The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI WSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.85O OF 2013

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the ACB aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents/Al and A2 for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) tlw L3(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment in C.C.No.47 of 201O dated 13'03'2013 passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Accused No'1/1"t respondent (Sangi Linga Raj), served as a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretar5r, Regional Transport Authority (SRTA), Karimnagar, from 9'9'2OO3 to 21.5.2OO5. Accused No.2l2"a respondent (Madasu Anjaneya Rao) is a private individual. PW1 lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that his father, Raja Mallu and his father's partner, A. Anjaneyulu, jointly purchased a Swaraj Tractor and Trailer with a loan of Rs.2,50,00O l- frorn Union Bank' PW1 used to maintain the Tractor and Trailer' PW1 paid Rs'6,500/- to a transport broker, Kasthuri Laxman, RTA agent, for securing the registration certificate in the narnes of his father and his father's 4 partner. However, the agent deceived him without completrng the work. When pW1 started driving the tractor in Choppadandi Mandal without registration certificate, he was caught by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who seized the Tractor and Trailer ?md kept them at Choppadandi pS.

3. On 3O.4.2O0S, pW1 got the Tractor and Trailer released after paying the compounding fee at the RTA Office, Karimnagar. On 1I.5.20OS, pwl submitted Ex.p2, an application for a registration certificate for the Tractor and rrailer, at the offrce of the Deput5r Transport Commissioner & SRTA, where A1 was a Senior Assistant. During the submission of the application, A,1 allegedly demanded Rs.1,0OO/_ for issuing the registration papers, in addition to the requisite fees of Rs.56O/_ each for the Tractor and Trailer. pW1 paid Rs. I,OOO/_ via DD through a broker, and A1 informed him to collect the registration certificate after hve days. On 19.5.2005, at 11:30 A.M, when pWl met Al, A1 allegedly demanded an additionar bribe of Rs.600/- to deriver the registration certificate. pwl informed his father and the partner, who advised him to file a case against Al. As pW1 was unwilling to pay the bribe, he approached pWS/DSp, ACB arrd lodged a complaint/Ex.p1 on 20.5.2OO5 at 10:30 AM before pWS. --\ \ 5 PW5, after verifying the complaint and obtaining permission from the competent authority, registered FIR Ex.P12 in Cr. No. 6IACB- KNR/2005 under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, at 10:00 AM on 2l .5.2OOS and initiated the investigation. PWS secured the presence of P.W.1 and mediators/PW2 and 4 LW3. After completing all formalities and concluding Ex.P4/Mediator's Report, P.W.s, assisted by LW9 and PW7, laid a trap against A1 at the offrce of the Deputy Commissioner & SRTA, Karimnagar, on2l.5.2OO5 at 11:5O AM

5. On 21.5.2OO5, during the trap at 11:45 AM, PW1 approached A1, who was seated at counter No.3. On seeing PW1, A1 allegedly asked whether the bribe amount was brought. Upon PW1's a-ffirmative response, A1 instructed PWl to pay the bribe amount to A2, a private bus ownervisiting the offrce to obtain a tourist permit for his bus. Following A1's instruCtions, PWI offered the tainted amount of Rs.6O0/- to A2, who allegedly accepted it, counted it with both hands, wrapped it in a white paper, and placed it on A1's table. A1 allegedly accepted the tainted arnount through A2 as a bribe for delivering the registration certihcate of the Tractor and Trajler, already issued by the authority. Upon recpiving the signal, PW5, along with 6 mediators PW2 and LW3 and the staJf, entered the offrce and apprehended Ao1 and Ao2. phenolphthafein tests conducted on 42's hand fingers yierded positive resurts, with solutions preserved under MOs 3 and 4. A,1,s hand hngers yielded negative results,, with solutions preserved under MOs 5 and 6. MO7 /tatnted amount was recovered from A1,s ofhce table, wrapped in white paper. Sodium carbonate testing of the white paper using a cotton swab also yierded positive results. The said solution was preserved under MOg. pWs seized Exs.p5 to g from ,A,1's possession and prepared Expg/rough sketch.

6. Al and ,{2 were arrested on 2|.S.2OO5 and the post_trap proceedings were recorded under ExpiO. pW7/Investigating Ofhcer took over the investigation from pWS, while pW6 conducted subsequent investigation. Sanction to prosecute A1 was granted by pW4, being the competent authorigr, i.e., Principal Secretaqr to Government, Transport, Roads, and Buildings Department, Secretariat, Ap. No sanction was required for A2's prosecution as he is a private individual. After completing the investigation, pW6 hled a charge sheet alleging that ,{1 committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and, ,/ l I 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PCA, and A2 committed an offence under Section 12 of the Act. 7 . Defence of the Accused No. 1 is that on the day of the trap, PWl brought a sea.Led cover and asked A1 to accept it, which rs spoken to by D.W.1. When A1 refused, PW1 left the sealed cover at A1's counter, which was later seized by ACB officials as tainted cash. Further the recovery of tainted amount/MO7 was neither from Al's person nor from his belongings. Furthermore, the absence of phenolphtha-lein traces on A1's hands, as confirmed by MOs 5 and 6, negates the presumption under Section 2O(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act that A1 accepted the bribe amount from PWl pursuant to a demand. Mere recovery of the tainted amount, without context or corroborating circumstances, does not suffice to establish guilt. Accused No.l was falsely implicated by PW1 out of malice. PW1 bore a grudge,because A1 had refused to assist PWI in reducing the compounding fee that PWI had paid on 30.4.2005 at the transport office. PW1 owed the compounding fee after his vehicles were seized by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector for operating the Tractor and Trailer without a registration certificate. ;r 8

8. A2's defence is that even if it is assumed that A2 received the amount from PW1 at the instance of A1, this alone does not implicate A2 in an offence under Section 12 of the Act. without proof of the essential ingredients of abetment as defined under section lo7 of IPC, it cannot be established that A2 intentionally aided .A1 in committing the offence. Further according to the evidence on record, 42 was present in A1,s ofhce on the trap date to obtain a tourist permit for his bus. He was waiting at the side counter near counter no. 3, where A1 was handling work. A2 appeared to have obliged A1's request to collect the amount from PWl. However, tJris innocent act of receiving money from pW1, without any knowledge of the transaction,s purpose or background between PW1 and A1, does not substantiate the offence of abetment against AO2.

9. Learned Special Judge framed the foliowing points for consideration insofar as A,1 is concerned:

1. Whether AO1 demanded a bribe of Rs.600/-, in addition to an amount of Rs.1OOO/- already received by him from PWI as illegal gratihcation, for doing an ofhcial favour of issuing the registration certificate for the Tractor and Trailer, and accepted the said amount from pWl on the trap date? , , 9

2. Whether AO1, by obtaining the bribe of Rs'6O0/-, committed the offence of criminal misconduct?

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of AO1 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. Learned Special Judge, basing on the oral and documentar5r evidence found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonabledoubtthatAldemandedoracceptedthebribeonthe trap date and extended the beneht of the doubt to AO1, frnding him not guilty of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. ll.LearnedSpecialJudgefoundastohowACBofficialsknew that A2 collected the bribe from PWl on behalf of A1 and placed it at A1's counter when the trap party entered' Referring to ExPIO/Post trap proceedings, which stated that PWI gave prearranged signal indicating the demand and acceptance of the bribe by A,1 through A2, leading the trap party to enter, learned Special Judge found. it unclear as to how PW1 could glve a signal specihcally conveying that A1 received the bribe through A2 ot that PWl handecl the amount to A2 to pass to A1' This doubt was based on Ex.P4/Pre-trap proceedings and PWS's evidence, which did not mention A2 or foresee his role' Instructions to PWl were T 10 only to hand over the cash to 41 on his demand and signal by wiping his face with a handkerchief. The trap party understood this signal to mean that A1 received the bribe. Moreover, pWs.1, 2, and 5 did not testifii to PWl giving additional signals indicating A2's involvement. Irarned special Judge a-lso found contradiction between PWl's evidence and Exp1O. According to pW1, his version was recorded 15 minutes after the recovery of tainted cash and scientific tests on A1 and 42. However, Ex.plo stated that PW1 was present in A1,s office and disclosed to pW5 that A1 received the bribe through A2, who kept the cash at A1,s counter. Moreover, PW1 denied ExDsl and 2 during cross_examination, where he was reportedly quoted as stating that A1 refused to accept the bribe, and 42 forcibly. took him to the counter, accepted Rs.6OO/-, wrapped it in registration papers, and placed it at Al's counter.

12. Learned Special Judge found from the evidence of p.W.3 that Ex.P5/Registration Certihcate was ready on I2.5.2OO5 and awaiting delivery, thereby pW1 could have collected it earlier, as such, no oflicial favour was pending with A1 on 19.5.2005 or 21.5.2OO5, making the alleged demand for a bribe improbable. The learned Special Judge also considered the seizure of \ \ !i: 11 MO7/Cash. The cash was not found on A1's person or belongings but near his counter, ald no incriminating evidence emerged from scientific tests on A1,s hands. This undermined the prosecution's claim of acceptance of the bribe, preventing reliance on the presumption under Section 20(1) of the Act' The delence that PW 1 bore a grudge against A 1 for not assisting in reducing the compounding fee for the Tractor and Trailer delivery on 30.4.2005 was found plausible. During the course of cross- examination, P.w. 1 admitted to facts supporting this defence. From the admission of P.W. 1, it is clear that ExP5 was ready on

12.5.2OO5, PWl's payment to A1 was unnecessary, making the alleged demand on 19.5.2005 and 21.5.2OO5 improbable'

13. Learned Special Judge further considered the following points insofar as A'2 is concerned'

1. Whether AO2, a private individual and bus owner who visited AC) 1's ofhce on the trap date, abetted AO I in demanding and accepting the illegal gratihcation of Rs 6O0 from PW1; and

2. Whether the prosecution proved AO2's guilt under Section 12 of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

14. P.W. 1 stated in his deposition that Al instructed A2 to receive Rs.6OO/- from PW1. Thergafter, A2 placed amount at A1's 1,2 counter without using force. The learned Special Judge found that PWl deposed contra_ry to what he has stated before trap officials in Section 161 Cr.p.C statement with regard to Exs.Dl and D2 and maintained that ,A.2 acted merely as a bearer for A1. 15' Ldarned Special Judge further observed that A2 made no demand for a bribe, as corroborated by the testimonies of pWs 1, 2, and 5, and no malice could be attributed to A,2 to suggest intentiona_l aid in the commission of the offence. This finding was furttrer reinforced by p.w. l,s retraction of his statements under Exs.Dl and D2, which represented major contradictions during his cross-examination. In the light of the prosecution,s failure to prove A2's guilt under Section 12 of the Act beyond alt 1ea56n"51" doubt, the learned Special Judge extended the benefit of the doubt to AO2 and found him not guilty of the offence under Section 12.

16. The learned Special public prosecutor for ACB argued that prosecution proved demand and money was recovered on trap date. The burden shifts on to the accused, since presumption has to be drawn under Section 19 of the prevention of Cornrption Act. IJ

17. ln Mallappq and others u. Start'e of Karnatakar the Honourable Supreme court summarised the principles whereby appeals agajnst acquittals can be interfered with' At para-42 of the Judgment, it was held as follows; u42. C)ur criminai jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty' Al1 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 an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as: (rJ Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciatiot-r must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (rz] Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice ald is in itself a ground of challenge; (inJ 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 vie's' of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justiff 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 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 coltrt must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court'" '(2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 544 I 74

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N.' held as hereunder:- "20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, iearned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the tria-l court is a "possible viev/', having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its hndings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering tJ:e long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Cha drappa v. State of Karnataka, l(2OOTl 4 SCC 4151 has laid down the general principles regarding tJle 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 while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure , 1gZ3 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power ald an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substanLial and compelling reasons', "good and sufhcient grounds", "uery 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 curtail the power of the court to review the evidence ald 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 avaiiable to him under the '1zozt1 s scc oaz 15 fundamental principh of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competcnt court of Iaw. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

19. From the record, it is not clear as to how the ACB officials concluded that A1 accepted the bribe through A.2 when PWl was outside for 15 minutes after signalling. The pre-arranged signal agreed upon by PWS and PW1 was specihcally intended to indicate that A1 received the bribe. No alternate signal was arranged to suggest that A1 accepted the bribe via someone else' In the absence of P.W. 1, it is not known as to how PW5 got to know about A2's involvement in the acceptance of bribe on behalf of A1.

20. It is also pertinent to mention here as to why PWl did not collect the registration certificate after the alleged payment of the bribe to A2 on the trap date. Even if it is accepted that ,A'2 received the bribe on behalf of A1, PW1 testified that he and ,{2 went to the hall entrance, where PWl halded over the tainted amount to A2. However, this contradicts PW2's testimony. PW2 stated that the hall gate was visible from the outside and A,2 did not follow PW1 to the gate, but only PWl came out. PW2 further 11 76 deposed that PW1 was not holding any papers when they saw him. F\rrther, PW1's ear'lier statements in Exs.Dl and D2, claiming that A2 forcibly took him to the hall entrance and accepted the bribe, also contradict PW2's testimony. Therefore, it is not clear as to where A,2 accepted the bribe and who placed it on Al's table. Further, there was no evidence to establish any prior relationship between 41 and ,A'2 before the trap. Without proof of such connection, it cannot be determined that A2 had knowledge of the transactions between A1 ald PW1 or that the tainted amount constituted illegal gratihcation. In the absence of this knowledge, it remains uncertain whether 42 accepted the amount from PW1 with the intent to aid A1. If pW3's statement is to be considered as true that the RC for the Trailer and Tractor was ready on 12.5.2OO5, it can be safely concluded that no official favour was pending with Al on 19.5.2OO5 and 21.5.2005.

21. The evidence of D.W.1 should be taken into consideration since a defence witness is entitled to acceptance on par with a prosecution witness. The prosecution has not established recovery from Al's person or belongings. Further, there were no positive results from the phenolphthalein test on Al's hands. Though PWl stated that on May 11,2005, when he submitted ;,, r1 Ex.P2 application for the registration of the Tractor and Trailer, A1 allegedly demanded bribe of Rs.1,O0O/-, which PW1 claimed \ to have paid through 41's broker, however, during cross- examination, PW1 admitted that he did not know the broker's ! The prosecution failed to investigate the identity of the narne. broker who allegedly received the Rs. 1,OO0/- bribe on Al's demand.

22. Unless there are compelling circumstances, in cases of acquittal, the appellate Court cannot reverse the hndings of acquittal. Acquittal gives rise to presumption of innocence of the accused. The tria-l Court has the opportunity of examining the demeanor of the witnesses during the course of trial. The circumstances in a case have to be collectively looked into by the court and adjudicate upon the case. Only for the reason of there being a complaint under Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W. 1, it cannot be said that the factum of demand has been proved.

23. In view of the above discussion, I do not hnd any compelling reasons or any incorrect findings on the facts of the case by the learned Special Judge warranting interference in the present case of acquittal. ;1 I \ 18

24. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is d.ismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR D P TY REGISTRAR s CTION OFFICER One Fair Copy_to the HON,BLE SRt JUSTTCE K.SURENDER (For His Lordship's kind perusali'--"' To, l The il Additionar speciar Judge for spE & ACB cases, city civir courts, Hyderabad,

2. The Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar range, Karimnagar. 3 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. One CC to Sri A. Ravinder, Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, Advocate tOpUCl 7. 11 LR Copies t H:,r::i,ilL":,r^:tary, Union of tndia Ministry of Law, Justice and company 9 The Secretary. Advocates. Association Library, High court for the State of i0 Two CD Copies Tetangana, High Court auiroings iiilio"-,rGd " "* o kanr/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 , I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.850 of 2013 'm-.. o (j o (oR 1t1E s l4 /e. 2 4 FEB Zo?s -ct DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \1 {