The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Laxma Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Allika Suresh Counsel forthe Respondent: Sri M. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURTNDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.375 and,376 OF 2OL2 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2OI2 was filed by A1 and Criminal Appeal No.376 of 2Ol2 was hled by A2. Crimina-l Appeal No.377 of 2O12 was filed by A3. Since A3 died, Criminal Appeal No.377 of 2012 stands abated.

2. AL, A2 and A3 were convicted for the oflences under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and two years, each, respectively under both counts and ,{3 was convicted for the offence under Section I3(2) rlw 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arrd was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2OO7 dated 20.04.2012 passed by the First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Both the appeals filed by Al and A2 are heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment

3. A1 worked as Town Plalning Oflicer, A'2 worked as Town Planning Supervisor and A3 as attender in the Qutbuilahpur Municipality ofhce. Briefly. the facts of the case are that tL.e defacto complainant is P.'J/. 1 namely Mohd.Moinuddin. He purchased a plot bearing No.1 admeasuring 167 sq.yds in Venkatram Nagar Colony at Suraranr, in the year 1997 in the name of his mother Smt.Sadath Bee. A.bout six months prior to complaint, NSR Raju constructed a compouncl \vall by occupying the road ald caused obstruction to their ingrcs;s into their plot by claiming that he was issued with a palta certif-rcate for the said land by the Revenue Authorities. P.W. i zrpproached Junior Civil Judge Court Medchal, Ralga Reddy District and l-iled a case vide OS No.369 of 2OO5 and on 16.11.2005, the same i,r,as decreed by the Court in their favour b5r issuing perpetr.rai iniunction.

4. P.W. l approacheC ti-rr: Rer.enue and Municipal Officials severa_l times and shown the (lr;urt order and requested for taking necessary action fo;' the remova_l of the illegal construction. Again, on 14.02.2006. Ra.iu starteci construction of room in the same place. Immediatcll , P.W.1 approached Jeedimetla police Station and lodged complaint. He also icdged complaint at eutbullahpur Municipality by encJosing registration document, HUDA layout and Y /: 3 Court Order pertaining to his plot and requested them to stop the illegal construction and dismantle the existing wall. The then Commissioner, Qutubullahpur Municipality/P.W.3 forwarded his application to the Town Section. On 20.03.2006, when P.w. 1 went to the Town Planning Section and enquired with A1 about his work, A1 demanded him to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to him and arrother Rs.10,O0O/- to A2 in order to complete the work of dismantling the illegal construction as requested by him.

5. On 22.03.20A6 at 1i.OO hours, P"W. 1 went to the Municipality, Qutubullapur, and met both A1 and A2 and pleaded for the completion of his work. But both of them stuck to their earlier demand of bribe amount of Rs. 10,000/- each for site inspection, for sending their report and also for removal of tJle iliegal construction. Since P.W. 1 was not willing to pay bribe to A1 & 42, he lodged a written complaint with P.W.7-DSP, ACB, Hyderabad on 23.03.2006 requesting to take action against .A1 & A2. After verifying the contents of the complaint, P.W.7 registered a case ln Cr.No.7/ACB-HR/2006 under Section 7 and Section EE X i3(1xd) r/w 13Q of thc Act on 24.03.2006 at 9.30 a.m. On the same day, trap 11,6 s arranged.

6. The DSp/p.\l/.7 summoned independent mediators p.w.2 and alother. P.W.4. wha is t1-re friend of p.W. 1 was also present. The DSP in the presence of said witnesses and other ACB personnel, concluded pre-trap nroceedings p.Ws. i and 4 went to tor,r,n planning sectior,.r..iiere thel- found 41 sitting in his seat. p.w. 1 took out the r'a ci oi thr. currency notes fi:om his left front shirt pocket zrnd offered the sa,e to A1 who accepted the same with his right hand and kcpt them in the tray available just below his office table and then ass,red hiin that i.ris ',r,ork rv,l be done. Thereafter, P'ws'1 and 4 in''ent to the cabi, or A2. A2 enquired whether p.w. 1 brought the amount a,d instructed p.w. 1 to hand over the said amount to 43, rvho'a'as i.n the charnber of A2. A2 promised that the work would be complete:l. Thereafter, both p.Ws. j and 4 came out of the chamber oI 42 a,'l informed Dsp/p.w.7 0n phone that the appeliants demanderj ancr accepted the bribe amount. Then, all the trap partlr member.s entereC into the chamber of A1. i 5

7. The phenolphtha-lein test conducted over the right hand fingers of A1 and 43 yielded positive result. First bunch of tainted notes of Rs.10,000/- were recovered at the instance of 41 from the tray meant for the computer keyboard on his table. Then the trap part5r also questioned 42. The remaining amount of Rs. 1O,0OO/_ was seized from ,{3. p.W.7, after completion of post trap proceedings, halded over investigation to p.W.g, who concluded investigation and after obtaining sanction orders, filed charge sheet under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.

8. Learned Special Judge convicted A1 toA3, though p.W. 1 turned hostile to the prosecution case, mainly on the basis of the evidence of P.W.4, who accompanied p.W. I on the date of trap and other corroborating oral and documentaqr evidence.

9. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Allika Suresh, learned counsel the appellalts and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public prosecutor lor ACB.

10. l,earned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants argued that P.W. 1 complainalt has turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.w. 1 admitted that DSP/P.w.7 inst.,cted him to go to the office of 5 A1 and ,A2 and pal,, ihe:lncunt cf Rs.1O.0OO/- each to A1 and 42. The contents of the, ccmplaint u,ere disowned by p.\\,r. 1, as such, the demand aspect *'as not proved. The main issue is that the piece of land in question -,va s governtaent land, as such, municipal authorities did n.t have jurisdiction. It was for the revenue authorities to initiate action u,hich was admitted by p.W.3. Since the demand was not pro'ed and the appellants were also not in a position to do an.r' ,rfficiai favour, the ingredients of Sections 7 and f 3(1)(d) ar-e not ma<j.e cut.

11. Learned Senro: Counsei relieci on the foilowing judgments 1) In B.Jayaraj r,. State of Andhra pradeshr, wherein the Iicn'ble Supreme Ccuit lo,:nrl tlt:rt q,her the cornplainant turned hostile to the pr-oser;utirrrr ca-se. the conrents ol the corrrplaint cannot be relied upcn. and acqurtroC the accused therein 2) In P.Satyatrarayana Murthy v District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2 . the Hon,ble Supreme court for-rnd that mere recovery of amount vr.ithout proof '1zora; r: scc ss ' (zors) to scc i:z a 7 of demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge, and acquitted the appellant therein 3) In C.M.Girish Babu v CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala3, the Hon'ble Supreme held that mere recovery of tainted money by itself is not enough, in the absence of evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. 4) In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjaba, the complainant and independent mediator,/shadou, rvjtness turned hostile to the prosecution case, and when there was no other circumstantial evidence available to prove demand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused therein. 5) In N.Vijaykumar v. State of Tamil Nadus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that absence of proof of demland for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. Presumption under Section 4 ' (zoog) : scc zrg 2023 scc onLine Sc a2o '{zozr) : scc eaz 8 20 of the Act can r;nly be drawn when acceptance of illegal gratification is prove c1. 6) In Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of Andhra pradesh6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court obsened that the trap laying officer shall make efforts to verify- the factum of demand before initiating the trap proceedings. In the said case, the demand of bribe by the accused was nct mt:ntioned in the compiaint, which is a significant omission, as such, the accused u,as acquitted. 7) in Selvaraj v. State of KarnatakaT, the Honbie Supreme Court held that re()overy of tainl.ed currency is not sufhcient to convict,, if there is no corrobcration of the testimonv of the complainalt.

72. Lear-ned counsel a-ppearing on beha_lf of A.2 sailed w-ith the argllments of the lear.ed senior counsel representing Ai and relied on the following .judgments: 1l K.shanthamma v. State of Telanganaa: 2) Satvir Singh v. State of Delhie. '1zoza; ro scc +ss '1zors; ro scc z:o 3 2022 SCC OnLine 5C 213 o (zora) r: scc ta: w-7 9

13. l,earned Special public prosecutor appearing for ACB r,r,ould submit that the findings of the learned Special Judge are correct. However, he did not dispute the fact about p.W.3 stating that the appella,ts did not have power to demolish the compound wa, on the subject land a,d a-rso that it was the revenue department which was competent to take action on the complaint of p.W. 1.

14. The application was hied by p.W. 1 on the basis of judgment ald decree passed in O.S.No.369 of 2005. The application ,;vhich is Ex.P2, reflects the endorsements of Al and 42. Further, p.W.3 stated in his chief examination as follows: , "On 15-2-06 Sadath Bee, r/o Venkataram Nagar presented an application uith enclosures to me personallg. (The application and. the enclosure, or" in Ex.p2 file). On same dag I fortuard,ed. tn ippii""tion and. the T:l:"yl^. t9 TpO , bg G_1 section. es pei nx.eZ file on 16_ 2-06 TPO handed ouer the file to ipS m*n planning superuisor uith his endorsement. On 2O_2_06 I receiued. a letter from Jeedimetra police station *hi"i is a/so in Ex.p2 file. On 27-2-06 I ad.dressed. a letter tlo .leeaimetta police station on the strength of the ,eport giuen bg town planning uing."

15. As seen from the endorsements, on 22.02.2006 and 27'02'2006, it was decided that letter has to be addressed to the MRO, Qutubullahpur for arranging inspection of the site by the M anda-l Suneyor, since the dispute wouid be within the jurisdiction of the revenue aulhorii.ies

16. P.W.3 stated in his cross-examination as follows: " The dote of tro-p i.e., ott 24-3-06 mg office hc.s not receiued c,ng letter from MRO,RDA a.nd Dst.Coliector R.R.Distnct in connection tuith mg letter dtd.27-2-06. I do not ren"ember u-thether So,dath Bee ctpproached me subsequerlt to 27-2-06. I haue not instrut:ted G 2 clerk Narasimharao to send copg of my letter to Sadath Bee. In respect of gouernment lands ITIRO is competent ,o pcs.s dem.olition orders. Coming ta the present. dispute the municipalitg has r,o authorttg to pa,ss der,oiitton orders as the so,id lond belongs to gouertment."

17. Thc appellants i zrnd 2, even according to the case of the prosecution, were not competent persons to demolish the compound rva11. as requested in the application made by P.W. 1. The said fact is ar-imitr-ed by P.W.3, rvho u,orked as Commlssioner, Qutubullahpur Muni,:ipaiiT

18. P.W.t has turrred hostile to the prosecution case. In the statement before the Court, P.W.1 conirned his grievance of demand of brlbe by A2 onll . P.W,1 stated that A.2 demaaded Rs.2O,OOO/- rvhich rvould be sphl in between A1 and A.2 equally. Since A2 insisted to make the l)ayment, Ex.Pl complaint r.vas fi1ed u,.ith ACB authorities. Thr'saicl complarnt u,as admitted by P.S,. 1. Horvever, in 17 the complaint Ex.P1, P.W. 1 stated that A1 demanded Rs. 10,000/- to inspect the site and when he met A2, A2 demanded Rs.1O,0OO/- to rernove the illegal construction in the land. Two different versions are stated, in tJre complaint and in the statement before the Court. P.W. 1 did not support the version mentioned in the complaint Ex.Pl and stated that it was only A.2 who demanded bribe and A1 did not demand any bribe. P.W. 1, in his chief examination, further stated that on the date of the incident, he r,rrent inside the ofhce and hrstly went to the cabin of A2. When P.W. 1 stated that he brought the amount, A,2 asked P.W. 1 to haldover the amount to ,,A.3. From there, he went to the room of A1 and tried to hand over Rs.10,0OO/- to A1, however, ,{1 questioned as to why he was giving amount and refused to receive the amount. Then, P.W. 1 kept the amount on the key board of the computer. P.W. i went outside and called DSp on phone. The entire trap party entered into the ofilce thereafter.

19. The version of P.W.4, who accompanied p.W. 1 is that initially they went arrd met A,1 on the date of trap and after A1 received the amount of Rs.10,0OO /-, kept the amount underneath the table of the key board. After handing over the amount to A.1, both p.Ws.l 72 and 4 went to the r:ahin of ,{2 and A2 demanded the amount. When P.W. 1 w-zrnted to handover the amount. A2 instructed P.W. 1 to handover the amor-,nt to A3.

20. In the post trap proceedings. Ex.PS, the statement of p.W.4 was not recorded. It tr:as vagr.rely mentioned that P.W.4 stated u,hat P.W.1 has stated anrl corroborated P.W. 1 on material aspects. P.W.i denied the statement recorded during post-trap proceedings regarding demand and acceptarce of bribe by A1. The sequence of events that transpiie.l rn the olhce r,r,hen they enter-ed into the ofhce on trap day is aisc., t;ontraciictoi-,r,. 2I. As already discussed. P.W. 1 u.as declared hostile to the prosecution case. sirrce he did not stick to his earliest version. In the back ground of Cifferent versions being given b1,-p.W.f. it cannot be said th,lt rhe aspect of demand was proved by the prosecution be.,-ond reasonable doubt, also in the back ground of the municipal cleparlrrient not being the competerrt authority. The hostility of P.\V. 1 .:a.n ire igr-rored by the Court ald it cal look into the other circumstances of the case to arrive at a conclusion about the demand of bribe b.i l,he appella;rts. l i i i I - I i 13

22. The reason for lodging the complaint u'as for demolishing the compound wall constructed by one Raju, who was not examined. However, P.W.1 has not taken a-ny steps to approach the civil Court and hle petition for remova-l of the wali, since it was a-n obstruction to the ingress of the complainant. P.W.3, who is the Commissioner, has stated that the power to demoiish was not lying with the appellants, but it is the revenue authorities who had to take action. When the appellants did not have the power to demolish, the allegation of demand of Rs.10,000/- each by the appellants A1 and 42 becomes doubtful for the reason of not only P.W.1 giving contradictory versions in the statements during investigation and before the Court, but a-lso for the reason of the appellants not having any power to demolish the compound wall. Even according I \ to Ex.P1 complaint, P.W. I approached the revenue authorities for demolition of compound wall. Apparentiy, P.W' t had knowiedge that the revenue authorities had the power to act on his grievance. He also fi1ed complaint with police.

23. Following the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K,shanthamma's case and P.Satyanarayana Murthy's case I I , , 14 E (supra)- the reco'er..r of the amo,nt cannot form basis to ir-ifcr that demand w-as made, rvhen the demand of bribe by A1 and .A2 could not be proved be'7cnd reasonable doubt. The Hon,ble Supreme court heid that mere acceptance of the amou nt dehorse proof of the demald rvould uo1 be s--rfficient to bring home the charge under Section 7 and Section r 3{1)(d) r/u' Section r3(2) of the prevention of the Corruption Ac1, 1988.

24. In the resuit. the.iudgment of trial Court in C.C.No. ),2 of 2OO7 dated 20,04.201 , ,::, ser. asicie and the appella,ts are acquitted Since tire appellal ts a 1-o on bail, their bail honds sha11 stancl cancelie ci.

25. Accordingl-v. ,loth tix) Crirninal Appeals are alloweci. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR I One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) ION OFFICER To

1. The I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

2. The lnspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad range, Hyderabad.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Allika Suresh, Advocate tOpUCI 5. ll LRCopies 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 7. The Secretary Advocates Association Library, High court for the State of Affairs, New Delhi +lrstI court Bui|dings at Hvderabld' *--g"itT6-E HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.375 & 376 of 2012 ---:---. '-, i.1 . ?J 2 1 ti:3 20ffi (.\( )} ?: \.. 'i 'i--^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS c"C' @ W