PW3 clearly stated in his cross-examinatiot: "there is notling to be done bg the accused officer in the file/ ExP4 as on the date of the trap, i.e., 11.11.2005." PW5 also admitted during cross-examination that no paper related to the medica] reimbursement of PWl',s mother was pending with the appellant as of the trap date. PW6, Inspector, ACB, similarly admitted that "bAthedateoftrapnodoanmentrelatingtomedical reimbursement of the mother of PWl was pending tttith the accused officer."

34. The above evidence clearly indicates ttrat the appellant had completed his responsibilities. He processed the lile on 31.10.2005 and sent it to the Superintendent. The file was not & 18 found with him on the trap date; rather, it was seized from the offrce of the Director of School Education at the instance of LW2, who obtained it from the Special Officer during post-trap proceedings. Therefore, the evidence supports that the appellant had discharged his duties by forwarding the file to the Director of School Education and did not deliberately keep it pending. This is also evident from the fact that the file was not seized from him but was produced by LW2, J Sat5ranarayana. Demand on 18.1O.2OOS by the appellant aud subsequent filing of complaint: 35. The only evidence regarding the alleged demand by the appellant for a bribe of Rs. 5,OOO on 18.10.2005 is that of PWI What needs to be considered is whether PWl's testimony 1S reliable enough to believe his version that a demand was made by the appellant on that date.

36. According to PW1, when the file was forwarded to the Director of School Education in October, 2OO5, he approached tJre appellant on 18.10.2005 and enquired about the same, at which point the appellant demanded a bribe for processing it. As he was not willing to pay the demanded amount, on 10. 11.2OO5, 19 he visited the ofhce of the ACB and lodged a complaint-ExPl. ExPl /Complaint was filed on 10.1 1.2005

37. PW1, in his cross-examination, stated that he met the appellant for the hrst time on 18. 10.2005 and had not interacted with him previously. However, there is a contradiction in his own testimony. PWi admitted cross-exarnination that on

16.7.2005, he met the appellant and submitted a letter stating that there were discrepancies in the date mentioned in the discharge summa-ry and hence a new discharge summary was being submitted. He further stated that only xerox copies of the documents were submitted for consideration. ExP2 is PWl's letter dated 16.7.2005 submitted to the appellant in compliance with the defects pointed out by the Superintendent.

38. On one hand, PWl claims that he met the appellant for the first time on 18. 10.2005, whereas he also admits having interacted with him earlier on 16.7.2OO5 and submitting ExP2.

39. In addition to this inconsistency, there is an unexplained delay of nearly one month in lodging the complaint. Although the alleged demand was on 18.ib)005, the complaint was not frled Ilr .t ,l I I I l,i 20 until 10.11.2005. The explanation offered by PW1 is that he was unwell from 18.10.2005 and, after recovering on 10. 11.2005, he gave the complaint. However, he admitted that he had not mentioned this fact either in ExPl/Complaint, or in his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement before the DSP, ACB, or in his Section 164 Cr.P.C statement before the Magistrate. He furttrer admitted that the claim regarding his ill-health was made for the first time in court.

40. It is evident from the above that PW1's statement regarding being unwell from 18.10.2005, and that being the reason for the delay in filing the complaint, is a clear omission and appears to be an afterthought introduced for the hrst time during the trial.

41. Moreover, PWl admitted that he did not inform anyone about the appellant's alleged demand of Rs. 5,OO0 on 18.10.2OO5 until he approached the ACB offi.cials on 1O.11.2005. He also admitted that between 18.10.2OO5 and 11.11.2005, he did not lodge any oral or written complaint with the appellant's superior ofhcers, such as the Superintendent, Assistant Director,'Deputy Director, or the Director. 2l

42. If PW1 was indeed sick for nearly a month, he ought to have produced some medical evidence such as doctor's prescriptions or certihcates to convince the court that his ill-health genuinely caused the delay. Further, there is no evidence in the testimonies of PW2 and PW5 that they questioned pW1 about the delay or that he provided an explanation.

43. In light of the delay, the contradiction in pWl,s own testimony about meeting the appellant for the first time, and the absence of any corroborative evidence to support the alleged demand of Rs. 5,000 on 18.10.2005, pW1,s version cannot be accepted as reliable to conclude that such a demald was made. His testimony does not inspire confidence.

44. Demand and Acceptance on the Date ofTrap: According to PW1, he, along with the trap party, reached the office of the appellant at 12:15 p.m. on 11.11.2005. The DSp reiterated his earlier instructions and asked him to go into the appellant's office. PWl then went to the R1 section but found that the appellant was not at his seat. He contacted the appellaat through a landline telephone, calling the appellant,s mobile. The appellant instructed him to wait near the tree outside the offrce .l )', and said he would arrive within ha_tf a, hour. At around 1:30 p.m., the appellant carne on his two-wheeler, took pw1 into trre office, ard told him to pay the bribe so that the work could be completed quickly. The appellant then asked him to follow, and both came out of the oflice. Outside, the appellant demanded the bribe. PWl haaded over the tainted notes, which the appellant accepted with his right hald and kept in his right pant pocket.

45. Thereafter, pW1 gave the pre_arranged signal. Even in cross-examination, pW1 deposed that the transaction took place in the open space in front of the appellant's ofrrce, under a tree. However, PWs 2 arrd 5 deposed that the trap pafty reached the appellant's ofhce at L2:IS p.m. on 11.11.2OO5. The DSp instructed pWl to proceed into the office. After pW1 entered, the rest of the trap party took their positions near the office. Around I:45 p.m., they received the pre_arranged signal from PWl.Neither pW2 nor pW5 mentioned pW.l coming out and going back into the office with another person. PW2, in his cross- examination, admitted that he and the other trap party officials did not see the appellarrt and pW1 entering or exiting the office together. PWl, on the other haad, denied t,.e suggestion that he I & 23 was never asked by the appellant to come into the ofhce and that they did not go into the office together or return to the tree area.

46. Even in ExP9 (Mediators'Report II), PW1's version is that he entered the ofhce, found the appellant absent, waited for some time, and then ca-lled the appellant. The appellant asked him to wait outside. At around 1:30 p.m., the appellant arrived, both entered the ofhce, ald then exited together to the area under the tree. It is clear that PW1's version is inconsistent with the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses

47. Further, PW1 stated that the money was handed over under the tree, in front of the appellant's office. However, again, neither PW2 nor PW5 deposed about PW1 exiting with someone arrd going towards the tree. Their statements only conhrm that PWl entered the ofhce and gave the pre-arranged signal at 1:45 p.m. According to PWl, he and the appellant came out together, the bribe was given, and only then was the signal given. This contradiction becomes more signihcant becamse ExPS, the rough sketch of the scene, does not indicate where the trap party members were positioned. If they had taken positions near the i i I I F i , I 24 oflice, they would have witnessed pW1 exiting and re_entering Yet, PWs 2 and 5 remain silent on this point. 4a- Moreover, while pwl in his chief stated that he contacted the appellant via a laldline call to his mobile, in cross_ examination, he stated he does not remember the mobile number he dialled from a public telephone booth on the trap date. If he had used a public booth, he would have had to step outside, and someone from the trap team would have observed him. However, no witness supports this part of pwl's version. The rocation of the public booth is also not indicated in Expg, making it unclear whether it was inside or outside the premises.

49. Additionally, the prosecutionb case is that the appellarrt was caught by the ACB under the tree in front of the ofhce. pwl admitted that vehicles were commonly parked under the tree and that it was a public area. On the day of the trap as well, the appellalt parked his two-wheeler under the tree. pWS denied that any visitors were present at that time, while pw2 admitted that there were severaf people at the location where the appellant was apprehended. Their statements contradict each other, and ExP8 only shows the appellarrt and pW1 at that spot. pWS 25 admitted that ExP9 (Mediators' Report II) does not mention whether the appellant was alone or whether others were present. PW2 a,lso admitted that ACB did not exarnine or question any of the visitors who were at the scene when the appellant was caught. No reason has been provided for this failure by PWS.

50. The appellant's defence that he parked his two-wheeler under the tree and PWl suddenly thrust currency notes into his pant pocket, and that the appellant tried to prevent it, appears plausible in view of PW2's admission that visitors and staff parked their vehicles in that area. Even PW1 admitted that the appellant parked his vehicle there on the trap day

51. Further, the appellant's version has remained consistent since the beginning. He stated during the post-trap proceedings and in his 5.313 CrPC exarnination that PW1 forcibly placed money into his right hand, and when he resisted, pushed it into his pant pocket. PW2 admitted that when the DSP questioned the appellant, he stated that PWl forcibly placed the currency in his hand and then into his pocket. PWS also conhrmed that the appellart, when questioned about the alleged demand and acceptalce, denied both,agd explained that PW1 pushed the 26 currency notes into his hand and then into his pocket despite his refusal. Even in ExP9, it IS mentioned that the appellant's explanation was that PW1 forcibly placed a wad of currency in his right hand and also forcibly inserted the cash into the right- side pocket.

52. DW2, a typist in the ofhce of the Director of School Education, was examined by the defence and deposed that on

11.11.2005, around 1:40 p.m., he was about to go for lunch and came out of the ofhce. At that time, he saw the appellant arrive on a scooter and park it under the tree. As the appellant wa_lked towards the entrance, a man came from behind and thrust currency notes into the appellant's pant pocket while the appellant attempted to stop him with his hand. The man then ran away, and ACB ofhcials immediately apprehended the appellant. However, DW2 admitted that he did not report this incident to his superiors or to the ACB till date and did not raise any complaint. While this limits the reliability of DW2's evidence, when seen along wittr the inconsistencies in PW1's version and the appellant's consistent defence, it cannot be completely ignored. 27

53. There is no independent evid'ence apart from PW1's testimony regarding the alleged d'emand and acceptance of the bribe on the trap date' Since PWl's testimony contains material contradictions, and both PWs 2 and 5 conflrm the appellant's denial of the demand and acceptance when questioned' it cannot be said that the prosecution has established beyond doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe on 1 1' 1 1'2005'

54. The Hon'ble Su.preme Court, in the case of Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab 1 , found that a trap witness is a partisan witness, who is interested' in the trap' Such evidence must be tested like any other interested witnesses' and the Court should look for independent corroboration before recording conviction. 55. In V.Venkata Subbarao v' State rep' by Inspector of Police, A.P2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once the prosecution fails to prove the evidence of demald' the question of raising presumption against the accused d'oes not arise' The Hon'lcle Supreme Court further held that the delay in hling the complaint also ad,ds to the inhrmity in the prosecution case' t 119721 3 supteme court cases 652 '120061 t3 supreme court cases 305 i I i i I I I I 2A Recovery: 56. Though the sodium carbonate test conducted on the appellant's right-hand hngers yielded a positive result and though the bribe amount was recovered from the appellant,s right-side wearing pant pocket at his instance, the same is of no consequence in light of the prosecution not being abre to prove demand for bribe on 18. 10.2005 and the demand and acceptance of bribe on 11.11.2005, i.e., the date of trap. Motive:

57. It is the defence of the appellant that pWl lodged a false complaint against him since pw1 bore a grudge. According to the appellant, the father of PW1 submitted medical reimbursement bills with several defects. while processing the bils, the appellant identihed the defects and returned them after clearly noting the same. Thereafter, on 16.T.2005, pW1 approached the appellalt with a letter, a new dispatch summar5r, and other documents, and picked up a quarrel, alleging that the appellant was intentionally detaying the processing of the file. pwl also threatened that he would see how the apperlant wourd continue working in the oflice and bore a grudge against him. l \ 29

58. PWl admitted that after receiving the file, the appellant scrutinized it and raised five objections, namely: emergency certificate without name and seal of the doctor; essentiality certihcate not signed by the doctor; discharge certihcate without name and seal of the doctor; all medical bills not attested by the treating doctor; and a non-drawl certificate duly mentioning the amount, Spell-I, II, III, and disease, as per G.O.Ms No. 601 dated

15.10.2003. PWI admitted that based on these objections, the appellant recommended that the file be returned. Accordingly, the hle was sent back to the DEO, then to the Head Master, and finally to PW1. After addressing the objections, it was resubmitted to the DEO on 6.7.2OO5. PWl further admitted that on 1I.7.2OO5, the appellant put up a note, and the Superintendent, Ramesh Babu, pointed out additional defects on

12.7.2OO5, stating that the discharge date mentioned in the Essentiality Certihcate did not tally with the emergency certihcate ald discharge summa-q/. Additionally, one more Appendix-Il in original, duly signed by the forwarding authority, was reqrrired. The Superintendent endorsed to obtain the same and return the lrle to the appellant. On 16.7.2005, PWI met the appellant and $,srryw' . -.;d.&i..;;aie;i 30 submitted a letter stating there were mistakes in the discharge surnmary date and that a new discharge summary was being submitted, along with xerox copies of all documents for consideration. ExP2 is PW1's letter dated 16.7.2OO5, submitted to the appellant, comp\ring with the defects pointed out by the Superintendent.

59. PW3 also admitted that the appellant had raised five objections on 2.6.2005. He confirmed that the objections were approved by higher offrcials, ald the lile was returned to the DEO. The file was again received in their office on 6.7.2OO5, and the appellalt put up a note on 11.7.2OO5. Based on this, the then Superintendent pointed out further defects on 12.7.2OO5. Thereafter, PW1 submitted Exp2/letter dated t6.T.2OOS, comp\ring w'ith the objections. pW6 admitted that as per ExP4/fi(e, the appellant returned the medicar reimbursement file i of PWl's mother on2.6.2005 with hve objections.

60. DWl, who was then the Senior Assistant in the Director of school Education, stated that his seat was ad.jacent to that of the appellant. On 16.7.2OO5, around L2:OO/12:30 p.m., a person came to the appellant and picked up a quarrel regarding his 31 mother's medical reimbursement' He left angrily' challenging how long the appellant would remain in ofhce and that he would see his end. DW1 later confirmed from the appellant that the person was pw1. Dwl arso deposed that the appelrarit informed him the file was not in proper order' and the objections raised led to the altercation, due to which pw1 bore a grudge. However, in cross- examination, DWl admitted that this was the frrst time he was stating before the Court about the quarrel' He also stated that out of fear, he did not inform anyone earlier'

61. PW5 admitted that during the post-trap proceedings' when he questioned the appellant' the appellant represented that PW1 bore a grudge against him because he was not disclosing the movement and processing of the hle' This was also admitted by PW2.

62. objections, and because In light of the above, it is clear that the appellant had raised of those, PW1 had to resubmit the evidently took nearly seven months' application. The Process arrel occurred ott 163 '2005' in view of Even assuming that no qu pW1,s contradictory testrmonY without corroboration, the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint' the absence of any F$ .i€ -L_ 32 oflicial favour pending with the appellant, and the appellant,s prompt explanation, it is apparent that pWi falsely lodged a complaint against the appellant. 63. In P.satyanarayana Murthy v. District Iaspector of Police and State of Andhra pradesh and anothere, it was held that mere recovery or acceptance of the amount, dehors the proof of demand, will not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the prevention of Corruption Act, 19gg ReEarding Sanction: 64. Lastly, the argument of the counsel is that the sanction order was simply copied from the dra_ft sanction order sent by the ACB and that there was no application of mind by the competent authority.

65. ln CBI o. Ashok Kumar Aggaruta\ l2OL4l 14 SCC 29S, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: 't 13. The prosecution has to satisfg the court tLnt at th.e time of sending tLrc m-atter yor giint of sanction by the competent autharitg, -adequate mateial jor such grani utas made auqilctble to the said, authoritg. This mig also be euident from the sanction ord-er, in"case jf is "ertremerg comprelrcn-siue, as all fie facts and circum_stances of the case maA be spelt out in the sanction ord.er. Hou.teuir, in euery indiuidual case, th.e court has to find. out ufeiner tLere hns been an .applbation of mind in tle part of the sanctioning authoitg "or."rni on the material placed. 120151 1O Srpr"rn" court cases 152 t before it. 1t is so necessary for th.e reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning autLnritg to discharge its duty to giue or uithhold sanction onlg afier hauing full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formalitg. TLerefore, the prouisions in regard to the sanction must be obserued ulith complete strictness keeping in mind tle public interest and the protection auailable to the accused against uhom th.e sanction is sought.

14. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifis the bar for prosecution. Th,erefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act uhich affords protection to the gouernment seruant against fiuolous prosecution. FurtLer, it is a weapon to discourage uexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guiltg.

15. Consideration of the mateial implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authoitg hod consi.dered the euidence and other mateial placed before it. In euery indiuidual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court bg leading euidence that those facts utere placed before tle sanctioning authoitg and the authoitg had applied its mind on the same. If the sanctiort order on its face indicates that all releuant mateial i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recouery memos, drafi charge-sheet and other materials on record uere placed before tlrc sanctioning authoritg and tf it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authoity perused all the mateial, an inference mag be draun thnt the sanction hnd been granted in accordance uith lau. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the ualtditg of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the order suffers from the uice of total non-application of (Vide Gokulchand mind. Duarkadas Morarka u. R. [(1947-48) 75 IA 3O : (1948) 61 LW 257 : AIR 1948 PC 821 ; Jastuant Singh u. State of Punjab IAIR 1958 SC 124 : 1958 Cn Ll 2651 , Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed u. State ofA.P. [(1979) 4 SCC 172 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 9261 , State u. KishancharudKhushalchand Jagtiani [(1996) 4 SCC 472 : 1996 SCC (Crt) 755] , State of Punjab u. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti [(2009) 17 SCC 92 : (2011) 1 SCC pd 9491 , Satyauir Singh Rath| 34 ACP u. State [(2011) 6 SCC 1 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 782] and State of Maharashtra u. Mahesh G. Jain [(2013) B SCC 119: (2o1a) 1 SCC (Cri) 515: (2014) 1 SCC (L&S)851 .r

66. ExPl1 is the sanction order. It contains only seven paragraphs, out of which the first five are a verbatim copy of the charge sheet submitted by the ACB. In the last paragraph, it is merely stated that in exercise of the powers conferred, sanction is hereby accorded. In the sixth paragraph, it is mentioned that after fully and carefully exarnining the material placed, it was decided that the appellant must be prosecuted. However, the sanction order, on its face, does not indicate what material was considered or even refer to any specific material. It is evident that the sanction order was passed without any application of mind.

67. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was a demand made by the appellant. The recovery of the amount is of no consequence when the prosecution fails to discharge its duty of proving the demand beyond reasonable doubt.

68. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.34 of 2006, dated 12.06.2012 is set aside and the appellant 1S 35 acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

69. Accordingly, the Criminat Appeal is allowed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secrl6N oFFrcER \ To 1. The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. ( with records)

2. The lnspector of Police, ACB , City Range-ll, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to Sri T. L. NAYAN KUMAR, Standing Counsel cum Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hdyerabad. (OUT)

4. One CC to SRl. C. SHARAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Co kul/pst HIGH COURT DATED:.3UA4I2A25 JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.567 of 2012 ALLOWING THE CRL.APPEAI, ' i:: -a-aa::a=:: o r€1 .*$ s.N \ '! + \\ \ '1.' \:r.., (. )p r*