The High Court · 2025

: SRI S. ASHOK ANAND KUMAR The Court made the following : JUDGMENT \ THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.827 OF 2O1 + JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is ft1ed by the appr:l ant/complainant challenging the . udgment dated 13.O1.2014 passe i by the learned First Additional Special Judge for SPtr and A.]B cases-cum-V Additional Chiel' Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabzr I in C.C.No.11 of 2O 1 1 , ri,hereb5' t I Le learned Judge found the accusecl not guilty for the offences under ilections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r'/w t3(2) of the Prevention of Cor ruption Act, 1988.

2. The appellrnt herein is the complainant and :<:spondent herein is the accused t,efore the trial Court. For the sal. r' of convenience, hereinaf[er part ies are referred to as the coml rlainant and the accused.

3. The brief f.rcts of the case of the prosecution a r: as follows: The Accused u as working as an Assistant Di\ isional Engineer, APCPDCL, Shanrshabad sub-division of Ranga Re ridy District from 26.05.2007 to 0:i.0 1 .20 1 O . The de facto complainan t intended to start a plaslic industry with the partnership of LW.S and two others under the name and sr.yle of "Ketan Woven Sacks" for thc manufacturing of plastic bags and for that they took two old sheds irL Sy.No.29/E/ I in w 2 Thondapally village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' The shed has old service connection of 74 HP load, but there was a requirement of 4OT HP load for running the industry' PW' 1 approached the accused and made an application to that effect, the Superintending Engineer issued proceedings under trx.P 14, dated 2l.IO.2OOg and directed PW. 1 and his partners to comply with the conditions therein. PW. 1 exercised his option for execution of the work of laying the lines.' The accused engaged the registered contractor Mr. Vasudeva Reddy for an estimated cost of Rs'2,OO,O00/ ' Mr' vasudeva Reddy completed the r'r'ork and Depuqr chief Electrical lnspector inspected the work and gave approval on 17 12 '2OO9 ' Thereafter, accused inspected the unit and demanded PW' 1 to arranged bribe of Rs.5O,0O0/- for the work completion report' On repeated requests made by PW. 1 , the accused reduced the bribe amount to Rs.30,0oo/-. As his repeated visits did not yield any result, the complainant approached the DG, Hyderabad and intimated about the said issue on 05.01.2010 and lodged a complaint as in Ex.P. 16 on the basis of which, the Inspector of Police, registered a case on the same day itself. P.W.7 ald PW.8 secured the presence of P.W.5 and another. Then P.W.7 prepared the pre-trap proceedings, observed the formalities. He, along with the trap party, proceeded to the office of the accused. The accused received Lhe amount from E.*,"ffi -' .y' 3 PW. I , kept the sa me in his right side pant pocket. ' 'hen, on the pre- arranged signal qiven by P.W. 1, PWs.2, T , B ana other members rushed to the spot and caught the accused. p.W 7 conducted the chemical test. Wl-ren the accused hands were subjr cted to chemical test, it l,ielded po:;itive result. The amount was wrap red in a kerchief. The pant pocket ,tf the accused was also given posit ive test. The said currency notes \\.ere compared, the numbers ancl :lenominations of Lhe currency noLe s mentioned in rhe first mediators r oport were found tallied. The said currency notes \,vere seized along ,vith other items. After observing formalities, p.W.7 arrested the a rcused, obtained necessary sanction to prosecute the accused and atter completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the acr used.

4. [n order lr bring home the guilt of the accrrsed, prosecution examined P.Ws I to 8 and marked Exs.p. 1 to p. 6 and exhibited M.Os.l to 8. On behalf of defence, none examined aj)cl Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked.

5. After hearing the parties on both sides and -rpon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court opined tha. the prosecution has miserabll, failed in placing cogent, cotr. .incing, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence so as to c rive the Court to come to irresistible conclusions on the guilt of accusr.d for the offences 4 under Sections 7 and 13(1Xd), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act arraigned against them beyond reasonable doubt and under these circumstances, accused is entitled to seek a strong benefit of doubt in their favour. Hence, accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the'Act and accordingly, he was acquitted under Section 2a8$l of Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.

6. Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

7. Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the appellant-Statc submitted that the trial Court failed in appreciating the evidence available on record and came to an erroneous conclusion that the appellant-State has not placed sufhcient evidence to prove the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence seeks to allow the present Criminal Appeal by setting aside the judgment dated l3.Ol.2OI4 passed in C.C.No.11 of 2011.

8. To support his case, learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of l. The state oJ -r :iJs.::4{5FZ I 5 Karnataka os, Chand.roshal. The relevant pari graphs reads as under: '20. The main contention of tlTe learned SetJor Counsel for the Respondent is that the bill taas pa.ssed on 29.07.2t'09 and it utas sent for preparclion of cheque to P.W.4 on the same dag itself and the cheque (Er.P19) uas aLso made readg on 3O.O7.20(.t.) and hence, onthe date of alleqed trap 1.e., on 05.08.2009, there LL'.s rao work pending utith the Respondent and he did not demand or at (.:ept bribe from the complainant. Howeuer, the said cheque utas jot issued to the complainant and neither ang intimation in this reg trd u'as sent to the school authcrities, till O5.O8.2009 nor t as the coltplainant informed_ that the cheque was alreadg readg. That apar| o plaustble reoson tuo,s ctdduct d on the side of the Respondent, as to t :hg, it utas retained. in the ofJic,t of the Stb Treosury without beinq s sue(j to the partg concemecl. ,t is a common knowledge that when th.,: ltill uas submitted to the ofJict: of Sub Treasury for sanction, onLA o.ie,r issuance of the cheque to llre concemed, the utork uiLl be treated <,.:; contpleted_. In the instant cas<', no cheque u.tas issued, and it was ke1,t pending as on the date of tra,c. Therefore, the contention so mad,e on th.e sid.e of the Respondenl cannot be countenanced bg us.

21. l: is settled lau.t that the tuo basic fact: t,iz,., ,demand, ond- 'acceptance of gratifi.cation haue been proued, the presumption [Jnder Section 20 can be inuoked to the elfect that rL.' gratiflcation tlas demanded a-nd accepted as a motiue or reuLard as .onternplated. Under Section 7 oj the Act. Hou.teuer, such presumption is r<,buttable. Euen on the basis oJ the prepond.erance of probabilitg, the A,<ttsecL can rebut the same. In tlte present ca-se, the proseantion prou td its ca-se begond. reasonablr: doubt, in respect of the 'demand' ana 'acceptance, of the bibe amou nt from the complainant and recouerll of tainted currencA notes fron't the possession of the Respondent. Tl c soid operation is preceded bg recordtng of the demand in the tapz recorder. In such circum.statu,es, the Respondent ho,s to rebut i rc presumption bg disprouing '.he case of the prosecution either in tht tross- examination of the prosc antion side uitnesses or bg adducing nt erial euidence that the receipL of Rs. 2,0OO/- tao,s not a bribe amount, but a legal fee or repdAment cf loan. Hou.teuer, he failed to do so ana on the contrary, we find the prcseantion to haue proued the case begortr' ang doubt-" I 2014(4) Crimes 409(Srl),2024 INSC 928 .."*gffiF4$r ,..,}, ,{ 6

2. Vinod Kumar Garg os. Goaerttrnent of national Capita.l Territory of Delhi (criminal Appeal No.7787 of 2OO9). The relevant paragraphs reads as under: "11. The contradictions that haue crept in the testimonies of Nand lal (PW-2) and Hemant Kurmur (PW-3) nciticed aboue and on the question of the total amount demanded or uhether Nand Lat (PW 2) had earller paid Rs.SOO/ are immaterial and inconsequential as it is indbputable that the brtbe was demanded and taken by the Appetlant on 3Ah Augus| 1994 at about 10:30 am. The uaiations as highlighted lose signili.cance in uieu of the prouen facts on the recouery of bibe money from the pont pocket oJ tlrc Appellant, on uhich depositions of Nand Lal (PW 2), Hemartt Kumar (PW-3) and Rohtash Singh (PW-S) are identical and not at uariance. The money recouered was the alrrencA notes that were treated and noted in the pre-raid proceedings uide Exhibit PW-2/G. The aspect of demand and pagment of the bibe has been examined and dealt tuith aboue. The contradictions as pointed out to us ond noted are insignificant uhen jurtaposed with the uiuid and eloquent narration of inciminating facts proued and established begond doubt and d.ebate. It u-tould be sound to be cognitiue of the time gap betueen the date of occttlrence, 3d Auryst 1994, and the dates u-then the testimong of Nand Lal (PW-2) u.tas recorded, 9th Julg 1999 and 14th September 1999, and that Hemant Kumor's (PW-3) testimong tuas recorded on 18th December 20OO ond 3Ah January, 2001. Giuen the time gap of Jiue to six years, minor contradictions on some details ctre bound to occltr and are natural. The u.titnesses are not required to recollect and natate the entire uersion u.tith photographic memory notwtthstanding the hiatus and passage of time. Hcagune uariations do not in onA uaA negate and contradict the main and core incriminotory euidence of the demand of bibe, reason whg the bibe uas denanded ond the actual taking oJ the bibe thot utas paid, uhich are the ingredients of the offence Under Sections 7 ond 13 of the Ac| that as nottced aboue and hereinafier, haue been proued and established begond reasonable doubt. Documents prepared contemporaneously noticed aboue affilm the primary and ocular euidence- LVe, therefore, find no good ground and reason to upset and set aside the findings recorded by the tial court that haue been upheld bg the High Court. Releuant in this contert would be to refer to the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. a. Dr. G.K. Ghosh 1 MANU/SC/0357/ 1984: (1984) | SCC 254 uthereirt t tuas held that in ct case inuolt'ing an offence of demanding ant accepting i egal gratificatton. depending on the circumstances of th,, case, it mg be safe to accept the prosecution uerston on the basis of the: oral euidence of the complaino.rtt and the official tuitnesses euen if the rap uitnesses tunt hostile or are found not to be independent. l;,lten besid.es such euidence, there is circumstantial euid.ence tuhich is .()nslsfent tuith the guilt of thc' ccttsed a.nd. inconsistent u-'ith his innt lence, there should be no di"$<tlry in upholding the conliction. 2O. 7 hts Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia ,. Sta:te of Sikkim MANU/ SC/,)156/ 201 1: (2011) 4 SCC 4O2 refet rilg to tlte earlier precedents has obserued that a defect or inegultt -itg in inuestigation howeuer -se zous, would haue no direct bearing ot the cotnpetence or procedure' rztating to cognizance or tial Where th, cognizahce of the case has readg been taken and the case lras proceed.ed. to terminati<ttt the inuatiditg of the precedent tnuestiut lit)n (ioes not uitiate the result, rnless a miscarriage of just.ice has 1,,,: : n causerl thereby. Simi/ar ls the position uith regard to the uatiditg 15 lv sa.rtction. A mere error, omission or iregularitg in sanctiort is not co t std_ered. to be fatat unless it ltrts resulted in a fa ure of justice or h.ts been occastoned therebg. Section 19(1)of the Act ts matter of procecl .Lre and d.oes not go to tl.Le root of the jurisdiction and once the cognizcr tce has been taken bg the court under the Code, it cannot be said. tl-:tf an inualid. poltce report is the foundation of jurisdiction of tlte coun ht to.ke cognizance and for thot motter the triat."

9. Sri S.Ashc:k Anand Kumar, lcarned Senior C ounsel appe aring for the responrlent would contend that the t:ial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence aver lerble on record in right perspectivt: passed the judgment and the ir terference of this Court at this srage is unwarranted. Hence, ser:l s to dismiss the present Criminal Appeal. 109. In the case on ha:rr[, there is no convincing evidence placed by the prosecution to l)r()ve the demand ald acceptance of the bribe by the accused. The judgments relied ,..+;c6' 8 upon by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to that facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

10. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial Court and accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 1 1. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusi4g the material available on record, this Court does not hnd any reason to inlerfere with the well reasoned judgment dated 13.01.2014 passed in C.C.No.11 of 201 1.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- A.V.S,PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Court of the I Additional Sp-ecial Judge for SpE and ACB Cases _cum_ V Additionat Chief Judge, City Civit Court"s nyderibiU

2. Two CCs to SRt T. BALA MOHAN REDDY (SC FOR ACB SpL pp TS) IoPUCI

3. One CC to SRt S. ASHOK ANAND KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI 4. 'Two CD Copies (t- i I I ,i ,/ /:, - - a 2 0 sEP 2U5 \- HIGH COURT DATED:25106t2025 ORDER CRLA.No.827 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL flA 3o j- f