The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Venkat Reddy KodumurY Counsel for the Respondents : Sri M. Bala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for AC B The Court delivered the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1369 OF 2OO8 JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and sections 13(1)(d) rlw L3(21 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.18 of 2O04, dated

23.1O.2OO8, passecl by the Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, Present aPPeal is hled.

2. Heard Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant is a Police Constable attached to Choutuppal Police Station. P.W. l/P.Sura Reddy, is the owner of lorries bearing Nos. AP 1lW 7209 and AP 24T 7498, and P.W.2/P.Venkat Reddy is the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP LLW 7209. P.W. 1 is carrying on business in moving sand fitm the quarries in Krishna District, Nandigama, and Kanchikacherla. On 23.06.2003, P.W.2, the driver, took the I ) I l 2 lorry bearing No.AP llW 7209, for transporting the sand' On the same night, at about 11-30 p.m, P.W.2 telephoned P'W'1 through thecellphoneoftheappellantstatingthattheappellanthad stopped the lorry at Choutuppal Area Bus Stand, and the appellant took the documents of the lorry, and directed him to keep the lorry in the police station. Thereupon, when P'W' I spoke with the appellant, the appellant informed that the lorry can be taken by P.W.2, but he would keep the documents of the Iorry and would return the same only after the pa5rment of bribe of Rs'2,OOO/-' In spite of many requests, the appellant persisted P'W' 1 to take the documents only after the pa5rment of the amount'

4. Aggrieved by the said demand' of the appellant, P'W'1 lodged a complaint before P.W.8-DSP, ACB, Hyderabad, at about 2'00 p'm on 25.O6.2003. P.W.8 directed P.w. 1 to come with the proposed bribe amount on 26.06.2003 at about 9.3O a.m. After veri$ring the antecedents of the appellant, P.W.8 registered a case in Crime No.18-ACB-HR/2003 under Section 7 of the Act, under Ex'P19, and secured the presence of P.w.3 and another mediator from the ofhce of Commiss ioner, Endowment Department, Hyderabad' 3

5. After comPleting the pre-trap proceedings, the entire trap When P.W.1 contacted the appellant partY left for Chout-uPPal' through his cell phone, the appellant informed that he was at Valigonda, and that he would come to Choutuppal' When the trap members were having lunch at Yellappa Hotel' on the instructions of P.W.8/DSP, P'W 1 contacted the appellant' wherein the appellant informed P.W. I that he would meet him at Yellappa Hotet' At about 2.3O p.m, the appellant came to the Hotel' and after having lunch' the appellant left the Hotel on a bike' along with P'W'1 as a Pillion- rider. The trap party followed the appellant' and the appellant . reached near the Shopping Complex' opposite to Choutuppal Police to his house behind the Station and the appellant took P'W' 1 Shopping Complex At about 3'15 p'm' P'W'1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal indicating the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. Immediately, the trap party' while going towards the house of the appellant through the lane' saw the appellant coming out of the house, and on seeing the trap party' the appellant got alarmed and ran backwards towards the drainage canal. The appell:lnt was chased and was brought to his house' Sod.ium carbonate solution test was conducted on both hands of 4 the appellant. The left-hand fingers turned positive, whiie the right- hand hngers remained colourless.

6. When the appellant was questioned about the bribe amount, the appellant took the trap party to the Garbage dump near the drainage canal, over which he jumped, and the tainted amount was seized in the presence of mediators. When the appellant was questioned, he took the trap part5r into his house and lifted the mattress of his double cot bed in the bedroom and took out the R'C' book and permit of the lorry and produced the same, which was seized in the presence of P.W.3-mediator, under the cover of the post-trap proceedings. The cell phone of the appellant was also seized. 7 . After conclusion of the post-trap proceedings, the investigation was handed over by P.W.8/DSP to P.W.9' Having conducted part of the investigation, PW.9 handed over the investigation to P.W. 10, who concluded the investigation, and filed a charge sheet. 5

8. Learned Special Judge examined P'Ws'l to lO, marked Exs'Pl to PlO, and also marked Mos.1 to 9, on behatf of the prosecution. Defence examined D'Ws'1 arrd2, and marked Exs'Dl and D2' g. Learned counsel appearing for the appetlant would submit that even according to P.W.4, the appellant was not a regular constable and he was a Gunman to the Inspector of Police- Ramachandra Reddy, the Special Party Extremists Work' Accordingly, the appellant was asked to execute the duties of a regular constable. Further, P.W.2/driver has turned hostile to the prosecution case, and he stated that he threw the documents/Exs.P2 and P3 from the Iorry when his vehicle was being cheeked. The said documents, Exs.P2 and P3, which are, the RC Book and the permit of the vehicle of the complainant' were taken by the appellant to return them back to the vehicle owner. on the date of the trap, the documents were returned, however, P'W'1 had falsely implicated the appetlant in a criminal case'

10. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of P.W. 1/complainant, P.W.3/independent mediator, and P-W.B/DSP, ACB would go to 6 show that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe amount. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Syed Yousuf Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradeshr.

11. The defence of the appellant is that, on 26.03.20O3 night, when he was checking the lorry movements, P.W.2 stopped the lorry and threw the documents on the road and fled. Later, P.W.7 contacted him and informed that P.W. 1 would come and collect the documents on the date of trap. P.W. 1 contacted him and met him at the hotel. Thereafter, he and P.W.1 went to his house, and while he was opening the lock, P.W. I thrust the amount in his back pocket. When he threw the amount into the adjacent drain, the trap party came and accosted him.

12. The appellant entered into the witness box and examined himself as D.W.2. In his chief-examination, he narrated about P.W.2 throwing the documents and fleeing from the place. He also admitted that on the date of trap, he took P.W. 1 on his motor cycle, and both of them went to his house, and thereafter, P.W.1 tried to ' lzor:1 a scc stz 7 thrust the amount in his back pocket, and then he threw the amount in the Nala. However, during his cross-examination, the appellant admitted that Exs.P2 and P3 were under the bed mattress and that he handed them over to the DSP on the date of trap.

13. The appellant- has admitted stopping the vehicle of P.W.2 and also keeping Exs,P2 and P3 in his possession. Though the appellant stated that Exs.P2 and P3 were thrown by P.W.2, when he was conducting search, the said version of the appella.nt cannot be believed. The appellant was a constable, and if any such documents were left by the lorry drivers, he ought to have handed them over either to the Sub-lnspector of Police or the Station House Officer of the police station, especially, since P.W.2-lorry driver ulas a stranger to him. No reason is given as to why the appellant did not hand over the documents-Exs.P2 and P3 to his superior officers, and kept the documents with him. On23.06.2003, the documents trxs.P2 and P3 came into the possession of the appellant. The complaint was filed on 25.06.2003. The conduct of the appellant on the trap date also lends credibility to the version of the prosecution. If the appellant is ! I I I 8 a police constable, there is no necessit5/ for him to run away on seeing the trap party. The appellant was chased and caught' 14, The recovery of the amount near the drain was also informed and pointed out by the appellant' Pursuant to the appellant showing the place, where the amount was thrown' the same was seized. As alread.y discussed, the appellant admitted that Exs'P2 and P3 were in his possession for three days' No reason is given why Exs.P2 and P3 were kept in his possession, when they pertain to a vehicle that was stopped for checking'

15.Thegroundsraisedbythelearnedcounselcannotbeaccepted to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. However, the sentence of imprisonment of two years under Section 7 and' Sections 13(1Xd) r/w L3\21 of the Act is reduced to one year under both counts. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Since the appellant is on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause the . appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of the sentence' The remand period' if any' shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr'P'C' I I L6. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. 9 //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.S,RINIVASA RAO JOII\IT REGISTRAR n\l l\r- V sec TiON OFFICER I To,

1. The Addl. Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court' Hyderabad. (With records)

2. Tie lnspector of Police Anti Corruption Bureau Hyderabad Range' 3. TwJ ccs to public prosecutor, High court for the State of Telangana at Nalgonda District. Hyderabad. (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri Venkat Reddy Kodumury, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies DL/PSL VY HIGH COURT DATED:19/03/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1369 of 2008 HE, S TA o o 29 npn 7l,25 t oFspr, r c r.rr.O. s( ; a.I { PARTLY ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL APPEAL 8 cg(cb \+- -dqa5