Of High Court · 2025

TION''BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRiMINAL APPEAL No.l56Z OF 2Ol.O JUDGMENT:

1. The appel art was convicted for the offences .rnder section 7 and Sections 1llt1)(d) r /w 73(2) of the prevention of Co: ruption Act, 1988 and se.tr:n.<:e:d to rigorous imprisonment ror a 1.rt:riod of six months and one l/oar, respectively, vide judgment in ().C.No.43 of 2005, dated 07.ltl.2OlO. euestioning the said convir:tLc,n, present appeal is frled

2. Heard Sri l4.B.Thimma Reddy, learned Cc,s51.;6,1 for the appellant and rlli T.Ba-la Mohan Reddy, learned Sp,:r:ial public Prosecutor for Arlll .

3. Briefly, tht: ,::tse of the prosecution is that th: appellant worked as the spe t:ial Revenue Inspector in the officrr c,f the Mandal Revenue Ofhr:er (MRO), Himayatnagar l\Ianrlal. The complainant/P.\ r r 'vas the GpA holder of Nawab Mohr1. Kabiruddin Khan. He subnrir.te,l an application arong with requis,ite documents on 04.08.2003 irr the MRo office for the issuanr:e cf F,u;ir pahani copies Nos.1355 arrct 1356 in Sy.No.2O02/2 at Bagh Li:rgampally. 4 P.W. 1 approached the office of the MRO after one month' Since the MRO was not available, he approached the Dy'MRO-T'Damodar ..\.': l Reddy/P.W.4andenquiredabouthisapplication.P.W.4directed the appellant to attend the work of P'W'i' As such' P'W'1 approached the appellant, who asked him to come after three days' When P.W.l approached the appellant after three days' the appellant allegedly demanded Rs' 500/-'

4. On 03.11.2003, at about 11'OO a'm' when P'W'1 approached the appellant, he enquired about the amount' P'W' 1 informed him that he would come with the money the next day' Unwilling to pay the bribe amount, P.W.1 approached the DSP' ACB/P'W'7 and gave Ex.P1/complaint. P'W.7 instructed P'W'1 to come to the office on 04.11.2003 at 1.00 p.m along with bribe amount of Rs'SOO/-' P.W.7, after veriffing the genuineness of the complaint' registered an FIR, which is Ex.P7' At about 2'15 p'rn' P'W'7 called P'W'1 to his chambers and introduced P.W.S/mediator and another person' namely Acharyulu (not examined)' to him' After following the formalities, pre-trap proceedings were conducted under E;x'P2' Then, alt the trap party members went to the office of MRO' 5 Himayatnagar art:;.OO p.m. As per the directions of pW.7, p.W. 1 and P.W.2 (who vr;is secured from Gandhi Bhavan Bu; Stop), went to the office of the zippe[ant. The apperlant aske,d p.w. l whether he had brought the :rmount. Then, p.w. 1 paid the anr.unt to the appellant, who kept the same in his left side pant po.;ket. At that time, P.W.3, rvho n,as present in the room, requestt:d the appellant to give Rs.2ocr/ , "rre apperlant took the same from his trrant pocket and gave it to P.W.3, who in turn gave it to p.W a/l)y.I,4RO. p.W. 1 came out ancl ,]a\/o the pre_arranged signal. Immr:diatt:1y, all the trap party mr:rr.bers rushed to the room of the aopeJllnt. p.w.7 disclosed his :crr:rrr.iry to the appellant and p.w.3. r-he test on the hands of both t1_"e ;tltpellant and p.W.3 turned positive. ,,Vhen p.W.7 enquired about. :b.e amount, the appellant prodr_Lceci ar lmount of Rs.3OO/- and inlbrned that he gave Rs.2O0/_ to p.,r[..3i .owards hand loan. p.\V. Z r:,quired p.W.3, who informeol that lrt: paid the amount to P.\V. 1. post_trap proceedings were corrdur:1.ed under Ex'PS' P'w'7 i,stn-c'ted p.ws.5 and g, along with the lrrspector, to go to the residenr:e rr'p.w.4/Dy.MRo for the recovery o1- the amount of Rs.2OO/-. B5,rhe fime they reached, p.W.4 was n,rt evailable at his residence. ()r.,::ntacting p.W.4, he came to his house at 8.30 6 I I p.m. Though the sodium carbonate test was conducted on the hands of P.W.4, the same turned negative. However, his right-side pant pocket and the car steering yielded positive results. When the trap parly enquired P.W.4 about the Rs.200./-, he informed that he had thrown the amount along with his money in the Musi'river' Though a search was conducted at the Musi river, the same could not be recovered. All the events were recorded under Ex'P4, and thereafter, they proceeded to the office of MRO, Himayathnagar' P.W.7 seized the attendance register/Ex.P8, Ex.P3, Ex'P1O/pahani copies, and also prepared a rough sketch under Ex'P9'

5. During the course of the investigation, P.W.7 examined P'Ws'1 and, 2, and recorded their statements. Further, the investigation was hand.ed over to P,W.8, who concluded the investigation, and filed a charge sheet on 29.06.2005, after obtaining the sanction orders under Ex.P8.

6. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 8, and Exs'Pl to PIO and MOs.1 to 16 were marked on behalf of the prosecution' D'Ws'1 and 2 wete examiried. on behalf of the defence, and Ex'D1, a copy of the complaint dated 04. 1 | .2OO3, was marked ?

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appe[ant would submit that tht:re 'ffas no official work pending with tJx: appellant; as such, the que:;tion of demanding a bribe does rot erise. p.W. 1 has given two co*Lplaints, one is Ex.p1 andthe oth,:r ir; Ex.D1. The arnount mentione I in Ex.D1 is Rs.1,OO0/-, whereas ir Ex.pl, it is mentioned as Its.SOO/-. The bribe amount of Rs.30O/ only was recovered on tlLe d ate of the trap, and the remairrinl.; amount of Rs.20O/- was rot recovered. It is the prosecution t:ast that p.W.4 threw the amoun.L rn the Musi river. Learned counst:l, il support of his contentions, re lied upon the following judgments: r.) C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Oor:hin, High Court of Kerala r , ii) pLrrejabrao v state of Maharashtra2, and iii) Hari Dev sharma .v. litate (Delhi Admiuistration 13,, 8 On the other hand, the learned Special public pr,s;ecutor for ACB would subr,,i. that work was pending with th: a..r1tellant, as the copies were rot furnished to p.W. 1. After th,: a11.6rrr1 *r. handed over tr tlr'-' appellant in the presence of the i,rrlependent witness-P.W.2, an iLrnount of Rs.2O0/- was given to t,.W 4. The said 112009; 3 Supreme Court Ca jes 7J ' 12ooz1 10 Srpr".e Court C rse,5 3 /1 '(1977) 3 Supreme Court Ca ies i S I 8 eventsthattranspiredonthetrapdateclearlyindicatetheroleof the appellant in demanding and accepting the bribe amount' a_ g.Thedefenceoftheappellantisthattheworkofissuingcopies was never entrusted to him, and it was P.W.4-Deputy MRo who was rbsponsible. Even on the trap date, the amount was not given to him. On the date of the demand, i'e', on O3'11'2003' the appellant was on leave. In fact, the trap was laid for P'W '4' and on the date of the trap, Rs.30O/- was given by P'W'3 towards the repayment of a loan taken from him earlier, which he kept in his pant pocket. However, when the said version was stated to the DSP' the same was not recorded in the post-trap proceedings'

10. Having gone through the record, according to Ex'PS- attendance register, the appellant was on leave on 03'11'2003' In the present case, two complaints were brought on record' i'e'' Ex'P1 and Ex.Dl. The. signature on both the complaints are admitted by P.W. 1. In Ex.P1, the bribe amount is mentioned as Rs'5O0/-' whereas in Ex.D1, it is mentioned as Rs.1,000/-. The date on Ex.D1 is 04.1 1.2003, and Ex.P1 is dated 03' 1 1'2003' -7 9

11. P.W. 1 urdmitled that he gave Ex.D1 on Ci4 11.2003. The complaint E>..I'1 $/as already given on 03.11.2003. l'{,) reason is given as to rl,lL]. another complaint, Ex.D1, \ ras given on

04.1r.2003. L2. P.W.2 is thr: accompanying witness. According tr, the case of the prosecuticrr, ,rlter the pre-trap proceedings in the ACB office, while they we rt gting to the office of the appellant, tle trap party picked up P.W.2, who was standing at the bus stop of Gandhi Bhavan. Accorcinl to P.W.2, one ACB constable nret him at 2.lS p.m, and he wasi laken to the ACB office at a.15 p.rr.. The first mediators'rel)orr/Flx.P2 was drafted at 4.00 p.m on 04.11.2003. However, the n^n:e of P.w.2 is not mentioned in Er.p1,|. According to P.W.2, he staye,l with the trap partyuntil 2.00 a.rn ttrr: next day. It is not known u,t.r P.W.2 was picked up from the trus stand when the DSP had serLt lor two mediators, p.W.5 and another.

13. Accordin;J '.o the prosecution case, L.W.7, namely C.Rajender, was enlisted as a rir:tness for the prosecution. Accorrlinl,; to him, he was a circumstanti:rl witness and spoke about the Presrence of the ACB officials in the office on the trap date and alr.i. the test 10 conducted on the hands of the appellant' He was given up by the prosecution, and the appellant examined him as D'W'l' D'W'1 stated that around 5.00 or 5.30 p.m, he went to the MRO office to verify about his application. While he yas talking about the appiiqation, P.W.3 came there, and handed over Rs'300/- to the appellant,whokeptthesameinhispocket.Tenminutesthereafter' someACBpersonnelenteredtheoffice,andtheappellantinformed them that P.W.3 had given the said amount'

74. The version of the prosecution is that Rs'500/- was demanded by the appellant on the date of the trap' After Rs'500/- was handed over to the appellant, P.W.3 met the appellant and asked for Rs.2OOl-. P.W.3 took Rs'200/- from the appellant and paid it to P.W.4. According to P.W.4, P.W.3 had earlier taken a loan of Rs.2O0l-.

15. On the date of the trap, according to the DSP/P'W'7, when he entered the ofhce of the appellant, he questioned the appellant' The appellant, having admitted receiving the amount, informed the DSP that out of the bribe amount of Rs.SOo/-, Rs.20o/_ was given to P.W.3. P.W.3 was a-lso summoned' His hands were tested for the 11 presence of Fh'irrr')lphtha,lein powder, which proved posiil,ve. prior to testing P.W.il's l.rands, appellant,s hands were also tr::;ted for the presence of ,herr olphthalein powder, and the test on 5oth hands proved posit ive

76. Accordirg to F,.W.3, he informed that he handed o,n:r Rs.2OO/_ to P.W.4. Wherr I)W.4 had left for his house, p.!V.S, rvho is the mediator, Ins,e:tr,r./p.W.g_Muthyam Reddy, and Inspe,.:tor Krishna went to the rer;iclerrc:e of p.W.4.

77. Accordin;3 to I).W.4, he took Rs.2O0/_ from p.W.Ii,.and Ieft from the office aite:6.30 p.m. He went to Chikkaripally., and around 7.3O p.rn, P.W.3 czLlted p.W.4 to come to the office. Brz r-he time he returned, he statr:,1 that he stopped at Moosarambagl.r river and attended to na:ure,s calls, and the amount could not be ti>und. The test on the steeri -i,rJ and pant pocket proved positive. 18' The appeltanl. entered the witness box and examirLed himserf as D.W.2. In his sl.irtement before the Court, he stated that on the date of the trap, i-rr: l.eturned to the oIfice around 5.3() p.nl, and he found D.W. 1 ar:d arL.ther. While theywere in the office, p.W.3 met him and handerl ove r Rs.30O /_, and. informed that he was repaying 72 the amount borrowed from him as a hand loan. Immediately, the ACB officials entered the office, and the pahanies and other relevant documents were not seized from him or at his instance. Though the DSP made efforts to search for the documents in the office, but nothing was found. Ig. P.W.S-independent mediator stated in his'further chief- examination' that two persons took out Ex.P3 frle from a box, and he could not remember who those two persons were. The witness was allowed to peruse the post-trap proceedings in the Court, and after going through the post-trap proceedings, he stated that it was the appellant who produced the Ex.P3 hle. Further, along with Ex.P3, the appellant also produced pahani patrika-Ex.P1O'

20. Learned Special Judge had committed an error in permitting P.W.5 to go through the second mediators'report after he deposed that he does not'remember who produced Exs.P3 and P10' During the post-trap proceedings, the events that transpired on the trap date are reflected in the post-trap proceedings. The appellant has disputed the second mediators' report, stating that it is a false document and the exact version was not reflected in the second 13 mediators' report The second mediators' report furlher contains the statements c f th: witnesses, which are the "earlier :,tatements of the witnesses;".

21. A witner;s carr refresh his memory by goin51 th:oui;h the earlier panchanama C,r proceedings drafted, which is a,jmissible under section 159 ol tlrr: Indian Evidence Act. However s;tLch reference cannot be to the' prrejudice of an accused. p.w 5 vras examined in chief on 27.1)4.':2t)10. Thereafter, he was cross_e><an:irted on the same day b1 ,,hr appellant. The witness was again recalled on 30.08.20 1 0, eLnc'hrrther chief-examination' was taken u.p. Initially, the witness statecl that he did not remember who pro:irced Ex.p3 frle from the tro:<. lowever, the witness was permittt:d trt peruse the post-trap proceedirrgs, and later, he deposed that tlrr: appellant produced Ex.I,3 file and also pahani patrikas-Ex.p1Cr.

22. Sections 13? and 138 of the Indian Eviden,:e .,\,:t read as follows: 7 3 7. Examinat io,n-in -chieJ. -_ 'The e),ar ir'.ation of a utitness bu the partll u.tho call:: hinr .;hall be called his e xo m.i ntion-in chief -Cross examinatioi - The exomrnt,:hon of a tt.)itness b11 tLte r duerse part!.l shall be called. his cros:;_exdm1nt1,t,on. Re_ examinatior . 'f 1? exomination of a tuitness, subseqltent fo f ,1e cross_ L4 examination bA examination." the p(lrtA uho called him, sLnll be called his re

738. Order of exo;min,a:tions. "Witnesses shall be ftrst examined-in-cl7ie-f then (if the aduerse partll so desires) cross-examined, then (if tLLe pdrtu callinq him so desires) re- examined.. The examination and" cross-examination mtst relate to releuant i".r", t", the cross-examination need not be confiryed to the facts to uthich ''ttte ' u.,itness testified. on his examination-ii-chief' Direction of re- examination. - The re examination shall be directed to the explanation of the matters referred to in cross-exdmination; and, if neut matter is' b11 pennission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the aduerse pattA mag further cross-examine upon that motter'"

23. Under sections 137 and 138 0f the Indian Evidence Act, once the chief-examination is complete, the witness can be cross- examined. Thereafter, the examination of a witness subsequent to the cross-examination would be re-exarnination' The re- examination can only be for the purpose of explaining the matters referred to in the cross-examination' Only in the event of a new matter being introduced by the permission of the Court during re- examination, would the adverse party have the opportunity to further cross-exarnine the witness.

24.Asseenfromsectionsl3Tandl38ofthelndianEvidenceAct, oncetheexamination-in-chiefiscomplete,thequestionof.further chief-examination' does not arise' The course adopted by the prosecution and permitted by the Court is not in accordance with 15 the Evidenc,: Act The prosecution cannot arlopi tl.Le method of further chief -ex:r rLination to frll in other lacunae, anc lhe scope of re-examinaticr, rs confined. To overcome such <:online,1 scope of re- examination, pernritting the prosecution to. condu ct lt.rther chief- examination ir; rrrlt the procedure that can be foll,t,r,,ed and is contradictorl -o the scheme of examination of ,;vitrLe sses under Sections 137 aed 138 of the Indian Evidence Acl.

25. There are two versions, one presented by 1.he trrrosecution, which claims thzr. there was a demand for Rs.50o7- o^ the date of the trap, and the other based on the account of eye r,,".itness. On the other hand, 1:h,: ([ofence of the appellant is that tr.W l_C.Rajener, whose preserco irr the room of the appellant was ,adnritted by the prosecution vzitnr:srses, P.Ws.3 and 7, stated that p.W.Ir :ntered the chambers of thr: appellant and handed over Rs.300,/- as repaJrment for an earlier .oarr

26. P.Ws.3 a.n,l .[ stated that Rs.20O/_ was taken by ]).W.3 from the appellant, .r:L<l P.W.3 then handed it over to .p.W.zl, but this amount rras not recovered. These circumstances; c..eate doubt 16 regarding the correctness of the prosecution version' especially when P.W.1 admits to submitting two complaints-Ex'P1' which reflects a demand of Rs-500/- by the appellant, and Ex'D1' which mentions a demand of Rs.l,ooo /-, but was Suppressed by the prosecution. Several discrepancies and inconsistencies iri the prosecution case have raised doubts about the manner in which the trap was laid, as well as the events on the trap day' No reasons were given as to why independent mediator-P'W'5 or the other witness, whose presence was secured for the purpose of the trap proceedings, were not asked to accompany P'W' 1 to witriess what transpired between P.W.1 and the appellant' As already discussed' in view of Exs.P1 and D1 being admitted by P'W'1' the demand for the bribe itself becomes doubtful' The recovery is only partially done, and the explanation given by P'W'4 regarding the missing of the Rs.20O/- bnbe amount is also questionable. AccordinglY, beneht ofdoubt i$ extended to the appellant'

27. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C'C'No'43 of 2OO5 dated 07.l2.2OtO is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted' Since the zrppr:[lant ls on bail, his bail bor ds sha]l stand discharged.

28. Accordi;eg11.. (lriminal Appeal is allowed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- 1(. SFIII{IVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR \ l)- SECI'ION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the l-lon,ble Sri Justice K. Surender (F,rr His l_ordship kind perusal) To, records) at Hyderab,a(lIO J T] l The Princioar si,e'ciar Judge for spE and ACB cases, rrydr:rabiro. (with 2 Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, state of rerangana Higrr co:rt Buirdings 3 The lnspe<tor o1 t)olice, ACB, Hyderabad Range. 4. 11 LR Copies; 5 The Under Sr-.cr,:tary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justicr: an<: r)ornpsp, 6. The SecretanT. l,dvocates Association Library, High Court for thr,: tjtsls 61 _ Telan_gana l{igtr 3ourt Buildings at Hyderabad. " 7. One CC to Sri l\r't I Thimma RedOy, ndvocate [OpUC] 8. Two CD Copi=s Plp/gh Affairs, Ne,ar t)erl -ri HIGH COI'RT DATED:02104;2025 L.R. Copy to be rnarl<erd JUDGMENT CRLA.No.156i' of 2010 --:=:= \ rHE srri R o k

4. c a. ($ 1 5 JtrN 1fl5 c o t :: ,, ,. i;:, :. ,*- ALLOWING-THE CRL.A. {+ 3 5 ?>