Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 2010 · The High Court · 2025

Judgment

l. Criminal Appehl No.691 of 2010 is filed by appellant/Al,and I Criminal Appeal No.690 of 2010 is llled by appellant/A2. .The appellants A1 and A2 are questioning their conviction vide judgment in C.C.Nd.4o of 2Oo7 dated 29.o4.2O1O, passed by the I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the same judgment in C.C.No.4O of 2OO7, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment

3. The appellant/Al died, and this Court, by order dated

07.O2.2O13 allowed Crl.M.P.No. l94 ol 2O13, and the legal heirs of A1 were brought on record to contest the appeal.

4. Heard Ms.P.Sree Ramya, the learned counsel for A1 (since deceased), represented by legal representatives as appellant Nos 2 to 5, in Crl.A.No. 691 of 2010, Sri Mastan Vali Shaik, the learned counsel for A2 in Crl.A.No. 690 of 2010, and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB. 4 I of the prosecution is that the defacto 5. Briefly, the complainant/P.W. 1 lis a resident of MIG 216, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, and he is residing with his parents. The father of P.W, 1, namely Ch.Srihari (P.W.2), constructed three shops in the front portion of his house, and one shop was let out to one Srinivas and his brother Naveen in the year 200 1. Subsequently, Srinivas was asked to vacate the shop as it was required for the personal occupation ol P.W. 1. However, instead of vacating the shop, Srinivas approached the rent control court. While the matter was pending before the rent Control Court, at the instance of Srinivas, it was settled between Srinivas and P.W.2. In pursuance of the said settlement, Srinivas vacated the said shop in the month of October 2006.

6. In the first week of November 2006, the police, Kukatpally police station, came to the house of P.W.1 and took him and his father, P.W.2, to the police station based on a report given by Srinivas. P.W. 1 and his father explained the facts of the dispute to the Inspector, and then, the Inspector of Kukatpally Police Station allowed them to leave since the matter was pending before the Rent Control Court. However, after a few days, the Police, Kukatpalty Police Station, started harassing p.W. 1 5 )

7. On 19.O1.2007, Md.Lal Ahmed (P.W.s), Police Constable, working in the po[tb Station, Kukatpally, came along with A,2 to I the house of P.W.1lhnd took him to the police station, where he I was produced befoie A1. A1 detained P.W-. 1 near the lock-up, I threatened him, and demanded Rs.6,000/- as a bribe for not effecting his arrestl lalong with his parents and also to initiate action against saidlsrinivas. Since P.W. 1 was not willing to pay the demanded bribl' amount, he approached the DSP, CIU, ACB, Hyderabad, on 19.01.2007 and lodged a report against A1-

8. Having received the complaint on l9.Ol.2OO7, P.W.1 was asked to come on the next day, on which a trap was arranged. P.W.8 summoned independent mediators, P.W.3 and another. In the presence of the entire trap party, the bribe amount was i smeared with pheinolphthalein powder, and the DSP, ACB I explained the relevance of the phenolphthalein powder and also I sodium carbonate dolution test. The tainted amount was kept in the pocket of P.W.l, and all the trap party members then proceeded to the Kukatpally Police Station. What transpired in the office of DSP was drafted as first mediators' report, which is Ex.P3. Having got down from the vehicle, P.W.1 went inside the Kukatpally Police Station. According to P.W. 1, he approached A1 6 at the police statibn, Kukatpalty, and on seeing P.W.1, A1 l, enquired about ther bribe amount of Rs.6,0OO /-, and on positive I reply given by P.W. 1, A1 asked him to stay in the parking area of i I Kukatpally Police Station. Around 1.00 p.rr'r; A1 came out of the i police station, approached P.W. 1, and demanded the bribe ol I Rs.6,00O/-. P.W. 1' then took out the tainted amount of Rs.6,OO0/- from hi! left-side shirt pocket and handed it over to I A1. A1 took the same with his right hand, counted it with both hands, and called A2/Police Constable, who was working as the Jeep Driver of the Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station, and handed over the said amount of Rs.6,000 l- to A2 with instructions to keep the amount with him, stating that Al will collect it afterwards. After that, A1 went inside the police station. Immediately,.P.W. li came out of the police station and gave the l pre-arranged signal to the trap party members, who then rushed to the police station. A sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on both hand fingers of A1, which yielded a positive result.

9. A1 was questionecl about the trap amount, and thereafter, the concerned file was also collected by the DSp, ACB. The complainant/P.W. 1 and A1 were questioned, and their version i) I 1 was recorded in th second mediators'report. After conclusion of e I the second mediators' report, the DSP and others went to the house ofA2. The house was locked, and thereaftcr, the wife of ,{2 (examined S w P IJ 11) and another person, Venkata Narayana (examined as D.W. l), arrived near the house of A2. The l1 DSP/P.W.8 enquired with P.W.11 about A2. P.W.11 allowed the search of A2's house. The bribe amount of Rs.6,00O/- was lound underneath the mattress on the cot in the bedroom of 42, and the amount was seized. The proceedings were concluded in the house of A2 around 10.0O p.m.

10. The investigation was then handed over by P.W.8 to P.W.9. P.W.9 was also part of the trap party. He conducted part of the investigation and filed the charge sheet after obtaining sanction orders for Al and A2.

11. The learned Special Judge examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.Pl to P16, and MOs.l to 8. The appellants examined D.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.Dl to D3. The defence of Al is that he never demanded or received any bribe from P.W.1. On the date of the trap, while he was working at the police station, ACB personnel entered the oflice, and when questioned ) a about the bribe amount, A1 spontaneously replied that he never demanded or accepted any bribe.

12. A2 stated that the trap party had visited his house on the next day, i.e., 21 .O1.2007 , and prepared false proceedings stating that the amount was seized underneath the bed on the previous day. He claimed tnlt tfre said bribe amount was planted by the ACB and he did not have any role to play as far as P.W. 1 was concerned

13. Learned Special Judge, having considered the evid'ence of the prosecution and the defence versions, found both A1 and A2 guilty of demanding and accepting the bribe amount from p.W. 1.

14. Learned counse I appearing for A,1 and A2 would submit that a false case was h ed against the appellants at the instance of P.W. 1. In fact, P.W. I had disputes with one Srinivas and his brother Naveen, and Srinivas had filed a complaint against p.W. 1 and his father. Then the Kukatpally police started enquiring into the complaint lodged by the said Srinivas, along with a private complaint liled by him. P.w. 1 resorted to filing a false complaint with the ACB. 42 was not even present in the police station when the incident happened. According to p.W.6, who is the jeep ,,) 9 / driver, he relieved A2 at 9.30 a.m on 20.01.2007. However, he was made to falsely state by the ACB that A2 was present in the : police station untill 1.15 p.m. The aspect of demand was not I proved by the prosecution, and since the reCovery of the amount was not at the instance of any of the appellants, convicting the appellants solely on the basis of the recovery is incorrect

15. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following judgments: 1) In N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadur, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of the amount, divorced from the circumstances, cannot form the basis to convict, when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable. 2) In B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, held that it is a settled position in law that the demand for illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence. Mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all ' AtR 2o2t sc 266 '(zorq) t: scc ss 10 reasonable doubt ithat the accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. 3) In C.M.Cilisfr Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held ihat mere recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid, is not Sufhcient to convict the accused when the I substantive evidenJe in the case is not reliable. Mere recovery, by itself, cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused in the absence of any demand

16. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the ACB would submit that there were disputes between the tenants, Srinivas and his brother Naveen, and p.W. 1 and his father. The allegation of demand for a bribe was clearly mentioned in the complaint. The first demand was made on

19.O1.2OO7, when P.W. 1 was asked to sit near the lockup, and A1 threatened him to pay the bribe amount, failing which he and his father would be arrested. The colour test on the hands of ,\1 turned positive, and the money was recovered from the house of A2. P.W.6 stated about the presence of A2 in the police station until the trap was executed. As such, the events narrated by the 3 ltR zoog sc zozz 77 prosecution clearly make out a case against A1 and A2. The evidence of P.Ws.4, 5 6, and 7, who were police personnel working in the "amL police station, clearly indicated the conduct of A1 in detaining P.W. 1 and demanding-a bribe. In support of his contentions, the Public Prosecutor relied upon the following judgments of this Court: 1) Criminal Appeal No.1213 of 2008 dated 10.08.2O22;iZ) Criminal Appeal No.1115 of 2OO7; and batch dated 1o.08.2022. 17 . The grievance' of P.W. 1 is that he had disputes with one Srinivas and his brother Naveen, who were his tenants. It is admitted by P.W. 1 that there were disputes with Srinivas, and he had also lodged a complaint with the Kukatpally Police Station The Kukatpally Police Station started harassing P.W. 1, and on L9.OL.2OO7, P.W. I was taken to the Police Station, Kukatpally, and asked to sit near the lock-up. Neither the said Srinivas nor his brother Naveen were examined by the ACB. P.W.5, the Constable in the police station, stated that P.W.1 was brought to the police station at the instance of A1

18. On 19.01.2OO7, A1 demanded an amount of Rs.6,0OO/- for not arresting P.W. 1 and his parents, and also for taking action against Srinivas. On the same day, around 3.O0 p.m, P.W.1went -t t2 to the ACB office land lodged a complaint, and the trap was arranged on the .r.rli o"r. t! L Ig. On the date oit.rp, P.W. 1 entered the police station around

11.45 a.m. According to him, he went to the chambers of A1, where Al enquiredlibout the bribe. P.W. 1 then informed that he had brought the aniount, and A1 asked him to wait near the jeep parking area in theipolice station premises. Around 1.15 p.m, A1 came out of the police station, approached P.W. 1, and asked him to give the amountilWhen P.W.t handed over the amoupt to A1, A1, in turn, handed over the amount to A2.

20. The prosecution has not explained as to where P.W. 1 was standing or waitinf lfrom 11.45 a.m to 1. 15 p.m, for I Yzhours until the signal was relayed to the trap party. P.W.3, who is an independent mediator, and DSP-P.W.8 spoke about P.W.1 entering the policelstation at 11.45 a.m, and relaying the signal at 1. 15 p.m.

21. The scene of offence is the police station. In Ex.P7, which is a sketch of the police station, the locations- where the trap party was waiting, where P.W. 1 waited, where the jeep was parked,and where A1 accepted the bribe and passed it on to A.2 are not t 1l shown. Neither P.W.l, P.W.3, nor P-W.8 narrates the details I regarding their exact positions or the place where the amount l was accepted. As pbr Ex.P7, there is only one gate for entry and I ; exit to the police station. None of the trap-party members saw A2 exiting the police station. The signal was relayed around 1'15 p'm when the DSP andf other trap party members entered the police station. Admittedly! P.W. I did not inform the DSP or the trap party about Al hahding over the amount to A2 and ,{2 leaving the premises.

22. The DSP conducted tests on the hands of A1, and both hands tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder' According to P.W.3'and DSP/P.W.8, after concluding the second mediators'report in the police station, Kukatpally, they went to the house of A2 rn the evening. The case of P.Ws'3 and 8 is that they went to the house of A2, and upon reaching there, they found the house locked. P.W. 11, the wife of A2, arrived after ten minutes. P.W.8 then enquired with P.W.11 about A2. P.W.S and other trap party members then entered the house of A2 and' conducted a search. A2 was not found, but the bribe amount was recovered from underneath the mattress in the bedroom of A2. t L4

23. It is not known how P.W.8 knew the premises of A2. P.W.8 states that he instlucted P.W.7, who is a constable in the police l station, to enquire About A2. However, he also states that A,2 had I 1 already left the polibe station. None of the-police officials from the police station, Kukatpally, accompanied P.W.8 and other trap I party members. li

24. The version given by P.W.S, that he went to A2's house, found it locked, ' and thereafter, discovered the currency underneath the inattress, creates suspicion regarding the I correctness of his version. A2 is also a constable. If he had I known that a trap was laid and A1 was trapped by the ACB I officials, he would not have gone to his house to keep the tainted currency notes under the mattress and then absconded. Moreover, 42, being a police constable, would not have left such incriminating evidehce in his house before absconding. The said 1 version by P.W.8 cannot be accepted. p.W. 11, who is the wife of 1,^2, D.W.2, and D.W.5, who reside in the opposite house of A2, stated that the police had come to the house of A2 on 2l.Ol.2OOZ at 1O.3O a.m and had taken the signatures of p.W. 11 and D.W. l, on 2l.Ol.2OO7. ,/, , ,1, 15

25. The version tha t on the date of the trap, i.e.,20.01.2007, the amount was recovered, was denied by P.W.8. In the cross- examination, P.W stated that it was the practice at the ACB i 8 Head office to re I Iease information to .-the media about the registration of a crime in a trap case or any other case. However, I P.W.8 denied regd.rding the news published in the District trdition-Eenadu neivspaper, which was marked as Ex.D1 dated I 2|.OI.2OO7, and Ex.D2- the newspaper dated 22.O7.2OO7 of Eenadu district edition.

26. Though a newspaper report is not considered evidence and I cannot be looked into, however, the news item published on i

22.O1.2OO7 stated that the amount was recovered from the house of A'2 on Sunday, i.e.,2l.OL.2OO7.

27. The facts of alcase must be examined in their entirety. The facts narrated tyl{ tne prosecution create suspicion for the following reasons: i) No member of the trap party accompanied P.W. 1 into the police station on the date of trap when he entered at 11.45 a.m. Additionally, the where about of PW2 from 11.45 a.m to 1.15 p.m, i.e., for I Yz hours was not explained , 16 ii) Though it is mentioned by P.W. 1 that the amount was accepted by .\1 oudside the police station and then handed over I to A2, the said traJlaction was not witnessed by any of the trap members, inclulding DSP/P.W.8 .-and independent mediator/P.W.3. iiil P.w.1 states that he immediately relayed the signal after handing over the dmount and coming out of the police station. I However, when thei amount was handed over outside the police I station within the compound, from where P.W. I relayefl signal, and where the trap party was waiting- these details were neither narrated by any of the prosecution witnesses nor reflected in Ex.P7 sketch. It isrnot stated by any of the trap party members that they could not see what was happening outside the police station. iv) P.W.S admitted that when confronted, A1 spontaneously stated that he did not demand or accept any bribe from the complainant/P.W. l. v) How P.W.8 came to know about the residence of A2 is not known. It is not the case that any police personnel of Kukatpally Police Sttaion accompanied P.W.8 to the house of A2. / 71 vll A2, havingrknowledge of the trap, going to his house, keeping the amoirnt underneath the mattress, and then I absconding appeard improbable. I vii) Even according to the prosecution, A2 absconded from the date of trap and surrendere d before the concerned Court on

27.O7.2OO7.If A2 ihtended to abscond, he would not have gone to his house to kedp the money underneath the mattress before absconding.

28. P.W.4 is the Inspec to of Police, who speaks abbut said r Srinivas lodging a bomplaint in the police station against P.W.1 on 31.10.2006. I S the complaint-Ex.P6 reflected civil I Iendorsed that the civil case was pending and disputes, P.W.4 that it was for the icivil Court to decide the issue. P.W.4 further stated that A2 waslrelieved from his duty on 2O.OI .2OO7 at 9.30 a.m, as seen from the GD entry.

29. According to P.W.4, the complaint given by the said Srinivas was not enquired into, as such, Srinivas filed a private complaint on 04.ll.2006 before the Court, which was referred for investigation, and the complaint was registered as Crime No.1251 of 2006, and the said private complaint was received on r) ,/ 18 O4.ll.2006. No redsons were given as to why said Srinivas was not examined durihg the course of investigation. P.W. 1 stated that he was not atilare about any private complaint being filed by Srinivas

30. In a case of bribery, three aspects are vital, which are, demand, ,ccept"rri., and recovery of the bribe amount. The burden is on the piosecution to prove the demand, acceptance, and consequent recovery. There is no evidence, apart from the evidence of P.W. 1, to establish the demand for bribe. It is not known why DSP/P.W.8 did not deem it appropriate to send any of the members i i of the trap party to observe what transpires between P.W. 1 and A,1. The only evidence of the acceptance of bribe is also spok'en to by P.W. 1. As already discussed, the passing of the bribe amount is doubtful. Further, the recovery of the amount is' by lP.W.8 and the trap party, and not at the instance of any information provided by Al or 42. Thc recovery in the house of A2 is also doubtful.

31. Though the events create suspicion, such suspicion is not enough to infer the guilt of the appellants. The events narrated by the prosecution should be probable, believable, and proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the actual version r\ 19 appears to have been suppresse d, and the prosecution has come up with a tainted vErsion. For the said reasons, both appeals are allowed.

32. In the result, e judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.40 of 2OOT dated 29.O4.2O1O is hereby set aside. Since ,{2 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. I

33. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender (For His Lordships kind Perusal) To,

1. The Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. The lnspector of Police, ACB, ClU, Hyderabad 3. 11 LR Copies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Neriv Delhi

5. The Secreiary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. 6. One CC to Sri Mastan Vali Shaik, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Ms. P Sree Ramya, Advocate [OPUCI 8. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

9. Two CD Copies ADK,/DL V^/ HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.No.690 AND 691 of 2010 '(t19 STAf e' ( i .:-) i,J 28 APB ?0r l' a DEs. pnr Cir 'i+=a--=.--:- cC, ALLOWING THE BOTH CRLAs cocuA a_b tre,