In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Jaisurya Dittakavi CounselfortheRespondent:SrisridharChikyalaAdditionalStanding Counsel - Cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB The Court delivered the following: a 1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SUREITIDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O6 oF 2011 JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 arrd Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(21 of the prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (for short .the Act of l9gg") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment lor a period of one year and 1o pay Rs.5OO/_ for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, 19gg; to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a line of Rs.SOO/- for the olfence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Further both the sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appea-l is prr:ferred. 2. The appellant was trapped while he was working as a Junior Assistant in the office of MRo, Boath, Adilabad Distri<;t on the basis of complaint filed by pW.l alleging demand of brit,e against the appellant for providing copies of pahanis to the wife of pW. 1. 3' The complaint was l,ed on o4.or.2oo4 by pw. 1 with the ACB Inspector-PW.6. In the said complaint, pW. 1 narr^ted that his brother-in-law i.e., brother of his wife, owned 2g Acr.es of land at Kolhari village at Gudihathnoor Mandal, Adilabad District He gifted - \i-] 2 Ac.8.12 guntas in the name of pW. 1,s wife namely Susheela. However, the land of his brother_in_law was occupied by the villagers in his absence. His brother-in-raw gave GpA to the wife of PW. 1 to take legaI action against the encroachers on the land. PW. 1's wife submitted an application_Ex.p2 for providing the certilred copies of Pahanis of the land for the years Lgsl-lgs2, 1952-1953. The said application was made on 30.07.2O03. pW.1 went and met the office superintendent (Ramulu) in the MRO ofrrce. The Superintendent asked pW. 1 to meet the appellant. When pW. 1 meet the appellant, the appellant informed that Rs.6oo/- has to be paid to ttre Superintendent and Rs.2o0/- to him. pw. 1 requested to issue Paha,is, since he did not have money, however, the appella,t insisted that unless Rs.80o/- was paid, copies of pahanis wili not be given.

4. Neither in the complaint, nor in the statement before ttre Court, any specihc dates in between 3O.OZ.2OO3 i.e., date of application Ex.P2 and 04.Ol.2OOg, date of complaint, a_re mentioned regarding the demand made by the appellant i I i I 3

5. PW.6 registered the crime on 06'01'2004' Tl-re trap was arranged on the same day' The trap party members ga'thered in the ofhce around 7:OO A'M' A11 the formalities required to be followed before proceeding to the trap were completed' Ex'P6 was drafted' which is Pre-traP Proceedings' 6. PW.1 and his friend Pw.2 along with trap party rnembers went to the offrce of the appellant around 1O:OO A'M' PWs l and 2 went insidetheofflrce,whiletheothertrappartymembersvlaitedoutside' Ten minutes after entering into the offrce' PW'2 calrre out of the office and signated to the trap party' indicating the bribe being passed on to the appellant' The trap party entered into the office and questioned the appellant' Sodium Carbonate Solution test was conducted and both the hands of appellant proved positive' indicating that the appellant handled the currency notes which was smeared with Phenolphthalein powder' On qu'estioning the appetlant, the amount was taken out from the bacl: pocket of the appellant and hand'ed it over to the trap party'

7. According to PW'l, the appellant explained during post-trap proceedings that PW'1 thrust the amount into his b:rck pocket' The '.?" 4 panahis which were sought by PW'1 were in'Modi'language' The copies had to be translated into Telugu language by an official translator and without translation into Telugu, Pahanis cannot be issued. Further the appellant also stated as admitted by PW'1' that appellant prepared Pahanis and the same had to be signed by the Superintendent- Ramu lu -

8. PW. I during the course of his evidence before the Court was declared hostile and cross examined by Public Prosecutor' The reason for declaring PW.l as host-ile to the prosecution case was thatPW.lstatedthatheenteredintotheofficeoftheMRoandmet Superintendent. The Superintendent enquired with PW' 1 whether he brought the amount. PW' 1 informed that he brought the amount, then, the Superintendent stated that Rs'60O/- was for him for the appellant' The Superintendent called the and Rs.2O0 I appellant and directed PW. 1 to hand over the amount to appellant' Thereafter, the amount was handed over to the appellant. The appellant then took PW.1 to the record room' but the Pahani copies were not given. ...; _--r.:- ffisH --'r':=.,--_-=i'tp!l7.F+tt?t---:fF- -- - 5 g. PW.2 who was 'poojari' in the village accompanied PW'l on the date of trap and according to his evidence, ht, witnessed the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appell'ant' PW'6-DSP admitted during cross-examination that there is no mention in the pre-trap proceedings that PW.2 was asked to acr:ompany PW'l' PW.6 further admitted that he did not instruct PW.1 to get PW'2'

10. The defence of the appellant is that the Pahanis; were in 'Modi' language and the officia-l translator did not tran slate then into Telugu language, as such, the Deputy MRO could not furnish the copies of Pahanis.

11. It is admitted that Pahanis pertaining to the yeir 1951 to 1953 were in 'Modi' language. On the date of trap, the pzrhanis in 'Modi' language, which are Exs.P7 to P9 without any date and Exs'Pl3 and P14 which are in Telugu language were seized.

12. PW.4 worked as MRO during the relevant time. He admitted in his cross examination as folows: "To translate the 'Modi' language record into Telugu an official translator is required. PW.1 brought one person and he made a copA of 'Modi' language pahani ne'atly- Then E 6 r\ Supeintendent is one Ramulu' A O' prepared the copies and sent to Ramulu bg 2.12.2003' The file is pending uith Ramulu since 2.12.2003 as Ex'P9 do not contain the signature of Ramulu as he hns to sign as Superintendent' In the pior enties in Ex-P12 the signatures of Ramulu Supeintendent contains- As per Ex'P12 Register AO made theentiesandsentthesa.m.etoRamu.luSupeintendentfor his signafite."

13. As evident from the statement made by PW'4' the file was pending with Ramulu, Superintendent, since 02'12'2OO3' In Ex.P12-Register, the appellant made entries and sent the same to the Superintendent for his signature ' However' the Superintendent' Ramulu was not examinecl' The reason for not examining the Superintendent Ramulu has not been explained by the prosecution and the same has an adverse impact on the prosecution case' Firstly, PW. 1 in his complaint-Ex'Pl stated that initially he met Ramulu, Superintendent who asked PW' 1 to meet the appellant' Then the appellant asked Rs'6OO/- for the said Ramulu and Rs.2OO/- for himself. During the course of trial' PW'1 stated that on the date of trap he met Ramulu, Superintendent who informed that Rs.6OO/- were meant for him and Rs'2OO/- for the appeliant' On l 1 the instructions of Ramulu, the trap amount was handed over to the appellant. Aicording to PW.4, the hle was pending with Ramulu, since 02.12.2003. The prosecution had neither arrayed the said Ramulu Superintendent as an accused/nor examined him. The non- examination of the said Ramulu is fatal to the case of the prosecution, in the background of the events that tr-anspired in the case and the relevant hle for issuance of pahanis being pending with Ramulu, after being sent by the appellant.

14. The Honourable Supreme Court in N.Vijagakumar a. State of Tamll Nadu)held that mere recovery of the amount divorced from the circumstances carnot form basis to convict, when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable.

15. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P (2015(10) SCC 152), a three judgr: bench of the Supreme Court held that proof of demand of illega1 gratilication is the gravamen of the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the absence of the same, the cha-rge would fail. It was also held that l ' 2o2t cRt.L.t t3s3 8 h mere acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratihcation would not be sufficient to prove the above cha,rges.

16. The demand aspect has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. If any doubt arises in the facts of a case, benefit has to be extended to the appellant.

77. At the earliest point of time, the appellant explained that Pahanis were in 'Modi'language and had to be tralslated by official translator. It is admitted that on O2.12.2OO3 itself, the relevant hle was handed over to Ramulu-Superintendent after the appellant made entries in Ex.P l2-register. The reasons for not examining Ramulu a-re not given. Further, the hle was pending with Ramulu and no officia-l tralslator had translated the Pahanis. PW. 1 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In the background of the inhrmities in the case as already discussed, t1le evidence of PW.2, cannot form basis to infer demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellart

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, beneht of doubt is extended to the appellalt 9 'lowed 19' Accordingly, crimina-r Appeal is a,<i the conviction recorded by the II Additional Special Judge for SpE & ACB cases at Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No. 12 of 2OlO, dated 21.01.2011, is set aside. The apperlalt is acquitted. Since the apperant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGIS osect,o* oFFrcER ,J To, '1. The ll Additional Judge for SPE and ACB cases ,rt Hyderabad. (With records, if any) Adilabad. Hyderabad. (OUT).

2. The lnspector of Police Anti Corruption Bureau, Adilabad Range, 3, Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the St,ate of Telangana at Special Public Prosecutor for ACB [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri. Jaisurya Dittakavi, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Sridhar Chikyala, Additional Standirrg Counsel - Cum- 6. Two CD Copies f+ DL/gh HIGH COURT DATED/I2lo2l2O25 // JUDGMENT CRLA.No.106 ot 2011 1r\E ST.q e o C:, ) c () 1 g JU}l 2025 (,( \ a'-'.i', o, --, ,. -r.r-ll /'/ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL fi- 6 ( ? -)\