The High Court · 2025

S.Arshit Kumar, S/o.Sri Krishna Kumar, Junior Assistant, Tax Section, Office of the Additional Commissioner, M.C.H., Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad. ...ApellanUComplainant ...RespodenUAccused Officer Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Vishal Gandhi, representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy (sc FoR AcB sPL PP TS) Counsel fpr the Respondents : Sri T.V.Kalyan Singh The Court made the following : JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.849 OF 2013 JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State, represented by Inspector of Poiice, Anti-Corruption Bureau, City Range-II, Hyderabad questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad in C.C.No.23 of 2006 vide Judgment dated 07.O3.2O13 for the offences under Sections 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) rltv 13(21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the accused/respondent worked as the Junior Assistant in the tax section in the office of the Additional Commissioner, MCH, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad from 24-11.1993 to

21.O4.2OO5. The defacto-complainant Sri B.Srinivas/P.W. 1, is a resident of Begumpet in Secunderabad, purchased a house in January, 2OO5 from his vendor Sri P.Narsimha Goud and on Og.O2.2OO5, he submitted the original of Ex'Pl application in the ofhce of the accused for the purpose of getting the mutation on his name for the said house. One week thereafter, P.W. 1 met the accused and reqrrested him to process his application and, for 2 that the accused demanded for payment of a bribe of Rs.SOO/- to do an oflicial favour to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 was reluctartt to pay that amcrunt to the accused and on account of that, the accused stalled the proceedings without making any further progress on the application of P.W. 1.

3. On 07.O4.2005, P.W. 1 again met the accused and requested him to expedite the progress on his application and the accused again renewed his demand for the payment of bribe to act upon the application of P.W. 1. Having no other go, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P2 report with P.W.6, the then DSP, ACB on 19.O4.2OO5 at about

5.OO p.m against the accused. P.W.6 directed P.W. 1 to come to his off,rce ort 21.04.2005 at 10.30 a.rn with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.5O0/-. After making enquiries with the antecedents of the accused, P.W.6 registered Ex.Pl1 FIR under Section 7 of the Act against the accused on 21.O4.2OO5 at about

10.30 a.m. P.W.6 secured the presence of P.W.S and L.W.8/government servants to act as the mediators for the intended trap of the accused.

4. On21.O4.2005, the pre-trap formalities were concluded ald the sarne were reduced into writing under Ex.P6/pre-trap proceedings. Thereafter, all the trap party members. alolg "y'1tth- \,J 3 P.W.l proceeded to the off,rce of the accused and after reaching the place nearby the office of the accused, at about 2.45 p.rn entered into the office of the accused. At about 3.00 p.m, the accused accepted the bribe amount from P.W. 1 rvith his right hand and put the same in his right side pant pocket. On receipt of the pre-arranged signal from P.W. 1, P.W.6 and other trap party members entered into the ofhce of the accused and conducted sodium carbonate test on both hand fingers of the accused. The test on the right hand lingers turned into pink colour, which was preserved under MO2, where as the test on the left hand hngers remained colourless, which was preserved under MO3. The accused produced MOl tainted cash of Rs.500/- by taking out the same from his right side pant pocket and the sarne were ta-llied with the tainted currency, P.W.6 seized the same. Thereafter, the 2nd mediators report was drafted under Ex.P1O/post-trap proceedings. Therea-fter, P.W.7 took up investigation and after completion of the same, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. I 4 1 5. The learned Special Judge, after considering both oral and documentar5r evidence adduced on either side, acquitted the accused/ respondent for the a-forementioned charges.

6. Sri Vishal Gandhi, learned counsel representing Sri T'Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Probecutor for ACB would submit that based on the material placed before the trial court, the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused/respondent has been proved by the prosecution, which is sufficient to convict the accused. He also submits that the learned trial court ought not to have acquitted the accused considering the fact that offrcial favour was not pending with the accused at the time of laying of trap. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon'le Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Chandrashal.

7. On the other hand, Sri T.V.Kalyan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would submit that in the absence of any offrcial favour pending with the respondent/accused, the d.emand and acceptance of bribe by the accused is of no consequence. He a-lso submits that P.W. 1 in his cross- examination admitted-That he has lodged complaint asqsube '(zoza) 1r scR rqzz 5 accused out of grudge, as he has declined to the request of the complainant to mutate his name in the records, without any proper documents 8 A perusal of evidence of p.W. 1, it is clear that p.W.t has categorically admitted that he has filed the complaint against the respondent/accused with the appellart/ACB only with an ill_ intention and it is manifestly attended to by the d.efacto complainant. Under these circumstances, this court does not see any reason or ground to interfere with the well reasoned and well founded judgment of the learned Special Judge in C.C.No.23 of 2006 dated 07.O3.2013, in acquitting the respondent/accused.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR .l \\, l\l V sEcnoN oFFrcER //TRUE COPY// \ To,

1. The Principal Special Judge for SpE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri T Bala Mohan Reddy (SC FORP ACB SpL pp TS), Advocate 3. One CC to Sri T V Katyan Singh, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies [oPUC] Svs/PSL W i.h t $', ;{: ^r o^ I \' 'i \.':. 02 jEP 26 '\r.., -\:, ';' ".1;t"'C(-: I (_-l HIGH COURT DATED:1610712025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.849 of 2013 DISMISSING THE CRLA 6"dd"A &-"