Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Judgment

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1179 0F 2016 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filecl by the appellant/ accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I Addl. Special Judge ;ior SpE & ACB Cases-cum V Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, in CC.No.26 of 2075, dated 18.11.2O16, lor the offences under Sections 7 and i3(1)(d) r/w. l3(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorour; Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs.5O0/- lor t.re oflence under Section 7 of PC Act; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section t3(21 rlw.13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act.

2. Heard Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned St:nior Counsel representing Sri Sridhar Lonkala, for the appellant and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Special public prosecutor for ACEi.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.9.2O1O, at 1:00 PM, a complaint (Ex.pl) was lodged by pW. 1 before the ACB, Khammam against Sri Rekya Chowhan, the A<:cused Officer I (Appellant herein),lwho was working as a superintendent officer in I I the Olfice of the Alsistant Director, District Insura^<:e, Khammam. PW. l, in his complaint, stated that his father, Mcl. Shamsuddin, i 2 had worked as a Community Health Olficer in the Department of Medical and Health at Julurupad Mandal and retired on

31.12.2OO9 upon superannuation. After retirement, his father frled l an application be re the Assistant Director, District Insurance, Kh ammam, requesting payment of his APGLI Policy amount. The policy numb er was 635864-A. Meanwhile, on 22.5.20tO, PW. 1',s father passed away due to a heart attack. In August 2010, PW. I and his mother received a letter from the APGLI office directing them to frle a fresh application in the name of PW. l's mother. Accordingly, PW. 1 mother filed a fresh application in the APGLI S office on 3.9.2O1O; enclosing a legal heir certihcate (Ex.pl2). The appellant was working as a Superintendent in the said office, and I when PW. 1 and hii mother met appellant, requesting the release of 1 survival benefits, appellant demanded Rs.10,OO0/- as a bribe to process the claim. PW. 1 expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount

4. Again, on 20.9.2O10, PW. 1 and his mother visited appellant,s office. Appellant informed them that the process was ongoing and inquired whether PW. I had brought the bribe amount. pW.l once again expressed his inability to pay. On 22.9.2O1O, pW.1 and his mother visited the office again, but this time PW. 1 alone met appellant. Appellant informed PW. 1 that the work was completed, 3 the DD was prepared, and demanded the bribe. When PW.l expressed his inability to pay, appellant reduced :he bribe amount to Rs 6,000 and Lnstmc ted PW.l to bring the amount to his office the next day. PW.1 left, stating he would return the next clay with the monev

5. PW.l informed his mother, who advised him to approach the ACB officials. Srnce PW. 1 was unwilling to pa), the bribe, he approached the ACB officials. Upon receiving the <:ornplaint, LW. 12 - Inspector of Police, ACB, Khammam informed PU/.8 - DSP, ACB, Warangal over the telephone. PW.8 instructed LW. I2 to conduct an inquiry. After conducting the inquiry, PW.8 receive,J the complaint from LW. 12, registered a case in Cr. No. B/ACB-Wl{H/201O under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Acr, and obtained permission fronr the competent authority on 28 !).2O10, at 2:30 PM, before taking tp the investigation.

6. During the investigation on 28.9.2O1O, PW.8 secured the services of PW.2 and LW.3 as mediators and c,rganized a trap against appellant. The pre-trap formalities-such as applying phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, explaining its significance, noting down the serial numbers and rle:nominations of the currency notes, etc.-were completed in t he presence of 4 mediators, and thir proceedings were recorded in Ex.P4 (Pre-Trap Proceedings).

7. On 28.9.2010, PW. I, PW.2, LW.3, PW.B, and his team proceeded to appellant's ofhce. PW.1 entered appellant's office, where appellant was found sitting in his seat. Appellant allegedly demanded the bribe amount, and PW.1 handed over Rs.6,000/- to l l appellant. Appellant received it with his right hand and asked PW. I to come the next day to collect the DD. PW. I then exited the office I I and gave the pre-airanged signai to the trap party members. Upon receiving the PW.S rushed into appellant's office. PW.S "igJ,r, Im prepared a sodiu carbonate solution, and when appellant dipped his fingers into tJr. solution, the right-hand wash turned pink, while the left-hand wash remained colorless, vide MOs.3 and 4.

8. When DSP lnquired about the tainted amount, appellant allegedly led them to the record room and pointed to the money, which was foun I d placed between the files. PW.8 seized the currency notes/MO.S from the files and subjected the contact portion of the fil to a chemical test, which yielded a positive result, vide MO Further, upon verification, the mediators l

confirmed that the currency notes tallied. In addition to seizing MOs. 7 to 7, EXS P5 to PB were also seized and post-trap 5 proceedings were concluded and recorded in Ex.P1O. PW.S also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of the offence, which is Ex.P9. Thereafter, appelLant was arrested and produced belore the Hon'ble II Addl. Special Judge.

9. Sanction to prosecute appellnt was granted by the Principal Secretary of the Government, Finance (Admn-II) Department, AP, Hyderabad, the competent authority to re move appellant After completing the investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for oflences under' Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

10. The learned Special Judge having considered the evidence of the witnesses ar-rd a lso the documentary evidence, found that the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant, zind accordingly convicted him

11. The defence f the appeilant is that the initial burden was not discharged by the prosecution. He argued th.at unless the prosecution proves the demand and acceptanr3€ of the bribe amount through lacceptable evidence, the presumption under Section 20 ol the Act cannot be drawn automal.i,:ally. Appellant stated that there was no evidence on record to sh,lw that he had dcmanded the bribe and that, apart from P\f'. l's self-scrving 6 statement, there no corroboration regarding the alleged demand ^nd """"lpt"nce of the bribe amount. The prosecution, according to Appellant, failed to prove that there was a voluntary I acceptance of ,n"l tainted amount. Appellant asserted that the police had brou the amount and falsely shown its recovery from the record room He further claimed that the spontaneous explanation given i by him was deliberately suppressed in the post- trap proceedings. L2. Appellant al3o argued that he was not the competent authority to rele I aSe the survival benefits and that the Assistant I Director, Distri Ct Insurance Office, was solely responsible for processing and re asing the policy amount. He contended that no official favour wasl I I pending before hirh on the date of the alleged trap, i.e., 28.9.2O1 I 0, and that the Demand Draft relating to PW. I under trx.P6 had lready been dispatched to the relevant section h i I on 27.9.2O1O. l l

13. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the a pellant is not the competent person to release p the government benehts etc., pertaining to the defacto I complainant. In fact, PW. 1-defacto complainant, PW.2-mediator, PW.3-Senior Assistant in the District Insurance Olfice and PW.5- l Attender cum-Dispatch Clerk were declared hostile to the prosecution case. The prosecution failed to provr: that there was firstly, demand of'bribe and secondly, that any official favour with respect to the del'dcto complainant was pending zrsr on the date ol

14. Learned Clounsel further argued that the Demand Draft relating to PW. I under Ex. P6 was already sent 1-o the dispatch section on 27.O9.)OlO rvhich is before the date of trap. The relevant entry was also referred as Ex. P7 in the Outward Register. Bxcept the version of PW. 1 regarding demand and acce prtance of bribe, there is no corrobciration to the evidence of PW.l. PW. I stated that on the date of t rap he kept the amount on the table and shook hands with the appe llant. PW.3 stated that the appellant and his brother-in-law carne to tht:ir office and thereafter, all three of them went outside to have tea. And while they were sipping tea, five or six persons came dncl caught hold of appellant an<l took him away. l Similar is the evidence of PW.5. The Counsel fur:trer argued that I the appellant gave his explanation instantaneous)y' at the time of post-trap proceeciings, that he is not aware abotrt anything, and PW. I has deliberatell. joined hands with some of his colleagues and involved him in a lalse case , 8

15. Learned Couhsel relied on the following Judgments rendered i by the Honourablb Supreme Court, High Court for the State of I Telangana, and High Court of Judicature, A.P. at Hyderabad: I i

7. Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi u. State of A.P.I I

2. A.Subair u. Stcite of Kerala2 I

3. B.Jagaraj v. Sto:te of Andhra Prad.esh3

4. P.Satganara anothef

5. Dashrath Inuestigations na Murthg tt. Dist.Inspector of Police and Singh Chauhan u. Central Bureau of

6. K.Shanthrrm a. State of Telangana6

7. K.Shankar u. Stte of Andhra PradeshT

8. C.Giriprasad Nizamabads Babu a. State, ACB, Nizamabad Range,

9. Sk.Hussain u. tate of And.hra Pradeshs 7O. J.Sriniuasa *L o and others V. State of Andhra Pradeshlo

77. K. Rarnakrish a o. Statel l Itl I I I ' ntR 2o2a sc 33s6 'zoro (r) aro (crt.) agt (sc) 'zora (z) aro (crt.) z: (sc) o zors {z) alo (crt.)as: (sc) ' zors(z)nro(ca.)gsz{sc) " zozz (z) nro {crt.) q: (sc) 'zoz: (z) aro (c.t.) ger (rs) 'zozz (r) aro (ca.)se (rs) 'zozo {r) aro (c,t.) grl (rs) 'o zozo 1t1 nro 1c.t.1sou 1rs1 9

72. State u. R.Kri\shnaic,hl2

73. Addala Sub hmangam v. State 13

16. Learned Pr-rblic ProsecLltor countered the argument of the defence counsel rin<l statecl that there is no reason :rs to why PW. I l would implicate th e appeItant in a lalse case. The far:t remains that the Demand Dral-t had to be given to PW. 1, and the rlppellant being the concerned ofllcer, was responsible to issue the setme.

17. The allegat ion argainst the appellant is that he demanded I bribe for processing the application submitted for withdrawal of PW. 1's father's policy amour-It. As on the date of trap, the Demand Draft '*'as not issued to PW. l. Ex.P6 is the copy of the Demand Draft seized on the datr: of trap- According to flSP, when the appellant was asked to procluce Demand Draft pertaining to the I Policy amount of PW.l's father, the appellant called PW.S and informed that he rvas handling the dispatch section. PW.5 produced the Demand Draft-Ex.P6 dated 22.O9t.2O7O for an amount of .Rs.87,033/- clrawn in favour of PW.l's mother. On I enquiry, PW.5 stati:d that, the Demand Draft was not dispatched because on 27 .9.2O7O, appellant gave him the said Demand Draft and informed him to not give the same to PW I until he gives " zotg 121 aro 1c't.1 tzs " zot: (t)nro (crt.)33r (AP) ".zot:1t1 aro (crl.)93a (AP) ia:' 10 instructions. Ex.PS is the copy of Outward Register and the entry relating to PW l's Demand Draft is marked as Ex.p7. pw.s however, turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not state that the Demand Draft was asked to be retained by the appellant. According to PW6J in ExPS, it is mentioned that the cheque was I handed over to the outward clerk on 2T.g.2OlO itself. pW.2. the I i independent medid.tor stated that all the official documents, letters, I communications etc., would be handed over to the parties under I their acknowledgments. i i

18. From the record Ex.PS, and the entry-Ex.p7 coupled with the evidence of PW.6, it is evident that the appellant had handed over the cheque to the Outward Clerk on 2Z.Og.2OtO itself. pW.5 I i deposed that Srinivasa Rao was the Section Superintendent of the I I outward sections and the appellant had nothing to do with the section from which the Demand Draft had to be dispatched. l I Similar is the evidence of PW.6, who stated that Srinivasa is the i Superintendent; who was incharge of inward and outward sections. l

19. PW.S-Trap Laying Officer stated that he neither collected any duty chart of the appellant, nor investigated regarding the i authority of the appellant over the inward and outward sections. 11

20. In view of the above discussion, the case of the prosecution that the Demand draft was deliberately withheld al the instance of the appellant,. was not proved by the Prosecution.

21. Another aspec t which has to be looked into is; the complaint which was lodged with PW6, against Sk. Babu, data entry operator i o^ n ., outsourcing basis. It was alleged that who was engaged I I complaints were i-eceived stating that the said Sk. Babu was l demanding bribe s I irom the parties stating that they were meant for the staff. In trx.D1 I ; rn,hich is dated 29.lO.2OIO it is; mentioned that I Sk. Babu demand d bribe from the Iegal heirs of p,rlicy members of I policy number 6 Ict a64 From ExP7, it is evident that PW1 is the holder of policy number 635864. I I l

22. PW.6 deposed that on 29.1O.2O1O' the ACB Inspector came to his office and warhed the said Sk. Babu not to interfere with the i office affairs and r primandecl him for demanding lts'5,00O/- from I e the legal heirs of e policy holder of Policy number 635864. PW.6 further stated tha t he wrote a letter to his Director on 29.O9.2010 narrating about the complaints against Sk. Babu and requested to transfer Sk. Babu ito another office. PW6 also adrnitted that ExDl l is the Xerox copy of the Ietter he wrote. 72 l I I j "n6th". witness who stated that Sk'Babu was

23. PW.3 is working in the offi6e on an outsourcing basis' It was informed that he was demanding bribes from the parties and all of them k. Babu to the Assistant Director and the complained abou t, S I I I Director, Insuran Ice. I I I After the trap, Sk.Babu was transferred to another place. In I e present facts of the case, the probability of Sk. Babu asking I e bribe on behalf of the appellant cannot be ruled out. i I t on the date of trap i.e., 28.O9.2O1O, when he

24. PW. I stated entered into the office, he found the appellant in the record room. He later clarifred dtating that the appellant was in his seat when I the demand was rrlade. After demanding the amount, the appellant I I took PW.1 downsthirs, observed the surroundings and again took I PW. 1 upstairs. Orl the way, appeilant asked PW'1 for the money I I and PW. i handed iit over to the appellant. Appellant received the same, and asked FW.l to collect the Demand Draft on the next I day. Immediately, FW.1 gave signal to the trap party' Whether the I I demand was made is doubtful, and it is also doubtful whether the l i demand was in the room of the appellant or the record room' In the chief-examination, PW.1 stated that Appellant took PW.1 downstairs and thEn accepted the amount. However, in his cross- examination, PW.l stated that he placed the amount on the table l 1,3 I and shook hands with the appellant. PW. 1 was declared hostile to I I the prosecution cabe after cross-examination by the counsel for the appellant. In the cross examination by the Special Public i Prosecutor, PW. 1 admitted that he has not stated erbout placing the I amount on the table in his earlier statements. i

25. PW. I is thJ only witness to the alleged demand and l I acceptance of bri versions before th J" t by the appellant. He has given two dilferent Court below. Once the contra<1ictory versions are looked into, th e evidence of PW. 1 becomes doub'tful and cannot ! i be acceptecl, unleJ" there rs corroborating evid.ence regarding the demand. The reas n for demanding bribe is for l'randing over the Io I Demand Draft. Evdn according to the prosecution ciase, prior to the I trap date itself, th Demand Draft was prepared and handed over in the inward and outward section as admitted by the witnesses PWs. 3, 5 and 6. The appellant had no authority 'cver the inward and outward section. The recovery of the tainted currency was in between the that was recovered at the instance of the appellant. The defence of the appellant is that PW. 1 or the ACB ofhcials might l-rave placed the money in the record files. In the background of PWll's admission that he had placed the money on the table and shook hands rvith the appellant, ther,: arises a doubt regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe blr the appellant, 74 and the consequent recovery. Other than the evidence of trap party members, the ind pendent witnesses PWs.3 and 5, do not speak Ie about the claim o ,l,n e prosecution that the amount was recovered from the record fil J"

26. In view of th i I 1 d said discrepancies, regarding PW1's evidence of I the admission of I bribe, for which there is no other corroboration, and in view of ithe work pending with the appellant being completed, there Ihrises doubt regarding the correctness of the I prosecution versio in. l

27. In view of i I I discrepant evidence, benefit of doubt is extended to the ap I

28. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal 1S allowed, setting aside the conviction .."o.*J d by I Additional Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Addl Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. The appellant is acquitted. Since t e appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand ,] discharged Sd/. A.V.S. S.C.S.M. SARMA INT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFIGER I[?"Ji1'J::a?lrt8,?f; '8"',f :,:J3:,t"EEd&AcBcases-cum-vAdditionar The lnspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau' Warangal Range' Sri V, Ravi Kiran Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases' Jiir'," biii" .t Telangana (our)' SRIDHAR LONKALA Advocate IOPUCI To I 2 Khammam

3. Two CCs to High Court f 4. One CC to SRI 5. Two CD CoPies Lrrl/oh ''EeF=! HIGH COURT DATED:'1410212025 JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.1179 ot 2O16 i1H€ s14 q, l0 g APn 2025 .t c, )tl ,// 1l tl)+\..'.1 \ ALLOWING THE CRL.APPEAL $ .o6^ 8*"