Criminal Petition No. 5418 of 2019 · The High Court · 2025

Order

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.5418 OF 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-2 seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.178 ol 2015, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Karimnagar. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ,p.C.Act,).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A 2 ald Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special public prosecutor for ACB. Perused the record.

3. This petitioner and A 1 u,ere charge sheeted by ACB authorities for the offences under Sections 7, 12 & 13(1) (cl) r lw.13(21 of P.C.Act. 4 The petitioner was shown as private Assistant to A- 1

5. The complaint was filed by one T. Srinivas alleging demand of bribe by A- 1 for conducting survey in the land of defacto complainant therein. The demand for Rs.10,0OO/_ was made by A- i for fixing boundaries. Aggrieved by the sard *;,.r1 2 demand, defacto complainant approached ACB authorities A trap was laid and on the date of trap, the amount was recovered from A-2. On the basis of recovery of amount, ACB arrayed petitioner as abettor. According to the charge sheet, petitioner's acts constitute an offence under Section 12 of P.C.Act.

6. The only ground raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that procecdings against A-1 rvere quashed by this Court vide orders dated 08.04.2019 in Crl.P.No.253 of 2019. Once the offence is quashed against the principal offender/A-1, the question of abetment by this petitioner does not arise

7. Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under: t'Punishment for abetment of offences: Whoever abets any offence punishable undcr this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine." \

8. Learned Special public prosecutor for ACB does not dispute quahsment of the proceedings against A_ l. However, submits that ACB authorities filed SLp before the Hon,ble Supreme Court and the same is pending. Further, learned Public Prosecutor submits that no interim orders were passed suspending the orders of this Court in Crl.p.No.253 of 20t9.

9. The petitioner is admittedly a private person. According to the prosecution, he was working under A_ 1. The allegation of demanding bribe is against A_ 1 who was ,,r,orking as the then Surveyor. Once the proceedings against the principal offender have been quashed, the question of abetting the offence of A- 1 b1, this petitioner does not arise. For the said reason, the Criminai petition deserves to be allori.ed.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed. However, in the event of Hon,ble Supreme Court reversing the order of this Court quashing the proceedings against A- l, ACB is at liberty to approach the Court below seeking permission to take cognizance against the petitioner, since the proceedings are not quashed on the facts but due to the quash ment of 1 proceedings against A- 1. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. JAYASREE TANT REGISTRAR A SI SECTION OFFICER T 1 2 3

o . The Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Karimnagar ' . enii iorrrption Eureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnaoar' . Two Cc to Sri T. eara Lroi;n'i;iJv,'$;il' F'.bli" P-to"""utor for ACB ' cr""". nlqh iourt for the State of Ttlangana atHyderabad' (oUT) . or" ciii sni. e. sHesHu KUMAR, Advocate [oPucl 4 5. Two C.D.CoPies (along rvith a copy of Crl.P No.253 of2019) l/plp ,ft- HIGH COURT DATED:1210212025 ORDER CRLP.No.S418 of 20'19 ALLOWING THE CRI,.PEI'TTION I c"f+ yrc 5i )-4 o+ \ L 3 O APR * ri: ;'j pl. i r-- ---- :.. ,e ij;.i5 E-, . 2025 ! \1 ': 7 1'. + HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVa SANKARA RAO Criminal Petition No.253 of 2019 ORDER The Detrtjoner Vittala Gopatakrjshna, is A.1 our of t../o accused in C.C.No.178 of 2015 on the frLe of the Learned Speciat ludge for SPE & ACB Cases aI Karimnagar, ou[come of Cr.No.04lACB Kl']R/2011 of An[] CorrLrption Bureau(for short,'ACB'), Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar, registered for the offences punishabte Under Sections 7,12 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruptlon Act, 1988(for short, 'the D.P.Act ) on the repo rt, dt.23.01.2013 of one Thorrikonda Snnivas S/o l,1a [ [a ia h a Student resl.Jent of Sulthanabac villa e .rnd ,^,\andal (4ilnnaq3r Dist-tici. The.rveri'rteIts in tre rcpcrt sDea{ []-r3t his iaiher is in possessioir o1'agricuitural [ai]d admeasuriF.g Ac 0 30 6urrtas and Ac 1-10 in 5y.l'lcs.5l1/A anil 5i5/A situateC cr-ti:i,jrts cf Gaitepaltj VjtLage, 5utthanabad Manda[. Due to nuisance causing by the neighbouring agriculturlsts on bcundarjes, h1s father paid an anrount of Rs.350/- on

20. 06. 20 1 2 through chal tan 41is_9_Q91qqq_q lepreser tation on 7A 06-7012 Dep uty lnspector of 5ur,rey, Peddapatti- the to V. Gopata Krishna petjtjoncr enctosing orrginat chatlan, Photostat coptes oi pahant and pattadar pass bock requesting to cause sur./ey oi thejr land and to fix boundaries. Though the petitjoner assured to do so, dcspite theii reques[s for 3 to 4 times, there \/as no response from him. Again on 0/.01.7013 ,&hen the comptainant requesled the petitioner to survey and fix boundaries, he demanded an amount of Rs-10000/- as bribe to measure and demarcate the boundaries of the tand. The report further reads that the defacto comptainant informed the accused for such demand of he suffered toss in cuttivation and atready indebted to many and not in a position to pay the bribe amolrnt and requested to survey- However the accuseC bluntly stated that wrthout payment, the work witl not be donc. The further averrnent rs tater he met thnce and rerterated the same. lt is further averred that on 07.01.2011 he met the accused and pteacJi'd for survey, he reduccd his bribe demand to Rs.8,000/' etse not to mect hjm With no other go, he aqreed to give Rs.8,000/- and cause Fix date Lo measure and notices to sire to boun(jary owners and asked to P,r)/ on

09.01.2013 evening at hrs oflice. He nret hirr on 09.01.2011accor(lingly and informed l-hat he coutd not secuTe. The accused for that stated h!'was not coming on 10-01.201i lo cause survey. So again on 23.01 .201i hc v/ent to the accused and requested to fix date to pay on thal day hov/evcr the accused stated unless paid on 28.01 2013 not cominq to c3usc srTvey. Hence to take actir)n.

2. The repcrt rr.cei';tcl as pcr erdoIs.msnt cf DSP, aa!,, et Karirragar o 2l.0l-2rll.t l7.00 hcrrs. iro//!''"i- Lhe FIR Cispai.lr,'d to fhe Court onty on 28.C1-201I a[ 1].o()hours as pef th.r column t.lo.15 r: the FiR lvhjch is after 5 da-vs. Lea,re about when the SpeciaI Judge recei,;ed the FiR rs nor before t,re Ccurt. rh'-. ACts lr5pecior, llarirnr:g.rr .'i] rnvesLigation fjled char.lesheet dt.01 .05.2015 agajnst the p"trironcr a, A.1 and aNother persoo as A-2 by narne Kann.rm Rakesh.

3. The sun] and substance of lhe chargasheei spcaks thJ: on

28.01.2013 at about 17.00hours a trap was lajd against ihe petitiontr at the RDO offjce, Peddpatti of Kanmnagar DisIri.t, and ii] [he officc, :he L.ly.1-the complainant made to enter into the oifice of the petitioner and in the meanIime the trap party took vantage posjtjons near Ihe office and [ater at about 17.45 hours, the complainant cane outside of the offrce and gave the pre.arranged signaL to the trap party by wrp;ng his face with handkerchief. The trap party atong witlt the mediators rushed rnto the office and the L.W- 1 -ccmptainant informed that the pctitioner accepted bribe anrount and handed over the same to the A-2 and accordrngty the trap party entered into the office and apprehended the petitioner inctudrng the A.2 near the seat of the petitioner and restricted the movements and v/hen subjected for sodium carbonate sotution test, the fingers of both the nands ol rhe petilroner and A.2 yietded positive result. Then rhe L-W. 14. lnvestjgatrng Officer recovered the tainted bn'be amount of Rs.8,000/- from A.2 kept in right side front pocket of his wearing pant and then got tested the teFt side pocket of A.2's wearjng pant which contained taintcd bribe arnount. which trrrned into pink cotou.. The L.u/.14 got lransferrcd atI the fjvc reslr{tant sotLrtio:.rs into separ:te gla5s bcttles and the sarnple oI sodiuin carbonate por^rder irr a sepa!-aIe ccver, sealed them, labeited and seized the same atcng u/jth the paot of A.2 by getiing attestation of the nredia[ors (1.W. 10 anrj L.V/.1]ion it. y/her the L.'./.1.i asked the 1.W.2, the immediate ofiicer tc the petitioner/A.1, to DioCuce the connected documents, the L.W.2 C.Snankarajah-TahasiLdar prcCuced the processrng file of the L. W. 1'conrplainant lvhich contairs 24 pages and tl'te same y/ere seized by the Invesr:gatjng Ofiicer, and took signarures oI L.lvs.10 and 11 mediators oa each and every page. The lnvesrigating Offrcer atso perused the At[endance Regrsier of the office and found thai srqnature,",as DUI by the petitioner,/A.1. On enquiry jt was disctosed that the A.1 is Executrve Officer and was working on deputatioo and not putting his signaturer in the Attendafce Register and the LW-14 seized the copy of the Attendance Register, for the month of January, 2013 and took the signatures oi LWs.10 and 11 on each and every page. Later when the LW'14 enquired 1.W.1 what was happened after leaving the trap party, he stated that he entered into office of RDO Peddapatti and Found both the petrtioner and A.2 were presenf in the office and when entire Staff went out from the office, on the demand of A.'1 hc handed over thc tatnled arnount to the. A.i who accepted the same and handed over [he same to the A-2 to count anrj kcep with him and A.2 did so and kept jn the right side front pocket of hi:, wearing pant. Later tl)e A.l prepared notjces in the names of L_W_4 Bogrrl Bheemarah, L.W.5l.taLtavelti ,Ualtajah, L.!V.6 Thorrikonda R.ryarnal[.r .rnc

1.W.7 Rate Sadaiah by fixrng date on 11,01,20 to survey and gave lherr, to lhc comptainant to hand over to L.W.9,Sampath Kurnar, VRO, Gatt,rpatty to serve them to concerned and also assured [o survey and fix bound]rjes. ThereaFter, the LW-l came out of the olfice and gave pre arrargeC sigral [o the trap Darty. Then Lhe 1.W.14 sejzed the noLices preparerl by th,r A.1 supra and han(jed over to 1,.y./.1 [o hand o.zer to L,W.1 1 -EilanijLrta yc tarah for:erving to concerfcd. The i.!\/.1,,1 eL;o scized ihe tour djal / cf tl.,A l for lhe mcnth oi January, 2i-rl J col-rialnrrg onc sie!t a.rd ljjt of paT.ri.i,iars of a-.Dlrcatton-. recei,i-cj Ii,.tiir the Seai ci A. l r-riiir Lhe atiesij:ri_,] ci mediators. Then the 1.W.1.,i examined the scene of offence and orcparc<1 rough sketch attested by medratois and arrested tne A.1 aircl A 2 cn 7[j C]- 2011and produced before the CoLjri and [a[er released an bail. Later. l-e examiired an(l recorded under Secttcf 161 CrpC statentents oi Ly/s.l to g supra and aLso the Judicial &Ugistrate of First Class, Specjat t,tobile Cr,L:r:, Karimnaga. (LW 12) recorded the staternent of L.S/.1 L.r/s 164 Crpf or: 08-02.2011 and forwarded the same to the Speciat Judge, supra. lhe Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vjgitance_l) Deparijrl,rnr, Te{angana State, Hyderabad (Ly/-13), who is the competent authorit}. ro remove Ihe A_1 from servjce, accorded sanctton for prosecution of A.1 ,]1ld for takrng cognizance oF the ofFence vide c.O.^{s.No..l60, 09.09.2015. Tl.je trap anrount was reimbursed to LW-j. lt is ctearty estabtished that ihe A 1 with the assistance of A.2 demanded and accepted an iltegat gratiFicatron of Rs.8,000/ other than legal remuneration from the LW-l on 2g.01 .20] I .rt the ofFice of Lhe RDO for doing an officia{ favour to cause survey. Thereby, the A.1 committed the offences punrshable u/s 7 and 1l (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of PC Act aod the A 2 commi[ted an offence punjshable u/s 1Z oi p.C.Act.

4. The chargesheet speaks the above facts wjth reference to the so catted investigation and citi g 16 witnesses. L.W.l4 is the DSp who registered the FIR and examined and recorded the statcnrent of 1.W.1 and arrested the A-1 and A.2. 1.W.15 is lnspector yrho assisted the DSp rn taying the trap and examined and recorded the slatements of L.Ws.2 to 9 and L.V/.16 is successor to L-V/.15 vrho iited chargeshect. Among the other

1.W.8 is father of defacto-complainant. L.Ws.4 to 7.Ic so caLled nearby adjacei.tt [.rd ov;ners of 1.W.8, L.W.] is As:i. Director oi Surv.-y ir Land Records, rriredi.rte supenor r! A.I ;iril L.\i,/.2 is the Tahasildar- ACminist12:ive O[ficerifor s"crt. 'thc AC'i i iire oificc oi RDO, Peddapatii and handed o,/er the proce5srng iite to the dci.rcto ccnrpLaini pert.rining to survey of his tand at Gatrc,palli.

5. The content;ons in tie q,-rash petitjon. rmpugning the prccecdings in Calendar Case supr-a are tnat ihe charqasl.e.t is nci maintaint5le etther in law or on facts as the same is devoid oi nrerits, lyetght of evidence and probabiiities oF the case. The ailegcd bribe ntoney was n01: seized froin the petrtioner and lhe lnvesrigating agcncy [aited to prciluce any maicrjal to show as to holv the 4.2 is connecied with ih,-- case and the presence of A-2 at the atteged ptace of trap shows he ,,.Jas set Ltp wjth no nexus between [he petitioner'A.1 and the A.2- There is no materiai to estabtish that the petitioner receiyed the application for survey of land from L.W.1-defacto- complainant on 28.06-2012. The statement oi L.lV.2-C.Shankaraiah-the AO, shows the appticatjon was handed over in the iny/ard section and the documentary evidence covered by tour diary of A.1 estabtjshes tlrat he was on officiat tour to BommareddypaLti and the very demand of bribe is not established prima lacte. The sLatemeot of LW-1 th.rt lhe petltloncr tssLlc(l notrces to the nerghbouring land owners on 7.01 .2013 for survey of i.rd or

10.01.2011 but the prosecutjon faitcd to producc sajd notices ir th€ chargesheet atong wrth olher documents which qa'.,e suspicion tl the genesis of the prosecution. The claim of the lnvestigatlng OFFicer-1.W.'14 and LV/-l ihat dLle to con-paymefi of bribe amounI by LW-1, the peti:!cner did not cause survey rs fatse for Ihe reason that thc docrrmentary e,/idcnce estabtishes that the petitroner was on tour and follourlnq the 1.W.3 Assistant Director. The faitrrre on the part oF the L.V/.1 to give daies and limes of alleged demard except stalinq he approached lhe petitlor.€r tiines and aii lhe tinle re,teraled the demarci oi bribe, ts Fatsa .-r|.1 Lhe iioct,crl;fqs are cotli,:g but aL.l;e ol ltrccess !t!tie lhcre \.1.) :.1: any deii-:nd ir-uch iess ac:e:t;rnce. iiow..,zer, titc unexDiaired tli,La.r. ci 7 i'lci)tirs ir apprc.rch;r:q iit( ACB poLic.r I'ioi: t:l-c c1a:e oi atte3eC iiisl Cernan<j of 2E.06.2011 io tre dere of loCq nq report ojr 21.01.201-_i is Fatat so atso the ur:explaine,C deiay oi i days in regtslering the aase from th.l aete oi 21.01 .201J io il'r€ d.rie o; FiR i.e. 28.t1.201t. F:riher lr..r: : nc ?j-csecuttci witnesses ihat spcilit io the attesatiof oi demand of or:l:e lty ine petilro'l?t,,1 lheir presence ai any poj,r: cf tlme to qtve credcr,rt-lc the L.U/.'1 s'rersion ard the so catted repori of L.W.t jisetf apparently maniDUlated cae with iatse story by interpotatjon of (late 23.01_Z0 and ar]oirnt of Rs.8,000/- lc iay fatse irap to implirate the peiiircner. Ihe iact of absence of the peiiiioner in ihe olfice lvhen the L_y/.1 entered Lhe ofiice at 15.40 hours and again going into the office at 17:00 hrs and drafting of anv proceedings by the DSp, ACB during the jnterregnum pericd gi,res raise to suspicion to the trap- The non-conducting of phenotphthatern test on the notices attegedty handed over by the petitioner to the L.V/.1 immediately after recei,,,ing the bribe amount gjves ratse to suspicton. Tlre documentary evjdence that covered by tour djary dt.28.06.2012 esLabtishes that the petitioner was on official duty to Bommireddypatti v/hereas L.W.'1 claims that he met the petitioner or'r the above date at his office whrch is fatse so also the demand of the bribe. There is no mentjon of time, place of meetjng of the petitioner by L.!v.1 on 78.6.7012 and demand oF A.1 tor br rbe amoLnt of Rs.10,OO0/- stated rn the 164 CrPC stdtement of L.W.l shows that the L.W.1 did not meet the petitioner on the above date. As per the prosecution case, the bribe money was received by the petitioner-A.1 from the 1.W.1 and counted and handed over to A.2 who kept the same in his pant pocket but in the 164 CrPC statement, it is ctear'[r- mentioned that the bribe money was received by A.2 on the instructions of A.1 and counted it and kepi in his pant pocke[ \vhi.h rs contradicto.y to the so calied acceptance and it is sLrffice to quash the proceedines. Tire fact of oon- mentioning of presence of kerchief with L-W.l beiore proceeding for trap rn the MRI ctearty goes to show no signal was given !^rjth kerchjei arrd the proceedinqs are false. The L.y/.1 fatsely staled that he met the petitioner on 09.01.2013 on which day the A.1 reiteratec the demand of bribe, but on that day the petitioner was on lour to Garripalti on oifice ryork thal is borne out by tour dairy and thus the atteged demand is ialse. Tnere rs no mentrcn in l,1Rl that sodium carbonate povrder was taken to the scene of offence and wjthout v/hich, no chemical test can be conducted and what is mentioned in MR-ll that the D.S.P. got prepared Sodium Carbonafe Sotution in four gtass tumbters separatety lvith the hetp his staFf and asked the petitioner and A.2 to rinse therr hand frngers separatety in the said four gtass tumbters and upon which the colourtess solution in the four gtass tumbters turned into pink colour and the very procedure adopted testing the hand fingers of both the accused simuttaneousty is wrong and the said test is not accurate and tiable Lo be re]ected. The fite retatinq to the 3 ,,+. .:,:l;t- survey oi tallds of L.V/.1 stated as seized by DSP after trap lron th(, possessron of the AdmrIis[rative Officer L_V/.2, ctearty estabtishrn.] tha: had the pctrtioner got any interest and demanded money from 1.W.1, he' v/ould have kept the file rvith him. There is no intentionaI delay caL[ed by the pelrlroner rn causrng Survey, since they are about 200 surveys retattne; tc 8 l,landals of Peddapalli Revenue Division under the contiot oi the pet;troncr ar<1 those pending fjles were [ong prior to the appLjcation Jf thc

1.W.1 whrch is borne out by the made up frte No.5 produced atonq with charge sheet and hence contjnuation of proceedings is abuse of process of Lavr. Thc ACB of[;ciaL: chose to fatsety trap the petjtjoner by usir]g the

1.W.1 ivho rs a rank cTrmtnat invoLved in number of criminat case s rncludrng ,r..!c iir !.i.11o.112,'2011or Lhr: irle oi AdCi.Sessions Judge, Coci.r,.,i-ikanr ;r irnri:lt he \./crs can!ir led for ti[e imprisonment at]d undergoinq ihc !L-ilen(e in clirtraL pr:,-,,l], r'iarargal. The AaB cificjats did not v!:ri;/ lhe anie.edenls o[ L.W.] .,o aisc ci the petiticner-A.1. The con]ptarnan: ts a crillljoaL invotved ir a rrurdeT case covered by Cr.No.306/201C of Gci:.rank;ai Pclice Sta'rron lhat vias not evea find ptece tn the so cailed rir)'e:fi'jalioi .rnd iinal report. 'ihough ,/erification of an[eceden-s is -rarCalcr,/, iir.,te ls no record shov/ing mediators to the panchanar,.as l rnd 2 cbtarnr].E jte.e5).jry permissions from the superiors rn attendtng pre lrap and pcst-trap proceedings. Further as per the Sectjon 164Crpc 5t;lenrent oi L.U/.i ro v/riiten comptaint lyas given to the ACB oiir.iaLs, KariiTloagar against the A.1 and thus the verycrime proceedings and pre trap and post.trap pi-occedings are unsuslainable inctuding cognrzance order of the learned Special Judge, from the potice final report v/j,.h no basis and there is no necessjty to the petitioner to be put to ordeat of trial and to subserve the ends of just,ce, the case proceedings are liabte lo be quashed. I I I I I I I I

6. The counter hted by the respondcnt/(ACB lnspector) in saying from the investjgatlon there is a sustainabiti[y of accusation from which the sanction orcjer obtained and chargesheet frled and taken cognizance by the Learned speciaI Judge in attoLt]ng Calander Case number supra The lnvestigating Offjcer conducted propcr in./estigation and prepared chargesheet that js forwarded to DG, AC6, !.Jho afler examination forwarded the same to Covernment for sanction and sanction orders v/ere issued from whjch the chargesheet fited in Court. As per mediators report, the A.1 asked the defacto'comptainant whether he broughl the demanded bribe amol nt and the cornplainant took the ',vad ol currency notes froin his left front part pocket lvith his left hand and handed ove| to ihe A.1 who accepied the same y/jth teFt hand and hanied o,,er Lo A.2 hls righi "vi1:h harrC v/iLh instructions to coilnt and kept v|!r ;rtllr and the A.2 cclinteC wrth his both hands ancl kept in his right frr-rnt pairt pocket. The medjators report to rontain the croceedjnqs lvith itldetrendent !"itnesses v/ho are Government o{ficjals tlljt lhere was nc nacess r:/ to incorrorate which ls not nappered. The ACB cfficiats rusheC to the r-,ii'ce of the A.1 . after r?cpr\rng srgnal fron the comptainant, A.2 \'/as presEn[ ir the offtce oi 4.1 aiong lvith A.1, blt if the A.2 lvas unknolvn to A-1 how and \^/iry the 4.2 was prcsenf rn Ine office of the A.1 along u/ith A. l afr"r cfilce hc,trs and rn the Dost lrap proccedings, the A.1 did not take a ptea of he did not know the A.2 and if the A-2 was unknown to him, he woutd have totci and there is no need ior ACB officials to set up the A-2 and there rs no enmity or prevjous acquaintance betlyeen the A.1 and the ACB officjats, to accept such a Fatse contention in the quash petition grounds. The L.W.2 nowhere stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that the appLjcation was handed over in the inward section, just he disclosed the procedure of processjng file for survey of the tand and fixing the boundaries. The A.1 wa: trapped on 28-01-2013 and requested him about ltis lvork, but the A.I offtcjaily received lhe filc on 02 07-2013 and kept pcnding the file with him for 06 months in order to obtarr ittegal qratificaticn. As pcr the 161CrPC statement of wltnesse., lviLlr Teference to the documentary evidence on Tecord, the A.1 issued noLice Ct-10.01.2013 for sLrrvey and demarca[lon of boundaries but dlC nct visi: the fretd as the coinplainant did not arrange the bribe amouht pr or tc th3' and if he did not demand the brjile amoun[, he woutd have vjsjted th(. freLd to conduct survey on 10.01 .2013. The office of A_'1 was at Peddapaltv. The distancL' bety/een Peddapatly to Bommareddypatti is abouI j2 Kms and as per thc tcur diary or, 0i_C1.2011 ro 31.01.2013(Fite l.Jo.4) the a.t wrote on 1C-C1 2011 to suTyey the land at 6.rttepatty in Sy,flos.5ll and 5lt anc strik., rrii. 1,. 5eeDS Ur.lt the A. I iixed tlt: Cate for sutvey and l!s11cd n )Llc.,s Dt.10 i)1 2011 and ,..rhen L.U/.1 failec to provlce the demaitded brrb: aino!-rnl c|l ilr ror dar-r, h_- Ctc not t.tsit the [a;rd [or survey. A, per Cocum.ntary r:vjcjenco o|t record. the A.1 fjxc.d date For suryey cn 10 Cl, 2C13 birt as per coinpieint veTsron, yrhen he fatled to provjde bribe anro,_ni cn Cg.Cl 2011, he drC lloi cord,rci survc:/ on ]0 C1,2013. lf the r\.1 !! r,r J,. tcLrr:rrd ioiLowed Lhc AssistanL Director, he woutd have inforrrieri rhe ,,tne o. , i.,'irour.i.rie bui hc did ro[ Co so. When the L.!V.'J did nci p;o,..rd , tre dem.rnded b be a.ncL|rt, the A.1 strike out the entire row oi Dr.1r) 01

2013. if the L.W.l had an intention to trap the A.1, he rvculd have remerrberei exact daie and time but he was vritting to get hrs work ,jone b,y the petiLioner, as such he met the petjtioner about 2 to 3 tjmes, vr'hen he made rounds, he vcxcd wjth the attifude of A.1 as he was reiteratin,J hrs eartier Cerrand for which he approached the ACB officiats. lf ihe complainant wants to get to trap the A.1, he woutd have approached lhe ACB officials on the yery next day itsetf when the A.l demanded the brrbe amount lo do officjat favour. The L.W.1 was roaming around the A.1 frofi.l 28 06-2012 titt the date oi trap and A.1 was avoidrng [o suryey after fixiDg the date for survey in order to obtaln itLegat gratrhcation. After 2g,05.2012 the L.W- 1 met the A.1 , two or three tlmes but the A.1 reiterated hts eartier demand. Again the 1.W.1 met the A. l on OZ 01_2013 about his work and aiter persistent requesL, Lhe A.l reduced the bribe amount from Rs. IO.OOO/ to Rs.8.000,. rn trlinq date to sur!ey oo t0.Ot./O1l tor non- payment by 09.01_2011 by the L.y/.1. On 23.01.2013, the 1.W.1 requested Lhe A-1 to fix daLe so that he can arrange the amount on that day and the A.1 stated untess pays the bribe amount, he witt not Fjx date and on

28.01.2013 w[]ei the L.!V.1 paid the amount, the a.cuseij irxed date and issued notic€s and the L.W.1 jn his examina:icn before i5e ln,,esttga:tng Oif icer bciore tlte M,agisIrate stated rn sulrpol I oi his report. Thus Trere js ro any non-expLanation of delay of 05 days. lF tire A.1 did not recej,/e brjbe crnouiri, v/hy both hand iinger vrash oi A-1 rriro lvas sublected to chemjcaL test yietded DCSiiive result_ The tcui- diary ci A.1 clearty prcves the payment was arcected or 10.01.2011foT surve,,, as per ihe complaint for non-payment of bribe arnouni: by 09.01 .2011 anrj if reattv the A.l went atong with llle Asslstant Djrector fcr suivey, he vroutd have informed ro the aeiqhccui';n3 land owners by tssuing notices to vrhorn the,j.i i5sued notjces that he vroLrtd noi be coming for survey, but he djc not do !o ,lhrch shows he demanded and it was not meted out and the statement of neighbouring land owners estabtished the same. There js no pTe!,]ous enmjty or acquaintance bety/een the ACB officiats and the A..l and no necessity For ACB officiats to frle fatse trap against the A.1 ancl no need to interpolate the da[e and bnbe amount. During the post trap proceedings, when both the hand frngers of A.1 were subjected to chemical test and it yietded positive resu(t, the recovery was made from the pant pocket of personal Assistant of A-1. when gone throuqh the connected fite which y/as serzed during lhe post trao i)roceedrnqs, the A.1 kept the fite pending wrIh h]m a: about 6 months. All llre matenal coltected durjnq the jnvesIiqation l)rove(l the aItegation against A.1. Therefore the ACB Officjals Iaid trap agajrrst th(, A.'ll by manipulatiog lhe rcport i:, false and basetess. The atrsence oF A.i at 15.10 hrs and !./,r: seen cnieriog into ihe ofFtce ai 17.00 hr:, wa, dtsctosed by both rnedialor5 rn the l R Il proceedrngs. Durrnrl thc jnterreqnLrm period ro necd to draft proceedings, when there wcTe nc specific events and h.rppenrngs and the contenlion in thjs regard ls false and baseless. After grvrn3:rgnal by L.V/.1, the trap party rushed into the office of ihe r\.1 arr] '.^rhile eniering so. the DSP, ACB instrurted L.y/.1 lc wait or,tside if a llttt.l (listai'tc.l For som" ltme. The DSP. ACB Crd nol kno,! al)oui thc l.andrn,.] , r',,er lloir.! l)y t lle A. 1 to ltre compla jnant af ter acce,rtrrg cF brlDe n"r,r;.r1- il ,' ['SP AaJ .aiie to kncv/ abou[ ihe ,]cove T.rct !./i'rla rear)rC;rS ": :{ r! l: -ti i,-tlj : ..r'it. ,..ieiti titto lhe ofi:ce r f l.l with iar;rted aino!ni r, [)., v/l .i v.,.]s ker!. Lry Polic3 Coostabte, exaei)l rhal nothing carried b-v irir:r,,vnrr:lr see : tilai aiier acceptlng bnbe amouni, Ihe A.1 ha".lad over noit(ir'i iJ r Il. f:i] chenclplih;tetn t.st condu.t-L.C :jr thi- ranrl firqer: cf A.1 ,rfC naI]t pc.i..l of 11.2 ii sUfftajenl and th,. cortrt'rtlcx oi the A.l thera,bl,,ir lhe qu.illt peiitiot t! r!t'ltflte. ihe L.!V.1 never steted elther ln tlle Ir dp ,-]f .]r.,--Cings of in hjS staLement beiore the n,./estig.tijrq officer or l,.lagistraie oi he handeri oyer the brrbe amount to the A.1, in turn A.l counted arc gave jt tc ihe A.2 and on the jnstructioil oi Arl foi- A.2 counted it ani LcJr: in l s parr pccket, yrhat L.Y/.1 stated rs the A.1 took.rjth his teft hand and handecl over to A.2 with hjs right hand tc ccunt aod keep v/rth him. Thc mediators Jeporl with one of pre-trap procee(iings speaks about instructtons of DSP where in case the DSP demands and accepted tajnted amount asked L.!v.1 to gjve signat by y/iping his face rrith kerchief, rt shov/s th.rt he got handkerchicF and non-mentioning of kerchieF wrth the 1.W.1 in the trap proceedjngs is not fatal. The distance bctween Garrepalty to office at peddapatti is at about 21 kms. The A.1 might have gone there and returned to office within one or two hours and tour diary did not contatn time of visit to Garrepatti. The post frap proceedings contarns what was happened after the trap taid anil tainted currency serzed a1d the contrd.contentron of the A.1 in Lhe qudsh peLitron is untrue. lf the petitioner got 200 survey frtes pending, why he fixed date on 10.01.201j but for 1.W.1 could not provide bribe amount as demaoded in not conductrng. The 1.W.1 merely because invotved rn SC No.1j2 of 2011anrl convrcted rvhen he was on bait by the tjme reporl glven [c ihe ACB otficlats and at the [jnre of trap the L.W..l was studying LLB, at 1(l,1R Law Cottege_ at Hyrleraa.]cl and pricr to one year back he vras convicted in S.C.No.it2 oi 2Cil rhat ts aiier four to five years cf [rap. The Keraia High Court jn K.Balaji Agarwal Vs. State of Kerala dr.26. t0.2010 hctd that rhe comptainant invol./ed in otneT cases and not a person of good character not bv rtsetf a ground to reject the comgta;nt. The ACB cificiats conducted discreet enquiry vr'ith regard to the genuineness oi the report. reputar.ton oi A.l and antecedents oF L.W.j and found the contents o[ the report, genujneness aid antecedents of L.W.1 are good and repltLaitcn of A.j js suspectabte. leave about the criminal conduct of L.U/.1 wlll not have anv impac[ on the traD proceedings, the L,V/.1 in hrs stateme4t before the lylagistrate staIed that during pre,trap proceedrngs, DSp introducecl the Government emptoyees as mediators and gave copy of complaint to the mediators who confronted the conteots to L.W.1 which shows \^/ithout todging a report by the 1.W.1 what is need to ACB oFficials to iay trap and the contentions are therefore false and there are no grounds to quash the proceedings that too after commencement of the evidence of L.W.1 as P.!V.1 in chief in part by posted for further chief-exafl]ination. r I l I.l

7. Heard both sidL.s at Length wilh reference to the above and perused the entire material on record.

8. So far as the first contention of maintainabitity of the quasir petition frorn the version of L.!V-1 was examtned in chief in part as p.W.l and takcn time for furthL'r chlef examinatjon that is not a bar as quash peti[jon can be fiied at any trme after registration of the FtR dnd ireiore end of trial anC the same truth was rejterated by the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Vs. State of AP1.

9. UndisputedLy, as per the constitution Bench expression of the Apex Court rn Lalita Kumari Vs- Statez it is the duty cf the ACB offtcrats in the ca5cs rinder Ih.] PC ;\ct, to verify the antecedents oi Lh{. accused ol'fici:rtty. lJr facI on." tilo rep,]rt l!as rerei',ed on 23.L1.20ll as D(,r Ihe ,,ery v.ririln of ihe :roseci:ito. irJm the e;tdorseneni on the rsrort Dage iio.2. ih! er.jorserr't'.t o:' 21.01.2011 ai lTirour.s soeaks info.inc I the above facls and conl.f[5 to Jori]t Djrector, ACB, Hydeiabad over phone and as per:r5 insiructiou5 iurLil,_.r action +/ilL De taken after due verifica:ton cf the I"put,r:ion oF the oi'i(er. -',he very enaorsentent iiself js suiircrent tr say antacc.lents ci lhe col,]ptdtr.tr.lt not at au veriiied. What j5 mcnt oned rn the coLrirLer to tlte (lUash pe[ition saying as if anteceder]ts ot the comptajfla"i,,vr;ch veIfied and gocd and nothing buL fatse per se that too vihen arlriitting the L.V/.1 is invotved in a murder case co,rered by Cr.No.106 of 2C1C in 5.C.tJo.112 of 20il on the Fite of rhe Add[. Sessions Judge, Godavarikharj, thus by tnc tjme of the report dated 21.01 .20j1 referred supra by L.W.t received by the DSP,L.W-'14. [here is a charge sheet filed and commiital proceedirgs pendrng if not Sessions Case nurnber outcorne oF Cr.l'.1o.306 of 2010 of Godavarikhani and it coutd have been reveated at the antecedents of the informant y/hich is supposed to be lrl ll { ll) \(t j()l rl0ll)l\(( I i-i verified as pcr the expression of the Lalita kumari supra even o[henrise attegedty verified, basetess to say as jf good antecedents despite the crjme admittedty pendtng from 2010 from very counter version. There is nothing to show either from the pre-trap proceedings or in endorsement by the DSp or the lnspector, after 21.01.2011 before registratjon oi crrme on 28.01.?013 il at all (he antecedents of A.1 veriiied a: to whar *a: Lis previous history. The mere mention jn the counter as antecedents are suspectabte is nothing but fatse and baseless in the absence of any v;hisper by any record inctuding in the potice fioal report- Thc ACB otficiats abdjcated lheir mandalory responsibility on verification oi the tru.rh of report befor! la./ing trap sc atso antecedents of the complairanL First thait tha[ of the alLeged accu:;ed urhich are tiable to be verified as per Lalita Kumari surra. As per the expressions of [he Apex Court in P.sirajuddin Vs. State of Madrasr \yhate!,er be the status of a pubtic ser,.,aat, is pubLtcLy charged wlth acts of dishonesty etc., !,rhich amount to setious misdemeanour or miscon,luct under the PC Act oi any type ci attegation ia the case and the first information is lodged agajnst him, there mus[ be sonre suiIabLe preliminary enqujry lnto the al(egations oI a responsib[e offrcer. The locg:ng of sltch a report against a person, speaialLy one v/r]o trke the offrct.tt cccupied top position tn a department, even jF baseless, r^roulC do incatculable harm not oDly to the officer in particutar but to the departi-nent he betonged to in generat. lf the Governmen[ had set Lrp a vigitance and Anti-Corruption Department as was done jn the State of Madras and thc said department was entrusted with enquirjes of this kind, no exception can be taken to an enquiry by officers of this department but any such eoqujry must proceed in a fair and reasonabte manner. lt is observed further that the officer who is conducting discreet enquiry on the atlegatioos in the report against the pubtic officer, must not act under any arR 19 71 SC 520 I I I I I I I ! I i i0 pre-concerved idea of gUitt oi the person whose conduct was bejnq enquired in[o or pl]r5rre the enqulre in such a manner as to lcad to ao inference that he waj bcnt upon securing the conviction of the said lterson by adoptrng rneasures vrhich are of doubtful vatidity or sanctlon lt i5 categoricatly observsC Ihat the means adopted no tcss than the L,nds to be achieved .nust be rillpeccabte. In Laljta Kumari supra, fur[her het,j that neither the chargesheet nor Ihe FtR, rclerred any rote much tess advertent antecedenls oF the A.1-petrtioner. Fronr the above, tt ls clear that there is nothing to show any bad antecedents of the petltloner/A.1 and there is criminaL record of th. inforlnant-L.W.1 who was accused of a graYe cnme oi murCer''Yiri:h occ,Jr.rcJ 't..arly tiree,,,ears Drior to the said report ,,,,hich gjves rmpa.t on the .r. drllitit,_,, r:f iile vcr:jcr oi L W. 1. 10 n f:r-i.:r... : ::;i of Lrii. I :. !.-,i,.,e -l b7 ti;e i.,)1. _ on 2l.Cl.2CIl s,--.rir: '. i.',1.1 is a stuoer': a?ad Z5yL.ar5 and rct cven mentioned as cuttivaLor. Hi; iaiher MatLaiah is alive and examined ,,rs Der the prose.urjon as 1.,.i E The coL-nter Filc,d by the ACB Officiats shows the L.\a/.1 is a [a'r; stuir|t. E\..n :he L. W. g-At.1ii]ah, faiher of L.W. l s.rorvn aqed 60 years, a reIirc.] err]pto,yee tn Sjnqarenj calories. l-hus the L.W., and 8 are not Lr,,,men bl[ nr[ica:ed and kno',v men and matter s. ln thjs background, the Court r.t5 to consjder the maieriaI to see any justtFic,rtjon or not to tav trap procecdings- 1 1. From the ascve, the very report of L.W. l, dt.2l.Ol,20l l speaks he appiieC dnd obtained chaLlan for Rs.350/.dt.20.06.2012 for the purpose to cause fixating of bcundarres of the tand of hjs father and thereFron he says that he approached the petjttoner/A.I,DeDUty lnspector oF SLrrvey. In fact, the proceedjngs oF the RDO, peddapaltj dt.30.06_2012 speaks G.Mattaiah(1.W.8 not L.y/.1 his son ) filed a petition beiore the RDO for demarcation of hjs land by paying Rs.j50/, towards chattan No.5106, dt20.C6.2012. Therefore, the A.1 has to conduct survey to demaTcate within seven days- The proceedings of the RDO yrere issued on 30.06-2012 for the first tjme bearjng No.C/3311/2012 addressed to the A_1 and copy marked to /"lattaiah-1.!V.8. This ctearty shov/s the very version of the comptainant L-W.1 of he addressed application to the A.1 on 28.06.2012|s false. in facl, his father Mattaiah that apptjed to RDO. Further it rs the procecdings oi RDO, dt.30.06.2012 to complete the survey and demarcation within one vzeek- Once a copy of it marked to 1.W.8 and if at atI prjor or after 30.06.2012 L-W-8 wouid have approached the A..1 if noi on hrs behatf by tiie L.W.1 wiIhin one week iherefrom, to say jn the first week of Jutv, 2Cl2 itSctf. Ii 3t.:[L the survey was not conducteC from the time fr;<e<! r;y lhe RDO. L.u/.6, father ci L.W, l being a retired empLoyee in Singarcnj Calores and [n,-,. L.Vr'.1 [eave ebout hjs at']tecedents are accused in rnlrrder c..ise oi 201i.r 5iui?itt of iavi, shoutd have approached the RDO, wjth a complainl for ncr-con-'?leticn 4f work. What the FIR says is for the first trine lhe L.U/.1 mei A.l cn 07.01.011 rvhlch is nearty six months aFter RDO Proceedings and thcre js no meal'Inq to betie.,'e said version of him in the reDort oi meetrng afier sirch a Long time thal too in saying allegedty mel cir 2S.06.2C12 rtseli having gi',,en the apptication for survey and the A.1 attegedly ijenralded bribe arrd reiterated nhen sjx mon[hs [ater as referred supra. The very giving of application by the L.yi.1 to the A.'1 on

28.06.701) to cause survey of hrs land is false as apptication given by the L.!V.8 to the RDO and thc RDO directed on 30.06.2012 the A.1 to conduct survey and demaTcate within ooe week and marked copy to the L.W.8. Had the veracity of the comptainant verified by the ACB officiats, the very report shov/s something is behind and untrue for very giving of report on

78.06.7017 approaching the A-1 by L.V/.1 to survey is {atse so atso on that day the demand by the A.1 to L.U/-1. ln this context it is atso to mention Itl t: that it is not the prualcnce of .r.fmmon rnan to infer ur'sec.J of thc lndia-l Evidence Act, oF keeping qulc[ even demanded on 28.06.2012 whel approached by L.W.l to A.1 wrth apptication for survey, Rs.10,000/- as bribe, keeping quiet rf .rt ntl not rviiting and iF at atl to pursue in h s casr: as to when subsequentLy he met vras jn beiwcen 7.U.2A13 jn 6 months gap attegedty thrice he cr(l not mention where, when, how and.r^ihat is the version of accused fcr nothing to say ln bctlvecn also ary surch demarrd an<l for nothing to say desoite repeaied denraods more than thnce why h. agairr approached on 07.01.2011 and why he did no[ give any report, leave' about no apptrcation for survey attegedly gtven by the L-y/.1 ro li.1 or,28.AL.201) fjled. Neither 1.W.8 ror L.\Y 1': compL,lrt tc RDO for survey i5 ic!: i ied ii at atl pur5uant to the orJcci(],ir:., rf RDO cl 10.06.2i112. Ev,-.. .toit. ng tc the FIR vc.sion in iti br.IgrcL]: d n.rC!:!i:c,r io ihi aL).,,,e 5[6yr;,.g l:,rrd to ':tl :. C9J.i iIa't.,^/tLl tat lrl beIieve sard veiSlo c :r;;i]fiei,r-.a: :iji t;. i such a way and e,re t i.lier ior argljn-iltis sakE, h: went ala n on

07.01.2013 desplte se!'eral repe.ried d.-naril: iry tire A. 1 of Rs.10,300i brrbe and persiradei io ijtrt iil.8.COOi a.rd;ljrecd ior ri to itx l:late as

10.C1.2011 to pay amoirnt by il'-r r1.201i. Admrttl-di, hc did n.t D.,iy by

09.01.2011. \i/hat coutd be hrs.,oqauct if not paid on 09 Cl.20ll pl:rjlrai.rt to the demand on 07.(.rl 2013 frxing the date of sLrr',,.y on 10.01.20i3 to payment on 09.01 .2C13, he should have ai ieasr apprcached the ACB officials or RDO ior not (onCuctrng si.rrvey despite procecdings, dt.30,06.2012 to conC!ct wjthjn one week. lt is hardty be(ievabLe of even no survey conducted pursuant to the nottce dt.10_01 .2013 for the atleged non.payment o[ the bfrbe amoun[ cn 09.01 .201] as agreed by the 1.tr'.1. There is no meaninq in his waiting titt 21.01.2013 in giying reDort tc the ACB officiats after 10.01.2013 for about 1l days. Not only that. the so catted notice fjxing daie for survey 10.01.2013 issued and even meo[]oned t9 in the tour dlary of A 1 of time fixed to conduct' survey on 10 01 2013 it wasstatedstruckorfthedateacceptedtoconductSurveyonl0,0l.Z0l3. It is not even the case of the ACB officiats despite quash Petition averments oftherefromaboutlooaPPtrcationsforsurveyanddemarcationpendlng entrusted to him by the RDO and he has to proceed in erjor-lty a:d apptication of the comPLainant is far below in Prrorjty' Once such is the case even any date tentativeLy fixed to the compLainant' how the AcB officiafs can say in the charqesheet wi[hout basis as if the version of the criminalantecedentsofL'w.lgoodwhodidnotshowaboutapptyingin writiflg to A 1 inu'h tess on 28 06'2012 but for his iui531 1.!V E that too to the RDO in {ixrng the date for not evcn conducted' instead oi approaching the RDO approaching to A l can qir" ic t!-'e all:ged inference of qiving lt is basetess amount of bribe of Rs 8'0Cil/' agreed by L'w'l to A l inference that no prudent man rvor:ld glve but for other\-Jlse and it li at atl aggrieved by the LW l' rvhat coufd be his ccnducl cf a Prudent Persons immediateLy after 10'01 2011 ha^vrng bribe amount [o aPproach the ACB offici3ts insteaC oi v/aiiiirg lcr 13ot> 2Oli that itself shows something behind to impticate thc Petitioner Dy tne L W 1 !'rth crrminal antecedents taking advantaq3 of his father aPp"ied to survey to the RDo in 2012 with chattan dated 20 06 2012 for which the RDo fixed by proceedinqs daied lO 06.2012 to conduct survey within one week therefrom for A 1 busy with other aPplications and tours coutd not conduct survey for such animosity and also behind' the investigation is totatLy tainted and inftuentiat and preiudiciat mrnd incLudinq wlth no preLiminary enquiry which ls prior to whatiStaiddownbytheexpressionsoftheApercourtinsirajUddinand Latita Kumari suPra Not onLy that before coming to the atleqations of traP, a Perusal of the FIR no way mentions that any GD entry made even information received on 23 01 2013 at 17 00 hours by the L'VJ'14 desPite the expressjons of the Apex CourI ConsItLutjon Eench Lalita Kumari supr.r making of CD entry and conductrng of tnal and enquiry, it cteariy show., some repor[ wiLh ante da[e with some extTat]eous reasons apparentl! outcome as if received on 23.01.2011 in laying trap and registraion ol crime on 28-01.2013 and subsequent dispatch of FlR.

12. Not onty that ii at atL on 21.0i.2011 report received, leave about the atteged statemeni if not front atteged enquiry of the antecedents oi the I W. 1 good dnd the a.rllsed are sLspcctab... wny the ItR nof r.9,tered and submiited to Couri when shov/s a prima facie accusation if not cirosen to make CD entry anc straightawav issued the FlR. There js nothlnq e!en as to what is the enquiry conducted and who conducted wjth ragard to thc aftecedents Df Lhe conp(ainant .rfter 2l.Ct.20i3 \,/hich musL iinr plr:e rn thc chareesheet with sor]te basis leave abou: at teasi tn FIR lvith ,r r,oti. ;vr:ch rs Lackin3 to sa,,,,Il]c ACB ofiiciais i}ccteCcrl y/ltil I)rc judr(:r:.ri :itn(j l'rom begrnnjnq either For stettstical pr-trijose cT otherlvlse, rat-i:r tnln ccnductrng ple(iminar,,,enquiry supposec! to ccr)dr1ct on reccjving retoit lt, at atI recej'/ed on 23.01.201] leave abclrt r.o:reani|lg \laitinq [o [., thc trap aFter 5 days ti[t 28.01 .201]. l iact, the statement oF L.W.J Ajsi!iant Director \./iro js immedjate supe|or to A.1 as ii stated of ..\. I iaited to visrt lhe Iand anC conduct suTvey as fixed on sorle pr3tcxt ind c]r.llta,:ded Rs.8,C00/- as bribe from the comptainant. a law student, for Cernarc.][ion cf therr tand and was [rapped for not even \.4ire5s to any of ]t, nol e,ran a case that Lhe antecedenls oi A.1 are bad and eartiei there are no t,uch comptajnts or he was earlter even indutged in such extraneous denrands or avoidjnq work. It is nothing but introduced as jf their statenrcnt by menttoning name of the witnesses to suit the prosecution purpose ds a basic preparatjon on its face from jts readrng- The dutjcs of the Deputy lnspector of Survey'the pe[itioner mentioned are that lnspection of the work of Mandal Surveyor, Town Surveyors, Special Surveyors, Technical Scrutiny of Sub Division records and supervrsion oF incorporation of changes in both vittage and Mandal Ievel recoTds, oveTcheck of ptotting sub,divisions tn Viltages/[landal records, Detajled and generat.heck of vitlage accounis, scrutjny oI survey errors, detection of missing Theotdotrte section, Enquire inlo compLicated boundary disputes, lnspectton oI vlttage stone depots, appeat cases on 'F' (ine/demarcation. court commisslons, month(y review of progress of work of Mandal Surveyors and passrng of diaries of MandaI Surveyors/SpeciaI Surveyors through centre che.k and Attcnd]nq jnspection of Revenue and Survey Ofljciats. Haci it been t.ik"n rrLre, tnere ls no oecessity of a y duty to tlle A.1 [o cord'-]ci fietd si ruei, an(l deirrrcate the boundaries but for to depute the s,.rborCinales viz; 5urrrvoTs, To,,vrr Surveyors and SpeciaI Survsysr-5 etc., ir hjs Rdi]ilc o! Di,,,ision .rnd is it ^,1,rnd.rt betievabie that the A,l lras tc coodLlat 5111'7s,;1. Ccmtnq io L.U/.2, the Admjnistrative Oflicer stated iirai he is v/orkinq only ftom 27.06.7O17 in thai caDacity usually ary pattaCa. to gel boLlnCarns cr hrs lard Fixcd has to pay chatlen of Rs.l50/- and grve alonc v.,itil reitfr5et.tafior in tfc tn!./arC section of the RDO ofiice and from those the pape15 will tre sent For signature of RDO and after RDO signature, that 'rit[ be se t ro C'wing to JLrnjor Assistant v/ho puts up frte and sgnt to the D?pLjty lnspeitcr oF Survey with memo to fix boundaries and report. Then the Deputy lnspector prepares notices to be issued to the adjacent patIadars and hands over them to the concerned surveyor and the Deputy lnspectcr visjts to the land and cause suTvey on the scheduted date and trme in the notice- Thrs statement itsetf is crystaI ctear that the rote of the Deputy lnspector is onty after receivrng proceedings from the RDO office, Fix date and send qotrces to adjacent tand owners and depute a surveyor to conduct survey. Thus what the comptainant averred of Ihe so catled jnvestigation oF the ACB T *-i., officjats drsctose that the A.1 has to conduct survey and wanted to c.lnduct survey and faited to come on the scheduled time and date in lhe r]otices fixed for the survey on 10.01.2013 and it might be for the reascns of aIteged non-payment of atleged bribe amount is baseless and th,: mechanjcat inyestrga[ioD by the ACB officiaLs is wjthoLrt evcn Littt{] appticatjon of ntind to the materia[.

13. llot onty that coming to the repor[ of the delacto,complarnant. the statemenl recorded by the 1.W.14 and by the Magistrate L.W.12 under 164CrPC respectivety concerned, his report referred supra further :peakr, the most unbeitevable part of atlegedty he went on 28.06_2012 ard rh€ petlticner C€mandcd the amounl oi Rs.10,000/- and Iater th|c.- ]v..'. anc rerteraled the demat,d aLleqedly on 07-01.2017 again !./ert after sir l clth.. gaP to thir originai Catr, ai 7E.A6.2C12 a|lC ircrn h:s ptea ai._ ir 1arr.. redriced the Cemand i. F.s.8,C00/- altegedtyl iircrj io 1-.3y br 09.01.7ili I in(l as failed to pav anC aLLeg,-.cly he coutd unde15tanC for sun-,ey nct cond rcteC oo l0-01.2011 withoui payment he witt not cot.rduct survey. Even th.r that toD bei.g..r lev; stucient t)ct a Lavman vrhy he diC not approach tn ..-ii;n3 ejther RDO cr ACB ofi)cjats immediate(_v s/hat nade hjnr tc.,vnri. E./en coining [o h]s version, it is 13 days later again went and asked to ir( dat{] for sunrey rs meanin3iess for not r.ven his case that oir trit l.re palici a| runt afC thereirom any noitce issued tc conduct survey. lt is his verslo iiai tt rs cnty then he went to tlre ACB ofiicials. lt is hardty betjcvabte fron] .vh3t is discussed supra Fur[her \^/hen the tour diary irself shovrs the A. ] y.,as on tour on 23.01-2011, rt is djfficutt to say y/lthout ascertainrng frori the L.ly.1 y/hat is the time, when and where he met A.1 on that dav. ln iacr, noiice for ccnducting survey and bourdary demarcation issuerl on

24.01 .7013 Fixing the date 11.01.2013 and copy marked to 1.W.8, Tahasitdar, RDO and the boundary p!-oceedings by referring earlier RDO officers in letter and directing demarcate. Once notices tssued on

24.01 .2013 itsetf with the srgnature of A.1 fixjng the date of survey on 11.01.2011, js it betievabte of date fixed For payment of rhe bribe on 28.01.2011. ls it betievabte of earlier even date fixed for 10.01.20i3 subJect to payment by 09.01 .2013 and for not paid, having cancetted the so catted survey as per the atleged versrons, issued notice fixjng a date without payment of bribe. Despite the above yersion thereafter even when v/en[ and asked. A.'l stated wjthout paytnent survey not be conducted v/hen survey not chosen to be conductcd, js it betievabte of notices issued.

14. The yery giving oi notices of 24.01 .2013 iixing date on

23.01.2011 rtself slrows the aLteged deiNand in between [o ilx oJ] paymeni

26.01.201i is ncthing but faise sc aisc necC io qive report on 2l.Oj.20tl and even the antecedenrs of the compiainant, truth oF the.omptaint, whether ootices sent or rot, ,r'/hat js the date ftxed foT survey were verifjed, jt could be knor^rn of the notjces daLed 24.01.2013 vrhich js rmmecialely on the next date oi ihe reporr: dated 23.01.20j3 and Four days prior r:o the so catted trap on 26.01.2011. Thus the very ,/ersion of payment of amoun[ i:xed on 28.01,2013 is basetess to betieve. \viren that is the version highty unbetievable from the very report, comrng to the statement of L.V/.1'complainant before lnvestigating Oificer, he did not even whr'sper that notices dated 24.0i.2011 issued by the A.l and atso none of the witnesses up to L.Ws.4 to 8-the Father oi the complajnant and the boundary owners, fixing the date of survey on J1.01.2013. The lnvestigating Officer not properLy investigated much (ess co .ected etther from 1.W.1 or 3 the so catled written report of 1.w.1 to A..l on 2g.06.2011 or written requisition of L.W.8 to the RDO from which the RDO fixed by proceedings dated 10.06.2012 directinq the A, l to cause suryev wtthin one I v/eck and as per the stalements cf L.Ws-2 and 3, the A 1 is the suPervlsoq' authority among the surveyors to dePute thc surveyors to the fie d t(l cause survey and not lhe person so to conduct survey and no direcl appiicatjon to A.1 that coutd be made but for to the RDo and frorn vrhich after they process, thcy direct the Deputy lnsPector to cause suryey Is th(' A. l to deprite any of thc surveyors Thus entire version jn '/ery repori an(l the statenent of 1.W.1 anC L.V/s.4 to 8 jn this regard bestdes ncr corsjstency is quite unbetrevabte. Coming to his 164 CrPC 5tatement :)efor(' thc Magjstratc, it is aIso not consistenI to the rePort sr:pra for the ']asonl supra and atso from'.,'hat is colrtended jn the quash peLition grourTds for tho resDondeot oaiiclals [o (lijiru'.e v,ith no basis. ol so catled meetlng ci th(] L Vi. ItoA. I r'rot corl.l,l:lng !,'li' l: Poirted out i grotlr.rd Nos' lli. 17irl th.,rluash pet 1t ion.

15. Frorn the lbo'.. evetr comirg to ille and po5t trao procccdrng' I:lrortantty the tajn:aa r'.tteitl; 'r:ccrdilrq to lhe prosecuilel.l veTsir'3lvett io lne L.W.1 to pay.c tire A 1 ,\ccorcjinq lo the posl: trap procc'djngs' the L!V.1 attegedty 9r'ie.r to:he A.1 v/iih hrs hanCs lI tft':, thi: Ph)'naDlrtLir.'[est t.] t'(':cnCrtrte'J io rlnsc his hancls alsc ta !l''[ !]!liivrl resutt, that vias not sholvn condLlc[ed and not onty that if a't curre.rcy he[.] by htr n;ith his hairds and handed over io lhe A I 'irl v/i[l] tircrr wjped out hjs iace +ijih kerchief. the kerchief must have romninls of the larnte(l ']LL the maleriaI which ts on the tainted currency through hands to tlre l'ierchjef to llass, the kerchief.ltso v/as subiected to PhynaPthatlne test that \''as not done. Not onty that there is a detay of 1O days to the examinatron of thr: 1.W.1 u/sec.164 CrPC vrith versron therein different to the FIR ard 161 CrPC statenrent belore the 1.W.14. The tvio versions one shovring as if

1..w.1 directty Paid to A.1 and who hetd with one hand and Pass [o A 2 or djrcctly asked to Pa.v to A.2 or A 2 re€eived and counted that atso beties , f the very versions on the credibitity and genesis of the prosecution Once such is the case. aoy version of so catted PhynaPtlratjne test as if conducted and yielded positive resutt is unbetievabte. Can it infer any demand which is pre-requisite without which even any person accused to so called 'ause and v/anted to pay and even held for the time berng and not chosen to receive woutd not be inferred the demand and acceptance from the so catled test resutts. A test resutt to the hands of A 2 or tainted currency in his pant pocket witL no way suffice to iix the A.1 as a Person demanded and accepted any bribe which is a Pre'requislte The L w 8 statement is only hearsay. lt is not even his case that he \^/ent atcng wlth L-W 1 as no independent means. lt is not even the case oi L w'8 that he has given the amounL to L.W.'1 to pay the b!-i5e v/hicr are aLso ccniextuatty i-clevant Noi onty that, lhe version of the lnvestigaiing Ofilcer of im!'nediately after the so catled payrneot of bribe amount elthcr tc A'1 or at his jnslructicns io A.2 by 1.W.1. the A.1 attegedly prepared noIices ar<] handed over to L W 1 fixing date for survey in a future date Had it beeo lrLre, immediatety after payment by tlre 1.W.1 hotcjiog that the lar11teC cirrrency if hetd, the paper prepared immedjatety by the A-1 and given to Lw 1 that aiso would contain the substance of the material which was atso supposed to be subjected io the test. Not onty that the post-traf, proceedings no vray contain that which is crucial that it is a versiofr created otheft/ise The contention in the counter as if L.W'14 asked the L'W 1 for [ime bejng to wait outside and conducted post traP proceedlngs and does nol know to mention about the tour as notices handed over by the A 1 ro L W 1 io cause survey fjxing a future date concerned, e'/en it retates to notlces dated 24.01.2013 fixing date on 31 01-201l. At teast if it is true, the 1.W.14 coutd know by ascertaining from the L ,w 1 what happened' the so calted examinatjon of the L.w.1 by the L'Yr''14 u/sec 161 CrPC is even I l i I It atLeged on 18.O1.2013 y/hat is mentioned is thc A.1 totd that he will rssue nolrces to neighbounng agriculturists on 11.01.201j at 1O.O0A.l,A. for irxation of boundaries to be completed on that date and he tool,, photostat copres of [he sanre and stated to handed over to the VRO and infornr tr; serve to lto!ndary ov/ners, then came outside and wiped off hjs faae y/ith kerchjeI as a s]gnal fcr the trap party- Had rt been true, the nofices c| hilj hand besiries kerchief whrch is apparent, could jt be possibie to L.\^i. i4 ai lea5L to ask rf before trap or imrnediately after trap and caught hotd oF A..l or A.2 from 1.W. 1 to knov/ what are the papers, coutd it be beLteverl thal lre [--w.1 ,,.ras kept out of the area even after comptetion of the pos:_trap pror;eedinqs. ALL these inf irmities goes to the root of the matter. llr f.lcl r|e ADex acurt Con5tjfution B{,nch jn p.sathyanarayana Murthy Vs Distrjct ln5pector of Police State of Andhra p.adeshr to Section! / !l rdl of tlrc PC Act, refcrrjl,j to Section 1l of the pC Act. acqljjtie.J thc a.l !,sed cn l:e grountl oi quaLtiy airi decjsrveness cf the proof oi demand cf iiii,qal qiat iicaljon ind accelta1(a of bribe in a tlap cases y/here even ta nled cLrrrr,ncv aiLegeJly rccovert'd and phynapthatine test yietded positiVe r:,,1rIt 3y 5iryrng prL-of of demand of iLlegat qratjficaLron. Even ii evjdencc of ea.Liicd a-i .:aaapied IaintL.(j curre;]ay, on the face vatue lt fails shorr o. :he quatil',/ ail(l dccrslvcness of proot of demand oi iLiegat gratifica.r)n. TherL.by the accused cannot be fourrd guilty for prosecutjon faited to prove lolh tne demand and accei)tance. 15- 1n B.Jayaraju Vs. State of Aps for the offences u,/sec.7, t3 (1ltd) read ryith 20 of the P.C-Act, where the accused was prosecuted based r,r a report and !./hen there i; no proof of demand for ittegat gratiFicatton even mere recovery of tajnted curreocy notes from accused did not eslab rsh commission of offence and as demand of i[egat gratification when not - I l(,1l5 ) l0S(C lrl '2014 (13) SCC 5s proved beyond reasonable doub[, the accused cannot be convtcted and it must be proved pursuant to the demand there was acceptance by votuntarily accepting money knowing it to be a brjbe to consIrtute the ingredients of Section as hetd by the eartrer expressjon of rhe Apex Court in C.M.Sharma Vs. State of A.p-6, C.M.Girish Babu Vs. CBl,7 that was placed rFlidn(e ro qudsh the proreedings and th" sdme ls dlto lhe DosttLon of ldw rertera[ed in Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of punjabB and State through CBI Vs- Dr.Anoop Kumar Srivastayae.

17. Having regard to the above, as the ends of lustrce are more than sacrosanct, to subser./e the ends of justjce and io preveirr- abuse oi process, the criminat proceeding pendine aqainst the Detjtror.r are tlabte to be qua:heC.

18. AccordingLy rhe Crrmjnat petriron is alloweci b,,, qu.rshrng the ptocceCrags in C.C.No.i73 of 2015 on the frte of the L.ainei S[)eer.rl Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Karimnagar, outccme oi Cr.t.to.04lACB Ki.tRi 20t3 of Anti Corr!ption Bureau (for short, .ACB,), Karimnagar Range, Kartri,nagar. The accusecl is acquitted and his bail bonCs shati stand cance ed. Consequen[ty, pending miscettaneous petitions, ti any, slratL ,staniJ Dr. JUSTICE B. StVA SANKARA RAO c Iosed. Date:08.0,1.2019 WT ' 2oi0 15 scc l (l0a)9).j sc( 779 ' 201611 sCC t57 ' 2017 t5 sCC 560