High Court · 2025

THE HONONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.4 of 2012 JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(21 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 3O.l2.2Ol I passed in C.C.No.31 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in C.C.

3. The briel facts of the case are that the wife of de facto complainant Smt. Phoolamma working as Health Assistant at Sr,rb-Center, Patarlapadu under Chintakani P.H.C., 1n Khammam District. On 26.O2.2O04 she met with an accident and she reported sick and took treatment. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that on 06.05.2OO4 Smt. Phoolamma submittecl an application through Medica-l Officer, Chintakani Mandal to the District Medical and Health Oflicer (in short 'DM&HO] Khammam for issuing re-posting orders. The I t 2 \ 't DM&HO Khammam has endorsed it to the concerned section. In that connection when the complainant met the accused officer (AO) who was the concerned section clerk on

07.O5.2OO4 and enquired regarding the re-posting orders of his wife, AO is said to have demanded Rs.2,OOO/- as bribe stating that he would see that his wife would be posted at Patarlapadu Sub-center, otherwise she would be posted somewhere else. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that complainant has expressed his inability and again on 14.05.2004 complainalt went to DM&HO office and enquired about re-posting order pertaining to his wife, but AO is said to have reiterated his earlier demand. When the complainant expressed his inability, AO is said to have asked him to pay Rs.1,OOO/- as first installment and remaining amount after receiving the salary. However, the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe. As such, he is said to have approached the Inspector ACB Warangal who in turn registered the report of the complainant as a case in the above crime and took up the investigation. Further the Inspector, ACB Warangal range is said to have secured presence of two mediators and conducted / ,/' 3 pre-trap proceedings and organized a trap on 20.O5.2004 and caught the AO red-handed and the tainted amount is said to have recovered from the service register kept in the almairah. As such the AO was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The Principal Secretar5r, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department Government of Andhra Pradesh, accorded sanction to prosecute the AO urde G.O.Ms.No.439, dated

26.07.2OO5. Since the evidence collected during the course of investigation has established tl.e commission of the alleged offences by the AO, he has been charged under Sections 7, 13(1}(d) rlu, 13(21 of the Prevention of Cormption Act, 1988

4. In order to substantiate his allegations against A.O., prosecution has let in the evidence of PWs.l to l0 and got marked Exs.P. I to P.21 and MOs. 1 to 9 on its behalf. While DW. I was examined on behalf of the accused officer.

5. After hearing the parties on both sides and upon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court opined that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the AOald that AO received a sum of Rs.1,O0O/- in consideration 4 of his services for issuing the proceedings of re-posting orders obtained from DM&HO Khammam, which is illegal gratification other than his legal remuneration. As such, the AO is found guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(21 of Prevention of Corruption Act and the accused is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months arrd to pay a fine of Rs.5O0/-, indefault of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. AO is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, he sha,ll suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 13(1)(di r/w 73(21 of the P.C Act.

6. Heard Sri A.Viswanath, learned counsel appearing lor the appellant and Sri Visha-l Gandhi, iearned counsei representing Sri T.Bala Mohal Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, for the respondent and perused the record. I t i I i I I I i I I t I i 5

7. Sri A.Viswanath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is no evidence whatever on record to support the oral claim of PW. 1 about his alleged visit on 07.05.2004 and also on 1i.05.2004 to the appellant and requested him to prepare the posting order of his wife and to obtain the signature of DM&HO and demand took place and as the fact that none of the staff members made any whisper about PW. I meeting the AO/appellant any date prior to 2O.O5.2OO4, speaks volumes about the hollowness of the allegations and charges. The learned trial Court grossly erred in believing the solitary and uncorroborated eyidence of PW. 1 which is tainted by ill will and motive and rejecting the plea of the appellant that he did not demand and accept the tainted amount (MO.3) and that PW.1 has clandestinely planted the MO.3 in the sen,ice register MO.7 which was available on the office table, in the absence of the appellant at his seat as he went for lur-rch. Hence seeks indulgence of this Court to set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 6

8. To support his case, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments: (i) Judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court dated

13.O8.2022 in Crl.A.No.18O3 of 2007. (ii) Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.K.Harshan us. State of Keralat (iii) .tC Shanthamma as. S;to'te of Telanganaz. The relevant portion reads as under:

8. TLe. leamed counsel relied upon uaious decisions of this Court in support of the proposition tluzt unless the demand and acceptonce of bribe are establi.slLed, a presumption under Section 2O of the P.C. Act wiII not apply. She urged that the demand and acceptance Ltaue not been proued. She also pointed out tLe case made out bg the appellant in her statetnent under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Her defence i-s that about 5.3O p.m. on 27.03.2OO0, she went to the u.tashroom .attacted to her chamber before leouing the ofJice. Wlen strc came back, sle fourd. PW.1 sitting in her roont. She informed PW.l that he file was no longer pending utith her. Aftenaards, she called PW.4 ACTO through the attender and returned the awunt books to PW.I. She pointed out the PW.7, P.V.S.S.P.Raju, and PW.8, U.V.S. Raju, the then Deputg Superintend.ent of Polie, ACB, Hyderabad, accepted thnt there is a woshroom attached to the chamber of the , 1995 CRI. L. J ' (2ozz) 4 scc . )924 *q 7 I // 7 appellant. She submitted that both tle @urts haue ommitted an enor bg conuicting the appellant.

9. Ms. Bina Madhauan, the learned aunsel appearing for the respondent, supported the impugred judgments. She pointed out tlat tlrc euidence of PW.1 on antinuous demands made bg the oppellant is trustluolthg as ttere is no reason for PW.l to make any false allegation or falsely implicated tle appellant. SLLe submitted that the tointed notes were found in the diary of the appellant, u.thich uas kept in h.er table drsraer, She utas in possession of kegs of the table dranuer. She tterself opened the table drauer and produced tle diary from ter anstodg in tuhich tainted notes u)ere kept. Her submissrbn is that though communication may haue been served on tte said society on 15.03.2OO0 recording that the societg is not liable to pag anA amoun| the appellant did not issue the final assessrnenl order. She pointed out that the demand made bg the appellant utas for issuing final assessment order, uhieh was issued on the dag of the trap. Her submission is tlwt tle Special Court and the High Court, afier appreciat@ tle euidence, haue recorded findings of fact based on evidene on record. Her submission is that under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, no interferentn is called. for."

9. Sri Vishal Gandhi, learned counsel representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, Iearned Standing Counsel and Special I] Public Prosecutor for ACB contended that the trial Court, upon appreciating the oral and documentar5r evidence available on record, in right perspective, passed the judgment and interference of this Court at this stage is unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present Crimina-l Appeal. \ I l i l l l I i t 8

10. Having regard the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no convincing evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed in placing cogent, convincing, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence so as to drive the Court to come to irresistible conclusions on the guilt of accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13{21 of the Act arraigned against him beyond reasonable doubt ar-rd under these circumstances, accused is entitled to seek a strong benefit of doubt in his favour.

11. The above circumstances when viewed cumulatively the prosecution failed to establish the alleged demand made by the appellant. There is a possibility of planting the amount and the said amount was recovered from the service register and not from the appellant. As such, the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned judgment datecl 30. 12.2011 passed in C.C.No.31 of 2010 on // 9 the file of the learned II Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Hyderabad is set aside and the appellant is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1Xd) r/w 13(21 of the Prevention of Cormption Act, 1988. The bail bonds sha,ll stand cancelled. L2. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall also stand dismissed. Sd/. M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The 1l Additional pnecial Judge for SPE and ACB Cases , City Civil Court Hyderabad. ( with records )

2. The lnspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Khammam, Warangal Range.

3. One GC to SRl. A. VISWANATH, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CCs to SRl. T BALA MOHAN REDDY, Speciat pubtic prosecutor for ACB-Cases, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Two CD Copies (out) 5. Two C.D.Copies wkul/PSL I I HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 o C) I I ') \ * SIA 2 4 JAll 2026 PAT 't' t ruDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.4 of 20'12 ALLOWNC THE ( Rl .n PI:,\l 1 rA 1t/ $