The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri C. Sharan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Bala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.94O OF 2O1O JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant/Al, who worked as the Sub-Treasury Officer, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District, was trapped by the ACB, on the allegation of demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant/P.W. 1. The prosecution version was believed by the learned Additional Special Judge lor trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who convicted the appellant/A1 for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.1O of 2008 dated 21.O7.2O1O. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed. .A2 was found not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r /wl3(2) of the Act.

2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Ba,la Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB. 2

3. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.l is that he was working as Sericulture officer at Banswada, Nizamabad' He was deputed to work at Banswada of Nizamabad. His seniority was hxed, and the Assistant Director, Sericulture, Shadnagar submitted his arrears of pay fixation amounting to Rs.1,32,879/- to the Sub- Treasury Ofhce, Shadnagar. P.W' 1 requested the appellant to receive the bill, but he refused. P.W. 1 asked the appellant to process the bill, however, the bill was not passed. P.W' 1 called the appellant three days thereafter, and requested him to pass the bill. On O9.O4.2O07, the appellant issued a token. On 24'04'2007, the appellant demanded lO'k of the total bill amount as a bribe' The said demand was also made on 3O.O4.2OO7 when P.W. 1 requested the appellant to pass the bill. On 10.05.2007, P.W.l called the appellant on the phone, and again on 11.05.2007, P'W. I called the appellant on the phone. On 11.05.2007, P'W.1 called the appellant on the phone again and requested him to pass the biIl. However, the bill was not passed. After P.W. 1 agreed to pay the demand for bribe, the bill was passed on the same day and the amount was credited to his account. Since P-W.l did not agree to pay the amount, the three bills relating to increments arrears, pay fixation 3 arrears, and DA, which were presented on 18.05.2007, were kept pending until 04.06.2OO7 by the appellant. When P.W.1 requested him to pass the bills, the appellant'allegedly asked P.W.1 to fulfill the earlier promise of a bribe of IOok in the pay fixation arrears bill. On 04.06.2007, P.W. I requested the appellant to pass the bills. However, a demand of Rs.5,000/- was made. Again, P.W.l called the appellant on the phone and enquired about the pending bills. On 16.06.2007, P.W. 1 called the appellant again and requested him to pass the bills. However, the appellant insisted on the payment of a bribe of Rs.S,OOO/-. Aggrieved by the consistent demand for a bribe by the appellant, P.W. 1 approached the ACB and lodged a Telugu written complaint/Ex.Pl on 17.06.2OO7.

4. The complaint was handed over to the DSP, ACB/P.W.6. P.W.6 then asked P.W. 1 to come back to the office on 19.06.2007. On the said date, the trap was arranged. The trap party included P.W. 1, P.W.3, P.W.6/DSP, ACB, P.W.7, and others. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party then went to the office of the appellant. P.W.1 entered the office around 1.45 p.m. P.W.l went inside and entered the chambers of the appellant. The appellant 4 then demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- and stated that he would not pass the bill unless the amount was paid. Meanwhile, A,2 entered the chamber of the appellant and sat in a chair. P.W.1 passed on Rs.5,000/- to the appellant, who, in turn, handed over the amount to A2, who kept the amount in his left-side pant pocket. Having received the amount, the appellant informed that he would pass the bill. Thereafter, P.W. 1 went out and signaled to the trap party. P.Ws.3, 6, 7, and other trap party members entered the chambers of the appellant. A test was conducted on the hands of the appellant and also A2, and the tests turned out positive. The amount was seized from 42.

5. The statements of Al , A2, and P.W. 1 were recorded in the post-trap proceedings I Ex.P 12.

6. According to DSP/P.W.6, Exs.P2, P3, P4, P7, P8, P9, and P1O were seized from A1. Exs.P2, P3, and P4 are the frles pertaining to the bills of P.W. 1. Exs.P7 and PB are the registers maintainedin the ofhce ofthe Sub Treasury Office, Shadnagar.

7. After conclusion of the post-trap proceedings, P.W.6 handed over the investigation to P.W.7/Inspector, who was also a member 5 of the trap party. P.W.7 concluded the investigation and hled a charge sheet, after obtaining the sanction orders from the competent authority.

8. The defence of the appellant is that no bills, pertaining to P.W. I were pending in the ofltce on the trap date, and the bills had already been returned. P.W.1, therefore, fi1ed a false case against

9. According to the complainant, three bil1s which are 0 increment arrears, ii) pay hxation arrears, and iii) DA bill adjustment, were presented for a total amount of Rs.7,696/ -. In respect of the bills of P.W. 1, P.W.6 stated that a token number- 1047 relating to increment arrears, token number-1048 relating to pay fixation arrears, and token number-1049 relating to DA adjustment amount were allotted.

10. During the course of the cross-examination, P.W.l, when confronted with the details of the bills and the numbering to determine whether the said token numbers pertain to his bills, stated as follows: 6 "I do not remember uhether I claimed Rs.2,B6O/ - tou-tards increment arrears uide token No.1047. I do not remember uhether I ctaimed Rs.1567/- toutards mA pcA ftxation arreors and the token No.is 1048. I do not remember uthether I claimed Rs.3,269/- toutards DA adjustment in token No-1049. Those bills utere not passed immediately after the date of submission of those bilts. I do not remember the date of passing of paA fixation arrears bill. It is tnle mA claim uith regard to DA arrears adjustment and increment arrears utere passed duing the second ueek of 8/ 2O07."

11. P.W.6, in his cross-examination, deposed as follows: "It is true os per Ex.P2 the bill with token No.1047 and bill t't'tith token No.1049 uere returned by the office of STO on 21 5'O7 l am not anuare uhether paA fixation arrear bill utas passed on 18.5.07. As per the seized records duing post trap proceedings bg 17.6.O7, no bills pertains to PW1 tuere pending uith AO1 "

12. P.W.3, in his cross-exarnination, deposed as follows " It is tnte at the instntctions of AO- I the concerned clerks produced all the releuant files and theg were seized. Till the time of production of those files by the concerned clerks those files tuere in their custodg. It is true as per the return slip contained in Ex.P2 the bills relating to token number 1O47 and 1O49 tuere returned on 21.5.O7. It is true that in page No.195 of Ex.PB there is a mention the bill relating to paA frxation arrears of P.W. 1 uas passed on 1 1/ 5."

13. P.W.4, who deposed about the sanction order, admitted as follows: 7 "It is tnte as per the contents of final report receiued bg our office, the disputed bills uere alreadg possed bg AO1 bg the date of trap. "

14. For the reasons best known to P.W.l, he denied having knowledge about the specific details of the token numbers of the arrears bills. Admittedly, the token numbers 1047 and 1049 were returned on 29.05.2007. P.W.6 admitted that on the date of the trap, no bills pertaining to P.W. 1 were pending. I 5. It is on record that the bills of P.W. t have been returned. P.W.5 stated as follows: " In case of rejection of the bill bg the STO, it tuill be in the custodg of token clerk till the concemed messenger get return the bill. It is true it is ct duty of messenger uho carried the bill to the STO, to collect the return bill from token clerk. Once the STO return the bill the bill utill not be placed before him again till it tuas resubmitted afier complying the return order-" "As per the endorsement on Ex.P2 the bills relating to token Nos. 1O47 & 1049 u.tere returned bg the S7'O, Shadnagar on21.5.2007."

16. P.W.1 admitted that the bill of Rs.1,32,879/- Llad already been passed without any bribe being given. The subject matter of the three bills was not pending on the date of the trap. The total 8 amount of 3 bills was Rs.7,6961-, for which an alleged demand of Rs.5,000/- was made to pass the said bills.

17. P.W.3-independent mediator, in his cross-examination, admitted that the appellant instructed the concerned clerks to produce all the relevant hles and they were seized. P.W.3 further admitted that the concerned hles were in the custody of the clerks. Admittedly, the bills were returned, and the returned bills were also not with the appellant. On the date of the trap, the relevant bills were produced by other clerks in the office from their custody'

18. According to the chief examination of P.W.1, he narrated that he called the appellant several times on dilferent dates and requested him to pass the bills. However, the prosecution has failed to collect any phone records to substantiate the version of P'W' 1 that he had called the appellant several times. The version given by P.W. 1 is falsified by the evidence and documents produced by the prosecution. The returned bills were not re-presented, and as such, the question of processing the bills does not arise. 9

19. The complaint was filed on17.06.2OO7, whereas the bills were returned on 2l .O5.2OO7.In the said back ground of the case, the allegation of demand cannot be believed.

20. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that, according to P.W.2, the bills were not returned to him or the other of{icers, gains significance.

21. According to P.W.2, the two token numbers, 1047 and 1048, of P.W.1 were not in the custody of the appellant. P.W.2 further admitted that, as on 21 .O5.2007, two bills under Ex.P2 (out of three bills) were returned on 21.05.2007. P.W.s narrated that in cases where a bill is rejected, the token clerk retains the custody of the bill, and it is the duty of the concerned messenger, who carried the bill to the STO, to collect the returned bill from the token clerk Once the Sub-Treasury Officer returns a bill, it cannot be placed before the STO office again until it is resubmitted

22. In view of the above discussion, the argument of the learned Special Public Prosecutor cannot be sustained, nor can the findings of the learned Special Judge. 10

23. Mere recovery of the amount from A2 cannot form a basis to infer the demand for bribe by the appellant. The bills were already returned, and for the reasons best known to the DSP, ACB, no one was asked to accompany P.W 1 to witness what transpired between P.W. 1 and the appellant.

24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another t , held that mere acceptance of the amount de hors the proof of demand, will not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

25. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.1O of 2OOB datcd 21.07.2O1O is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted Since the appellant 15 On bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. --,.---:- 26, Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. ,CuF) 10 srp'gtre G\l,,+ Ccr&A t5.l--- //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.SRINIVAS RAO JOINT REG TRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

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

3. One CC to Sri C. Sharan Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kam/DLw I --.-..--\. HIGH GOURT DATED:0210412025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.940 of 2010 ,' .1 JY'4' ll* {l:- z f ,ii: J :17 - B APB 2II25 s o 1, t c[g c41C$ -aO * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL 7 .op(/tr W{d \ot'