The High Court · 2025

Judgment

The appellant/Accused officer filed the appeal questioning his conviction and sentence recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.3O of 2O08, dated 28.03.2014, for the offences punishable under Sgctions 7 & 13(21 t/w.l3(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public , Prosecutor for CBI.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the Appellant, was employed as Junior Engineer at the University of Hyderabad. A case w6.s registered based on a complaint lodged on 08.07.2008 by PW. 1 and PW.2, who were the Managing Partner and Supervisor of M/s.Sri Sai Constructions, respectively. The complainant-PW. 1 allegdd that the appeJlant had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5O,O00/- for recommending the clearance of pending bills related to civil woik executed by their frrm at the University of ,rlt Hyderabad premises. It was further alleged that the appellant had asked for the bribe to be paid on 08.07.2008. 4

4. Upon registration of the case on 08.07.2008, a CBI team led by PW.9-Inspector B.Shankar Rao, along with PWs.l and 2 and mediators LW.II and PW.3, assembled at the office of the Superintendent of Police, CBI. Pre-trap proceecl.ings were conducted an<l the details were recorded under tr>:.P3-the l"t mediators repo11..

5. Following the pre-trap proceedings, the trap parhr, including PWs.1, 2, 3, 9 rrnd LW.3, proceeded to the University of Hyderabad. PW.2 entered the oflice of the appellant, while PW.1, thr: CBI team, and other mernbers positioned themselves nearby. It ',vas alleged that the appell;ant accepted the bribe amount from PW.2 and placed it in th,: left side table drawer. PW.2 then exited the offrce and signaled the trap team. The trap team subsequerLtly entered the office, apprehended the appellant and seized the bribe amount from the top k'fi side table drawer. A hand wash of the appellant resulted in a pink colour for the left hand and a colou rless result for the right h,and. The serial numbers and denominal-ions of the currency notes ,;eized from the appellant matched thorse recorded in Ex.P3. Additional items seized included the swab wash of the top left side table drawer, the cotton swab used for the drawer wash and a Citizen St,D 760N calculator found in the same clrawer. The trap proceedinEls were documented in Ex.P4-2"d Mediators Report. 5

6. Appellant was arrested on O9.O7.2OO8. The M.Os.2 to 5 were sent to CSFL for examination, which comprised the left hald wash of the appellant in a sealed quarter-size bottle, the swab wash of the appellant's left-side table drawer (top left) in a sealed qrrarter- size bottle, the cotton swab used to collect -the wash from the appellant's table drawer in a sealed cover; and the Citizen SLD 76ON calculator on which the bribe amount was placed. PW.S, the Expert, opined that MOs.2 to 5 tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein ions. Furthermore, the presence of sodium and carbonate ions was detected in MOs.2 to 4. It was revealed that the appellant acted as the Site In-charge for the contract work allotted to PW. l's frrm at the University of Hyderabad. The appellant managed the measurement book, which formed the basis for the first pa5,.rnent for the completed work. When the process for the second bill was pending, the appellant allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5O,O00/- from PWs.1 and 2 to clear the bill. The relevant measurement books and bills were seized from the appellant's office table. Call details for Landline No.23O11833, located at the appellant's residence, were obtained from the BSNL offrce. The report confirmed that on 08.07.2008 at about 1.32 P.M-, the appellant made a call to PW.2's mobile number 98664448As and spoke for approximately Aa7 seconds. According to t 6 investigation, it is established that the appellant committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read v,ith 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. PW.7, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Hyderabad and the authority competent to remove the appellant, ;rccord.ed sanction under Section 1 9 ( t )(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting the appella:rt. 7 . The learnerl Sessions Judge did not find favotr.r with the defence of tht: appellant that no official favour wa s pending. Further on the basis of other evidence adduced in support of the prosecution, the ;rppellant was convicted.

8. The defer: ce of the appellarrt is that; i) No Official Favor is Pending: The testimonies of PW.4 and PW.6 confirm that the only pending amonnt in the fin,:rl bill to be paid to PW.1 is Rs.45,347/-. The final bilt (Ex.P13) 'r,ras already prepared, and both the appellant and PW.4 had signed it. However, PW. t had not s,igned the bil1, and he himself admitted teat without his signature, pass orders could not be issued. Tht,:re was no pending bill of Rs.1,7O,OO0/- with the appellant, nr:rr was the appellant authorized to prepare or pass such a bill, as his role was limited to supenising the work executed by the contractcr (PWl). 7 ii) Irrprobability of Derrrand: Since the final bill (Ex.P13) was ready and already signed by PW.4 and the appellant, while PW. 1 had not signed it, the alleged demand for recording measurements and passing bills, as claimed by PWs.1 and 2 ald documented in Ex.P1, appears highly improbable. iii) Improper Trap Laying: The trap laid through PW.2 is impermissible and contrary to law, as PW.2 had no authorization to represent PW. 1 in any capacity. Consequently, the statements and actions of PW.2 lack legal validity. iv) Malafide Intent by PW.l: PW. 1 lodged a false complaint against the appellant out of malafide intention. This is evident from PWl's habitual conduct of frling frivolous cases against officers. Additionally, PW. 1 was motivated by the fact that the appellant had previously lodged complaints with PW.4 regarding the quality of PW. 1's work.

9. Further, according to the appellant, on O8.O7.2OO8, PW2, a stranger, entered the office room. He enquired about the bill of PW. 1, falsely representing that he was a supervisor. The appellant told PW.2 that the bills were ready by 9.6.2008 and that PW. t had to come and sign the bill, which was already prepared and signed by PW.4 and himself. On this, PW.2 informed him that PW. l was t' 8 waiting outsid€' the office. The appellant was about to call PW. 1, when, the CBI cilicials entered into his ofhce room, and one person by the name Rrlghavendra Kumar caught hold of his hands. Further, when the appellant left the room to fetch PW. 1, PW.2 was positioned at '.hr: left hle rack side on the Jeft side, making it possible for PIV.2 to have access to the left side table drawer. Additionally, the appellant mentioned to PW.6 that he had not taken any bribr: a.nd that when he went out to call PW.I , PW.2 was in the chamber and after he returned, he noticed m cney there. Regarding the ,:oi.our change of the solution on the app,ellant's left hand, the defence argues that Raghavendra Kumar is a material witness and wzrs not examined. It is alleged that Raghavendra had phenolphthalein cn his hands and caught hold of the appellant's hands, subsegrentiy putting the appellant's hands in the solution. Further, Raghavr:ndra Kumar's hands were not teste< [ before he caught hold of tfre appellant's hands, and appellant wrs asked to dip his fingersr in the solution. There is a porssibility of phenolphthalein traces on the appellant's hands clue to the newspaper that was accessible to Raghavendra, r'aising the question of why he was the selective person to catch hold of the appellant's hands. The appellant's plea is that he did not touch the currency notes at all and had no knowledge that PW2 was carrying 9 tainted notes and came to trap him. Appellant further pleaded that PW.2 shook hands with him.

10. According to PWs. I and 2, the tota-l value of the contract work was Rs 13,90,877 /-, and they stated that they completed the repairs by April, 2O08. Regarding the bills, they mentioned that except for an outstanding amount of Rs.1,7O,000/-, the universit5r had paid the remaining amount. Thus, as per PWs.1 and 2, the final bill a-rnount pending with the appellant Rs. 1,70,000/-.

11. According to PW4's testimony, the hnal amount pending for pa5rment to PW. I was Rs.45,347 /-. He further stated that part payments were made to PW. 1, leaving a balance amount of Rs. 45,347 /-

12. According to PW.6, for part-measured works, an amount of Rs.11,41,656/- was paid to PW. 1 as per Ex.PS, the Measurement Book. He also deposed that PW. 1 submitted a final bill for Rs. 45,347 /- prior to the trap.

13. Moreover, PW.4 stated that Ex.P12 is the bill dated 5.11.2OO7 for Rs.13,97,206.14 ps., and Ex.P13 is the bill dated 9.6.20O8 for Rs.45,347,32 ps. { 10

14. As per the r:vidence the bill amounting to Rs. 13,9?',206.14 ps. has already been cleared. The work order issued for the repairs to the C Block tLostel was for Rs. 13,97,206.14 ps.. The evidence confirms that p:rrt payments were made to PW.l, u,ho himself admitted to signing on page 40 of M-Book No. l23Il2OO7, accepting the part bill value of Rs. L3,97,206.14 ps.. After permissible derluctions, an amount of Rs.11,41,6561- 'vas paid to him via cheque as part payment, as reflected on page 4lt of M-Book No. 123I /200'7, where he also signed. Additionally, a ccording to the testimonier; c,f PWs.4 and 6, the Iinal bill amount pending for payment to PW... was only Rs.45,347.32 ps., which represented the balance remair ing after the part paJments were made tr., PW. 1.

15. PW.4 further deposed that Ex.P14 is the bill dated

15.lO.2OO7 for R.r;.i,54,596.15 ps. He clarified that Ex.t'14 lists the extra works czrrried out by PW. 1, which were submitted to the universit5r engineering section for approval. As on the date of the trap, this approval was pending. Once the approval was obtained, a new bill for tt.e amount covered by Ex.P14 would b,: prepared. Nevertheless, I'W.4 confirmed that he and appellant had signed Ex.P12 to Ex.P14. Though Ex.P14 is pending approval, as per the procedure explained by PW.6, it is PW.4 who has to finerlly approve it and pass it c,ver for technical check. PW.4 himself he,.s admitted LL that he and appellant had sigrred on Ex.P14 as well. According to PW.6, the procedure is that, on being satisfied, PW.4 will cause PW. l-contractor to sign on the M-Book and then PW.4 will prepare the bill form and forward the same to universit5r engineer's office for technical check. After the technical check, the bill would be sent to the universit5r's finance section for processing payment to the contractor.

16. Appellant's work was completed when he verihed the measurement and passed it on to PW.4 for physical verification. It is PW.4's responsibility to then prepare the bill and pass it on to universit5r's engineering section. It cannot be said that Ex.P14 was pending. Since Ex.P14 bill has already been si$ned by the appellant and passed over by PW.4 to the university's engineering section for approval. Further PW.6 does not mention that there is any final bill of Rs.1,54,596.1.5 ps. that is pending to be given to PW. 1, he only speaks that there is a hnal amount of Rs.45,347/- that needs to be given to PW. 1.

17. It is evident that the final bill amount due to PW. 1 was Rs.45,347.32 ps., not Rs.1,7O,O00/- as claimed by PWs. 1 and 2. Ex.P14-bill pending approval has no relevalce to accused as accused and PW4's work regarding Ex.P14 was already complete. I L2

18. The allegation whether the appellant had i ntentionally withheld the bills; of Rs.45,347.32 Ps. for the purpose ,:f bribe has to be assessed

19. PW6 stated that upon completion of the .work, the contractor submits the pzLrticulars of measurements of the works ,lxecuted by him to the aprpellant. The appellant, being the junit.,r engineer, along with lhe contractor-PW 1 , physically vr:rifies the measurements, If satisfied, the Appellant records thenr in the M- Book and subrrjts it to the assistant engineer, i.e., PW4, for further physical verificaton and authentication. Upon being sat-isfied, PW4 causes PWl-ccrtractor to sign the M-Book, prepares tl.re bill form, and forwards it to the university engineer's office fc,r technical checks. Once 1.hr: technical check is completed, the bill is sent to the university's finance section for processing payrr ent to the contractor. The f,rnance officer then issues a pass order, and pa5rment is ma,lr: to the contractor in the form of a cheqrre.

20. PW. 1 ident.ified the document shown to him as tlee final bill dated 9.6.200ti, prepared by PW.4, for Rs. 45,347.32 He stated that he had not signed this bill. PW. 1 also deposed that as of

9.6.2OO8, pass orders were not prepared. He admitted that unless 13 he signed the final bill, agreeing to the amount mentioned therein, pass orders could not be prepared.

21. In his cross-examination, PW. 1 admitted (as reflected on page 40 of M-Book No. 1231/2007) that he had signed, accepting the part bill value of Rs. 13,97,206.14. After permissible deductions, an amount of Rs. 11,41,656 was paid to him by cheque as part payment, as recorded on page 43 of M-Book No. l23l/2007, where he also signed.

22. PW.4 deposed that upon completion of work, bill forms were submitted by the Appellant. As the Assistant Engineer, he also signed these bill forms. He stated that the bill forms were prepared based on Ex.P8, which contains the values of the measurements PW4 identihed Ex.Pl2 as the bill dated s.Ll.2OO7 for Rs 13,97,206.14 Ps. and Ex.P13 as the bill dated 9.6.2008 for Rs. 45,347.32 ps.

23. During cross-examination, PW.4 confirmed that the bill amount of Rs. 45,347.32 ps., recorded on page 9O of Ex.P8, was signed by him ald the appellant, but not by PW. 1. He stated that this amount represented the final bill to be paid to PW. 1. t t4

24. PW.6 furlhe:r deposed that based on the copy of the frnal bill, the bill amourrt was sanctioned to PW. 1. However, P\,V.l did not sign the copy ,)f the Iinal bill, nor did he protest agair:.st the final bill amount. Pt.V.6, also stated that the final bill was sirlned by the appeliant and l)\L'4 on 9.6.2008.

25. PW.2, stztted that the appellant prepares the bil1s, and PW.4 signs both the M-Book and the bill. Subsequently, P$/. 1 and the appellant sign these documents, and PW.4 forwards th3 bill to the Executive Engineer's ofhce.

26. PW. 1O-Inspector, stated that PW.t has not signer: on the bill by the date of r:xamination of PW.4. 27 - From the above, it is evident that PW. 1 was also required to sign Ex.P13, the bill dated 9.6.2008, for Rs. 45,1i47.32 ps., alongside PW.,l zrnd the appellant. PW.4 admitted that PW.t had not signed the bill, and PW.t himself confirmed the s;ame. PW. I further ackno,vl.t:dged that pass orders could not be prepared unless he signed the final bill, agreeing to the amounl mentioned therein. This procedure is consistent with the earlier pa:1 bill of Rs. 13,97,206.14 ps, where PW. 1 admitted (as reflected on page 40 of M-Book No. 123 1/20O7) that he signed, accepting the part bill 15 value. Subsequently, the cheque for the permissible amount was issued to him, clearly establishing the process.

28. Further, PW.4 and appellant both work under PW6. Hence, PW.6's testimony becomes more relevant. According to PW.6, the work given to PW. 1 fell under the jurisdiction of PW.4, the Assistant Engineer (Civil), with the Appeliant, serving as the Junior Assistant (Civil), assigned to assist PW.4. PW.6 further mentioned that PW.4, after physically veriffing the measurements, would prepare the bill and forward it for a technical check. This also needs to be considered when determining whether any official favour was pending with the Appellant and whether he intentionally withheld the clearance of bills. Since PW.6's testimony is clear that PW.4 is the one who has to prepare the bills and forward the same to the university engineer's office for technical check.

29. As per Ex.P1, the allegation is that Appellant demanded Rs I lakh initially for making entries in measurement books and passing the final bill, and thereafter, demanded Rs.5O,OOO/- for passing the bill. As per the procedure, only when the entries are made in the measurement book, the bills will be prepared ald then forwarded by PW.4, once the Appellant, PW.4, and PW. 1 sign on the same' In 16 this case, tht: bill was already prepared. Hence, ,.here is no question of ApJrt:llant's pending work of recording en.tries in the measurement books. Further, both PWs. 4 and 6 nowhere depose about Appellarrt's authority to pass the bill. Appellar rt's work is only to recorcl rhe entries and forward the same to PW.4 for physical 'r,erih<:ation. At the risk of repetition, PW.6's evidence is also clear that it Ls PW.4's responsibility to prepare the i;ilIs. Hence, the question oI Aopellant preparing them does not arise

30. PW.4 in his testimony stated that Appellant prepares the bills and passes it over to him, it nevertheless has no effect because as per the facts, ttre fina,l bill pending to be given to PW.l ,vas already prepared-Ex.I'}lll and signed by Appellalt and PW.4. lt was pW. 1 who was left to sign the same.

31. Therefore, it is clear that the work of PW.4 and lhe accused was compiete, as their sigrratures were already present on Ex.p13, dated 9.6.200t1. The only pending step was pW. 1,s signature, without which pa.ss orders could not be prepared, as :r.dmitted by PW. t himself- As on the date of the trap, no official favour was pending with tt e .Appellant.

32. Moreover, PW.6 stated that although the bill arnount was sanctioned to P!\r 1, he neither signed the copy of the final bill nor 17 protested against the final amount. This indicates that PW. 1 accepted the final amount of Rs.45,347.32 ps'

33. It is not PW. l's case that though the bill was ready, the appellant didn't 1et him sign on Ex.P13. PW. 1's case is that the appellant had not entered the measurements in M-Books and prepared the bills, whereas the appellant had completed both these things, as evidenced by Ex.P13 and the signature of PW.4 and the appellant on Ex.P13. It cannot be assumed that PW. 1 did not sigrr on Ex.P13 because the appellant was demanding a bribe, since the allegation is that the bribe was demand.ed for entering measurement values and preparation of bills, not for allowing clearance of bills. Hence, from the record it is dpparent that appellant did not intentionally withheld the bill Ex-P13.

34. Further, with regard to bribe, what needs to be determined is whether Appellant called PW.2 on 8n around 1:30 pm and whether PW.2 called Appellant at 4:OO pm, after which Appellant told them to come to his office and give Rs.50,0OO/-.

35. Firstly, from the evidence of PW.S, two things are clear: that telephone No. 23011833 was allotted to Appellant and that Ex'P16 shows a call was made from the telephone of Appellant to the cell phone No. 9866444885 on 8.7.2008 at l:32 pm' However, the 18 prosecution was not able to establish that the cell phone No. 9866444885 belongs to PW.2, since, PW.5 admitted that from Ex.P16, he cannrtt give the particulars of the names of the persons to whom phon: c:alls were made from phone No. 23011833. Hence, from Ex.P16, one can only see the number but not the names of the owner of the number. The prosecution did not plzrce evidence on record to prove that the number belongs to pW.2.

36. PW. 10 dr:posed that his investigation revealed t.eat the cell phone No. 9866.144885 belongs to PW.2; however, no e,ridence was placed on recorcl to prove the same. PW.5 stated that the CBI did not give him a rt:quisition for providing the call particrrlars of the cell phone bearing No. 9866444885.

37. Further. PV/9 Inspector stated that during the in vestigation, he did not colk,ct information from the nodal ofllcer as to in whose name the cell 1;hone bearing No. 9866444885 stands. He also did not seize the cr:1J phone with this number. Additionally. he did not observe where .:ht: office landline telephone in the appeltant,s office was located. P\V.12 admitted that he does not know his cell phone number and thirt his cell phone was not seized by the CI,II officer. 19

38. According to PW.2 and other witnesses, PW.2 got a call from the appellant around l:32 pm on 8.7.2008. However, in Ex.P4, it is specifred that the TLO enquired with PW.4 after the trap, and PW.4 stated about the appellant coming to the office at 1 :55 pm on a.7.2OO8.If this is taken to be true, the whole iase of the appellant calling PW.2 around l:32 pm on 8.7'2008 becomes doubtful.

39. PW.3's statement that PW.2 informed them on 8th morning about the appellant demanding him a bribe of Rs.5O,OO0/- is also contradictory to other witnesses' testimonies, as, according to the prosecution, PW.2 got a call around 1:32 pm.

40. PW. 10's evidence is completely contradictory. PW. 10 deposed that the landline telephone No. 667923L3 belongs to the office of the appellant, whereas, according to PW.5, telephone No' 23011833 was allotted to Appellant. 4I. Hence, the prosecution has not successfully established that the appellant called PW.2's cel1 phone on 8.7.2008 around l:32 pm and that PW.2 called the appellant again at 4:OO pm. Only after the calls, did they come to know that they were supposed to give the bribe amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- to the appellant at his office' This is again contradictory to PW.1's testimony of the appellant calling him on Sft morning and contrary to Ex'P1 as well. 20

42. The Honr:urable Supreme Court in N.Vijagakumar a. State of Tamil Nadul held that mere recovery of the amot:.nt divorced from the circrLmstances cannot form basis to convicr., when the substantive ev:de nce in the case was not reliable.

43. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P (2015(10) SCC 152). A three jrrdge bench of the Supre;ne Court held that proof of deman,rl of illegal gratification ir; the gravamen of the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w I3(2) of the Prevention of Cormption Act and in the ;rbsence of the sarne, the charge would fail. It was also held that mere acceptance and recovery ol'the illegal gratifrcation 'wc,uld not be sufficient to prove the above charges. +4. In the background of the discussion above, it emerges that no work rvas pending with the appellant as ,.:laimed by PW.1 nor anl'clemand was made. The demand oi bribe for clearing the bill for Rs.45,347 l- is highly improbal.rle. Hence, even if there u.as recovery in the present case, the same ' 2021 cRr.L.r 13sg 2L cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the light of the above two Judgments.

45. Accordingly, the appellant is extended beneltt of doubt and the appeal is allowed. Since the appellant/accused officer is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Sri Justice K.SURENDE (For His Lordship's kind perusal) To 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 o Prlgh The Principal. Special-Judge_for CBI Cases, Hyderabad. (With Records if any) lhe Station House Officer, CBUspEiHyderabed. Two CCs to the, SRINIVAS KApATIA,'special public prosecutor for CBI High Cou( for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT) 1'1 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, Hiqh Court for the State of Telan_gana. High Court Buildings at Hyderab'ad. - One CC to SRi. M V HANUMANTHA ilAO, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies f p HIGH COURI' DATED: 2910112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.417' of 2014 HF- str1r 1 c' IJ L) 2I APf, 7[75 P \: *,r.r' ALLOWING T'HE CRL.APPEAL a d- 4lt6