Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2018 · The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Special public prosecutor for ACB Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri Damodar Mundra The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT I a\ 3 HON'BLE SRI JT'STICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPTAL Nos'1 162 of 2OL7 and 3O1 of 2O18 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. Criminal Appeal No'l162 of 2Ol7 is {iled by appellant/A1 questioning his conviction and Criminal Appeal No'3O1 of 2018 is filed by ACB, Hyderabad questioning acquittal of Accused No'2 vide judgment in C.C.No'15 of 2015 dated 15'Og'2017 passed by the I Additional Special Judge for SPB and ACB cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad'

2. Since accused in both the cases were tried by the learned I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB culn-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in C'C'No'15 of 2015' both the appeals are disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.

3.HeardSriVinodKumarDeshpande,learnedSenior Counsel for the appellant in Crl'A'No' 1162 of 2Ol7 ' Si Damodar ent in Crl.A.No.301 of 20 18 and learned Mundra for re"T Special Public Prosecutor for ACB in both the aPPeals'

4. The AppellxilAl was working as Assistalt Engineer' Kuravi Mandal, warangal District and the acquitted Accused No.2 worked as Work Inspector in A'P'State Housing Corporation I 4 Limited. According to the defacto complainant/P.W. 1, there were 22 persons in their Thanda who were sanctioned houses under Indiramma Adarsha Grama Housing Scheme. They started construction of their houses and three beneficiaries received 15 bags of cement and 7 beneficiaries received 10 bags of cement and the rest of the benehciaries did not receive either cement, rice or cash components in accordance with the scheme. P.W. 1/defacto complainant approached A1 and requested him to release housing scheme benehts that have to be issued to them. A1 demanded Rs. i 1,OOO/- to be paid at the rate of Rs.SOO/- each from each of the 22 beneficiaries. ,A.1 instructed that the amount should be paid to A.2 for releasing the cement, rice and cash to be credited into the beneficiaries account. Though P.W.1 and others pleaded to release amount, however, A1 insisted that Rs.7,000/- should be paid initially. The said demand was reiterated on O2.O3.2OO7 by A2

5. P.W. 1 along with other relatives approached ACB officials and lodged a complaint with P.W. 16/DSP. Complaint was given on O5.03.2007 in which FIR was registered on the next day i.e., on O6.03.2007 on which date, the trap proceedings were drafted. 5 on the basis of the complaint, P.w. 16 arranged for the trap on 07.O3.2OO7. P.W.2 and another, independent mediators' P.W. 1/defacto complainant, P'W' 16/DSP and others were present in the police guest house at Khammam' The DSP asked the mediators to note down the bribe currency numbers and thereafter got applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency and it was explained that anyone handling the phenolphthalein tainted currency, the powder on the same would pass on to the hands of the person and when the hands are dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the solution would turn pink in colour' Ex.P3, the first mediators' report was drafted at'7'15 a'm and thereafter all the trap party members proceeded to the house of ,{1. Around 8.30 a.m, the trap part5r reached the house of A1' P.W. 1 entered into the house of A1 along with P'W'2/independent mediator. At 10.00 a.m, P.W'1 came out of the house and relayed the signal indicating acceptance of bribe by A1 and A2' The trap and P.W. 16/DSP questioned A1 party entered into the house then prePared sodium carbonate about the bribe amount' He . *+. rlnse nls fingers in two separate solution and asked A1 to solutions and right hand wash turned into pink colour' The amount was taken out #om back pocket of A1 and handed over 6 to the trap party. The parlt pocket was also subjected to sodium carbonate test. A i, P.Ws. I and 2 were questioned during the post trap proceedings as to what transpired after they entered into the house and what all transpired was reduced intr> writing in the second mediator's report, which is Ex.P1O. During post trap proceedings, P.W.16 asked A1 to produce relevant documents. Ex.P4 booklet was handed over by A1 and other clocuments were produced by A2. The investigation was then handed over to P.W.i7/lnspector by P.W. 16, who concluded investigation ald filed charge sheet. P.W. 17 obtained sanctioned orders from the Government.

6. Learned Special Judge having examined the evidence placed on record by the prosecution found that A.1 was a,lone guilty and acquitted 42.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on beha_lf of the appellant/Al would submit that P.W. l/complainant and other beneficiaries of the scheme have a]l turned hostile to the prosecution case. Other than the tainted evidence of the interested witnesses P.w.2 and Dsp/p.w. 16, nothing was placed on record to suggest that there was any demand or acceptance of 7 In fact, the name of P'W'1's wife was not bribe bY A1 or 42' mentioned in Ex.P4 booklet as the bene{iciar5r' as such' complaint itself becomes doubtful' 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB would submit that on the date of trap' P'W'2' who is an independent mediator was asked to observe what transpires in between the aPPellant and P.W.l. P'W'2 stated that when P'Ws'1 and 2 entered into house of A1, A1 was sitting in a chair and on seeing P'W'1' A1 asked him whether he brought the bribe amount' P'W' 1 offered amount to A1, who accePted it and kept in his Pant's back pocket. Immediately' P'W' 1 went out and relayed signal Though, P.W. L turned hostile to the prosecutron case, the other circumstances including the evidence of the independent witness P.W.2 would go to show that there was demand and acceptance by 41. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka v' Chandrashar, wherein it was held as follows: '21. It is settled latu that tte tu;o basic facts ui.z'''demand' and ' accept ance' of s ;; ;;;*i - " :"':."]f ft *iTn' li ;lffJ',Z: ho' " b in"a"J'' s""ion 20 can be inuoked to the elle utas demand'd 7nd*-o''upted- a: '? ^;':i" ;:*i'#:'o "'Tn contemplated under Section 7 of' presumption * *iin'f,i""'i'utn on the basis of tle preponderance '?t-^' l CriminalAppeal No 2646 of 2024' dated 26

71.2024 l of probabilittl, the dcased can rebut the same. In the present case, tLrc prosecution proued ifs case beyond reasonable doubt, in respect of tle 'demand' and 'acrnptonce' of the bibe amount from the complainant and recauery of tainted cur.rencll notes from tle possession of the respondent. The said operation is preceded by recordinq of the demond in the tape recorder. In such ciratmstances, the respondent has to rebut tLte presumption by disprouirLq the case of tlt-e prosecution either in ttLe cross- examination of the proseantion side z,itnesses or bu cdducinq mateial euidence that the receipt of Rs.2,)OO/- Luas not a bribe amoun| but a leqal fee or repa qment of loan. Houeuer, he foiled to do so and on the contrary, ue find the prosecution to haue proued the case begond any doubt. "

9. The defence of ,A,1 is that he was falsely implicated in the case. Further there was no ofhcial tvork which was pending insofar as P.Ws.3 to 11 were concerned. Ex.p4, \4/hich is booklet contained details of all the beneficiaries in the villages under ,A1,s jurisdiction. Exs.PS to P8 documents were not in his possession and he had no knowledge about the pending benefits of all the beneficiaries. There was no ofhcial work, which is pending with him. On the date of trap, P.W. 1 entered into the house and placed currenc)- notes on his table and went away, in spite of asking P.W. 1 to take away the amount. A1 took the amount to return it to him at a later date. Though ,{1 explained that he had never demanded any amount, however, the said version was not recorded in the second mediator's report. I

10. P.W.1/complainant and p.Ws.3 to 11 beneficiaries of the scheme, have all turned hostile to the prosecution case 9 I 1. P.W. 12, who was working as MPDO in Kuravi Mandal stated that the list of benehciaries to whom houses were sanctioned' was prepared and therea-fter attested by him' A2 and MRO and it was forwarded to the District Manager (Housing)' The benelrciarieslistwouldbesanctionedbytheCollectorandSent back through District Manager' The construction of the beneficiaries' houses would then commence and on the basis of the Work Inspector's inspection report of the construction of the houses and considering measurements in the M Book' the bills would be prepared by A1' However, in the cross-examination' P.W.l2 stated that the cash component would be released and depositedinthebankaccountsofthebeneflciaries.Accordingto the procedure, the Work Inspector after recording measurements along with MRO, MPDO and Special Officer in the M book' the M- book would be given to A1 for forwarding the bill'

12. According to P.W. 13, Dy'A'E, after the beneliciaries list is sanctioned, A2 will inspect the freld and give markings and prepare the documentation work' Thereafter' the beneficiaries "t"' Then A2 would would make arrangements for the ff" recommend for cement bags to A1 and on that A1 would issue cement bags to the ibeneficiaries' Further' on the I 10 recommendation of A2, At would recommend for paSrment to the benehciaries, which would be deposited into their bank accounts. P.W. 13 admitted that the initial work was not completed by A2 andEx.PSapplicationsofvariousbeneficiariesofCheemla Thanda were not forwarded to A1. P.W. 13 admitted that some of the beneficiaries of cheemla Thanda were granted houses in the first list and some others in the second list.

13. The name of the wife of P.W. 1 was in the second list of beneficiaries according to P.W. 16, at serial No'315 which is Ex.P8. P.W.\6/DSP further admitted that all the applications that were seized were pending for physical verification of the constructions.

14. The version of A1 is that applications were not even sent to him, as such, the question of pending work or sanctioning any benefits under the scheme does not arise. P.W.16/DSP admitted in his cross-examination as follows: "It is true that the complaint Ex.Pl shottts that the alleged d.emand is to release the cement, ice and cash components to the beneficiaies. It is true that fg the purpose of release of cement, rice and cash compondnts the list lns to be finalized by the MPDO. It is true that after release of tLrc list of beneJiciaries the list has to be physicallg ueified bg the Tahasildar and MPDO and it hr.s to be approued bg them and then onlg it will be possible for the Assisfant Engineer housing to effect the release of the cement, ice and cash I 11 components. It is true that unless the list of tle beneficiaies are placed before tle Assistant Engineer, h.e cannot do anything. It is true that in this situation no official fauour uLill be pending tttith the Assistant Engineer to render th'e beneficiaies."

1.5. P.W. 1 and other beneficiaries have all turned hostile to the prosecution case. None of the official witnesses stated that the list No.2 in which the name of P.W. 1's wife was reflected was even sent to A1. It is admitted that insofar as the 2.d beneficiaries list under Ex.P8, the maridatory physical verification was not compieted either by the Tahasildar or the MPDO by the date of trap i.e., 07.O3.2OO7.

16. It is admitted that Ex.P8 was not seized from the appellant and the requirement of completing the formalities of making enquiry and then forwarding the application was a-lso not completed. When both Ex.PS applications and Ex.P8 applications were not forwarded to A1, the question of A1 recommending for paJment, does not arise. The field inspection was not complete nor frnafrzation of the benehciaries list. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was a]1y official. work pending with A1- As already discussed, a]l the beneficiaries P'Ws'l,3 to 11 have turned hostile to the prosecution case. 1,2

17. The onll.evidence is that of P.W.2, who sta-tes that on the date of trap, he witnessed A1 demanding and accepting bribe. P.W. 16 admitted that Ex.P3/hrst mediators' report does not reflect that P.W. 16 instructed P.W.2 to accompany P.W. 1 to the house of A'1. P.W. 16 further admitted that apart from his ora,l evidence, there is no other evidence to show that he has instructed P.W.2 to accompany P.W. 1. P.W.2 admitted that he had earlier acted as a mediator in another case. P.W.2 further admitted that in Ex.P1O, 2"d mediators report, it is not reflected that A1 demalded bribe and when P.W. 1 a-ffirmatively replied, ,{1 accepted the amount and kept in his hip pocket. Before considering the recovery aspect, it has to be looked into whether the prosecution proved the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

18. In N.Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu2, the Hon'Lrle Supreme Court held that unless the demand aspect is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the question of relying on recovery of the amount, to prove the case aga-1nst appellant is unacceptable. '(2O2L) 3 Supreme Court Cases 687 1J

19. in P.Satyanariayana Murthy v' District Inspector of police, state of A.Ps the Hon'ble Supreme court reiterated that mere acceptance of any amount dehors proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home charge under Sections 7 and Section 13(1Xd) ofthe Act.

20. The prosecution has failed to prove treyond reasonable doubt that A1 demanded bribe. P'W'l/complainant and P'Ws'3 to 11 beneficiaries have turned hostile' Further' as already discussed, there was no official work pending with A1, The prosecution cannot rely on the recovery of the amount from the appellant as the basis to infer demand' In the judgment cited by learned Special Public Prosecutor in chandrasha's case (supra)' the demand was tape recorded' In the said circumstances' the Hon'lcle Supreme Court found that the burden was on the accused to rebut the prosecution that the bribe was a legal fee or for repalrment of loan. However, since the accused failed to do so' the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the case was proved beyondreasonabledoubt.Thefactsinthepresentcasediffer. Thedefactocomplainantandallotherbeneficiarieshaveturned hostile. No instruments were used to record video or audio '12015; i0 suprum" court cases 152 74 during trap proceedings. The entry of P.W.2 into the house of A1 on the date of 1,rap is doubtful as already discussed 21 . Insofar as the appeal hled by the State is concerned, learned Special Public Prosecutor has not made out any case against 42- As already discussed, the list of benehciaries in which P.W. l's wife name was mentioned was not finalized by the MPDO or MRO and others, which is the procedure.

22. In Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka 4 t|ie Honourabie Supreme Court summarised the principles whereby appeals against acquittals can be interfered with. At para 12 of the Judgment, it was held as follows; u42. O:ur criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. A11 the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding al appeai from acquittal couid be summarised as: (zJ Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal triai and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive oi all evidence,- oral or documentary; (fl Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; I '{2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 544 15 (in] If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iu) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justi$ the reversal of acquittal; (u) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all fhe 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 an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Viiavakumar v. State of T.N.'held as hereunder:- "20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of edrlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State oi Karnataka, [(2OO7\ 4 SCC 415] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432) "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court u,hile dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: 'lzozty:sccoaz 16 (1) An appellate court has frill power to review, re, appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appeliate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances', "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtaii the power ol the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shal1 be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondlv, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaflirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possibie on the basis of the evidence on record, the appeliate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the triai court." There are no grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal of A2 and also in view of the discussion, insofar as Al's appeal is concerned, it deserves to be allowed.

24. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2017 is allowed and the appellant/Al 1S acquitted. Criminal Appeal No.30 1 of 17 2018 is dismissed. Since the appellant in Crl.A.No. lt62 of 2Ol7 is on bail, his bail bonds sha_tl stand discharged. //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.C.S,M. SARMA IN REGISTRAR J S c ION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K'SURENDER iFor His Lordship's kind Perusal) ' To, l.The.IAdditionalSpecialJudgeforSPE&ACBCases.cum-VAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil'Court, Hyderabad (with records' if any) 2. The lnspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, ClU, Hyderabad' 3.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana at l.lyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri E. Pramodh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Damodar [vlundra, Advocate [OPUC] 6. 11 LR CoPies T.TheUnderSecretary,UnionoflndialVlinistryofLaw,JusticeandCompany Affairs, New Delhi

8. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, l-iigh Court Buildings at Hyderabad 9 Two CD CoPies Kam/gh HIGH COURT DATED:29 t01t2025 1 t1E S I^q r4r o 14 FrB 2025 (s cf., irci(. COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.1162 of 2O1T & 301 of 2018 THE CRIM|NAL AppEAL No.1162 of 2017 tS ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL AppEAL No.301 of 2018 tS DISMISSED oz/---..-7