Criminal Appeal No. 1889 of 2018 · The High Court · 2025

Judgment

I I ( CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1889 OF 2018 HON'BLE SRT WSTICE K.SURENDER 3 JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant/Al was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and Section 1:f (1)(d) rlw l3(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under bc,th counts vide judgment in C.C.No.122 of 2Ol5 dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Kar'imnagar. Aggrieved by the sarne, present appeal is

2. Heard Sri Nyapathi Prashant, learned C)ounsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.

3. Briefly, th.e case of the prosecution 1S that PW1/the complainant, was employed as a driver for a TATA Sumo vehicle that was assigne'd to Appellant. While working in the office of SDPO, Nizarnabad, as a driver, PW1 had marital disputes with his wife, Smt. Vijaya Kumari. As a result, PW1's wife, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, filed a complaint against PW1 a-t V Town Police Station, Nizamzrbad, accusing him of dowry harassment and atrocity. Based on this complaint, a case was registered against 4 PW1 in V Town PS under Cr. No. 97 12006, invoking Section 4984. of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellant, in his capacity as SDPO, undertook the investigation of the case filed against PW1. During the course of the investigation, Appellant arrested PW1 on 25.7.2006 and presented him before the court for remand, leading to PW1's suspension from service by the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad. Subsequent to his release on bail, PWl approached Appellant, requesting reinstatement into service. However, Appellant stated that he would assist PW1 while filing the charge sheet and indicated that PW1 should be prepared to incur some expenses. It is alleged that on 5.8.2006, at approximately 9:30pm, Appellant, through A2(acquitted accused), made a phone call to PW1, wherein A2 conveyed Appellant's demand for Rs 20,0OO in exchange for reducing the severit5r of the offences in the charge sheet. PW1, citing financial constraints, expressed his inability to pay such an amount. In an effort to negotiate, PW1 visited Appellant's residence, where, upon PW1's request, Appellant agreed to lower the bribe amount to Rs.15,000/-. PW1 reluctantly consented to pay the reduced sum. I 5

4. Unwilling to comply with the bribery demand, PWl approached the Joint Director, ACB, Hyderabad, and reported the incident. The Joint Director directed PW1 to meet DSP, ACB, Karimnagar. C,lnsequently, on 10.8.2006, at 7:00pm, PW1 submitted a complaint/ExP1 against Appellant to DSP, ACB, Karimnagar.

5. LW13, Sri Laxminarayarra, DSP, ACB (not exa.mined), received the complaint ald conducted discreet inqrriries into its authenticit5r and the reputalion of Appellant. These inquiries indicated that Appellant had a corrupt background and was kno',vn for having a bad reputation. Subsequently, LW13 registered the case as Cr. No. 11/ACB-KNRl2006 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Cormption Act on 11.8.2006 at 6:30 am against Appellant and took charge of the investigation. During the investigation, LW13 secured the presence of mediators, PW2 and LW3, A. Ravinder Rao.

6. On 11.8.2006, at 7:OO arn, LWl3 IDSP, alon6; with mediators PW2 and LW3, as well as inspectors PW11 and LW15-Madhu Mohan-and P\V1, assembled at the Guest IJouse, Armoor, Nizamabad, where they conducted the pre-trap proceedings, which 6 is ExP3. Following the completion of the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party, comprising LW13, PW2, LW3, PW11, LW15, and PW1, proceeded to the ofhce-cum-residence of Appellant. Around 8:35 am PW1 entered Appellant's office-cum-residence and met Appellant in his master bedroom. Upon Appellant's demand, PW1 offered the tainted amount of Rs. 15,000/- to Appellant, but Appellant refused to accept it and instead instructed PW1 to hand over the amount to A2, who also refused to accept it. Subsequently, Appellant allegedly directed PWl to place the amount on the table in his bedroom. PW1 came out from the premises and relayed signal indicating demand and acceptance of bribe, upon which LW13, accompanied by the trap parry, entered into the office-cum- residence of Appellant and knocked on the door of Appellant's master bedroom. Appellant emerged holding a shaving bmsh in his right hand and a bundle wrapped in a newspaper in his left hand. Upon noticing the trap party officials, he allegedly placed the bundle on the washbasin platform affixed to the wall of the master bedroom. I I 1

7. LW13 apprehended Appellant and conducted a phenolphthalein test separately on both of Appellant's hands. The left-hand wash turned pink, whereas the right-hand wash remained colorless. At the instance of Appellant, the tainted currency amounting to Rs.15,OO0/- was recovered from the washbasin neal Appellant's master bedroom, where it was found wrapped in a local newspaper. LWl3 also conducted chemical tests on the contact portions of the local newspaper and the table cover, both of which yielded positive results. The post-trap proceedings were completed and recorded in Ex.P4. 8. Appellant denied the allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.15,O00/- from PWI in exchange for an official favor. He asserted that, based on a complaint filed by pW1,s wife, a case was registered against PWl, and Appellant, upon conducting the investigation, arrested PW1 on 25.7.06 and produced. him for remand- Appellant stated that he had completed the investigation and forwarded the charge sheet to V Town pS, Nizamabad, for filing in the concernerl court, leading PWl to develop a grudge against him and falsely implicate him in the trap case.

9. The defence of the appellant is that PWl, being fully aware that Appellant had submitted the charge sheet against him, lodged a false complaint with DSP, ACB, LWi3 on 1O.8.2006. As of

10.8.2006, Appellant had no pending official favor to extend to PW1, and therefore, the question of demand and acceptance of a bribe from PWl did not arise,

10. Learned defence counsel marked trx.Di, which is PWl's statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in Cr. No. 97 12O06, subsequently numbered as S.C. No. 26 of 2007.In Ex.Dl, PW1 stated that Appellant had signed the charge sheet on 10.8.2006. Additionally, the defence contended that as per Ex.D1, PW1 alleged that Appellant had initially demanded Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-

11. In this case, it is to be determined, firstly, whether Appellant had already fiied the charge sheet before 11.8.2006 or if he waited until 11.8.2006 to receive the bribe from PW1 before filing the charge sheet with reduced charges, and secondly, whether the charge sheet, irrespective of when it was liled, contained minim2ed offences or accurately reflected the charges alleged against PW1. !: l l I I I i I I 9

12. PW1 deposr':d that he had approached Appellant with a request to pursue his r,:instatement orders, admitting that Appellant did not act on this request. PWl deposed that Appellant assured he would reduce the severity of the case. However, PW1 denied ever requesting Appe..lant to do him any favors, given Appellant's role as the investigating ofhcer in the case filed by PW1's wife.

13. As per the lestimonies of PWs 1, 3, and 9, Appellant could only fi1e the charge sheet after completing the investigation. PW5 deposed that trx.P6 is the CD file in Cr. No. 97 12006. Appellant's investigation in the said case is evident from Ex.P6. As per the evidence of PWs, 9 and 12, it is clear that Appellant was ready with a draft charge sheet on 9.8.2006 and forwarded it to PW9 for corrections. The draft charge sheet included Sections 498-A IPC, 3 and 4 of the Do.,vry Prohibition Act, and S.3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act. PW9 made only one correction---changing S.3(1)(xi) to S.3(1)(x)-and then approved the charge sheet. Since PW5 had registered the orse under Sections 498-A IPC, 3 and 4 of the DP Act, and S.3(1)(>:) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, the correction made by PW9 was minor, as these Sections were already cited during 10 registration. Further, PW9 categorically deposed that appellant neither reduced nor increased the gravity of the offences during the investigation.

14. If Appellant had truly demanded a bribe to minimize the offences, he would not have prepared and forwarded the draft charge sheet on 9.8.2006, prior to receiving the bribe. Instead, he would have withheld it under the pretext of an incomplete investigation. The evidence on record confirms that the investigation was completed, and Appellaat prepared and forwarded the draft charge sheet to PW9 for approval. No witness has testified that Appellant intentionally withheld forwarding the charge sheet on 10.8.2006 until the trap date, i.e., 11.8.2006. Moreover, PW11 admitted that the DSP does not personally hand over charge sheets to the concerned police station but sends them through subordinates. The prosecution has not examined any witness to establish whether Appellant directed a subordinate to file the charge sheet on 10.8.2006 or deliberately withheld it. A one-day delay before the trap on 1 1.8.2006 cannot automatically be construed as intentional withholding of the charge sheet. PW3 I i 11 I deposed that on 9.11.2006, the V Town Police, Nizamabad, Iiled the charge sheet in Cr. No. 97 12006 for offences under Section 498-4 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the DPAct, and S.3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act against PW1, based on his wife's complaint. The evidence of PW3 conhrms that the Sections mentioned in Appellant's draft charge sheet were identical to those in the final charge sheet filed in court. This further establishes that Appetlant had prepared the draft charge sheet on 9.8.2006-prior to receiving any bribe- without reducing the offences and had already forvuarded it to pW9. Further, PW1 admitted that Appellant filed the charge sheet in accordance with the Sections cited in the FIR.

15. PW2, independent mediator admitted that pW1 did not disclose that Apoellant was the investigating officer in the 498,4. IpC case filed against him by his wife. Why would pW1 suppress such crucial informat on. If the infor-rnation was given to the DSp, it may have had an impact on the decision to lay the trap. As per Exp1, Appellant allegedly demanded money to minimize the offences in the case against PW1. Ex.P6, the CD Iile, and pW9,s testimony about the draft charge sheet indicate that Appellant had already 12 completed his officia,l duties regarding the case. It can be safely t inferred that no ofhcial favour was pending with the appellant.

16. P.W. 1 stated that A2 (acquitted accused) called P.W. 1 and informed that DSP asked A.2 to inform P.W. 1 to meet the appellant. ,A.2 aLso stated that the appellant was going to hle charge sheet against P.W. 1 and if the bribe amount was given, the case would be diluted. P.W. 12, investigating officer states that the telephone call details does not confirm that appellant ca-lled P.W. 1 on 05.08.2006. However, from the record, it is evident that P.W. 1 made a ca-l1 on

05.08.2006 to the DSP Office from his cell phone No.93965 93933 to the land line number bearing No.8462231960. P.W.7 stated that it was P.W. 1 who contacted the appellant on 10.08.2006 from P.W. 1's cel1 phone. The prosecution did not file any evidence of A2's phone number. P.W. 1 asserted that he did not make a call to the landline of the appellant on 10.08.2006, however, P.W.7 on the basis of the call records stated that P.W.1 called to the iand line of the appellant. Since the prosecution did not prove that any call was made by ,A.2 to P.W. 1 on 05.O8.2006, the allegation of demand on the said date becomes doubtful. Moreover, P.W. l2/investigating i I 13 , t officer admitted during cross-examination that he did not have any evidence to shorv that P.W. 1 met the appellant on 05.08.2O06.

17. The prose,:ution's case is that PWl entered Appellant's oflice- cum-residence. and when he was about to pick up the tainted amount from his shirt pocket, Appellant stopped him, called 42, and directed A.2 to collect the same. However, A.2 refused to collect it and instead asked Appellant to collect it. When PWL was about to hand over the talnted amount to Appellant, he was instructed to place it on a teapoy covered with a polythene sheet, which also had a Christian idol placed on it. PW1 then placed the amount on the teapoy, came out, and gave the signal.

18. PW1's testimony is doubtful due to discrepancies regarding the alleged demirad by Appellant on 5.8.2OO6 and the official favor sought. Therefore, independent corroboration is necessary. However, aparl from PW1's testimony, no other evidence corroborates the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe by Appellant. 14

19. According to the evidence of P.W.2, the two constables present in Appellant's house were not questioned. The failure to examine these two constables at the scene to ascertain what transpired between Appellant and PW1 raises concerns. This is particularly signilrcant as one of the constables was A2, and according to PW1, I Appellant initially asked ,A.2 to receive the amount, but A2 refused, leading PW1 to place the amount on the table. However, Ex.P4 does not contain A2's version to corroborate PW1's testimony or dtherwise, nor does it include the version of the other constable.

20. In this context, it is aiso crucial to note that PW2 admitted that Appellant stated to the DSP that he neither demanded nor accepted any amount from PWl. Furtherrnore, PW11 also admitted that Appellant spontaneously told the DSP that he never demanded or accepted any amount from PWl. Even in Ex.P4, Appellant's verslon ls a complete denia,l of demand and acceptance. When questioned by DSP, ACB, regarding the bribe amount allegedly received from PW1, Appellant denied having received any amount from the complainant. From the evidence on record, it is clear that, 15 the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by Appellalt beyond reasonable doubt.

21. According to PWs L,2, and 11, pW1 had placed the amount on the table. However, when the trap party entered, the amount was found wrapped in a newspaper on the wash basin. Firstly, it is not the case of the prosecution that PWl placed the tainted amount in a newspaper. Assuming that Appellant wrapped the tainted amount in,the newspaper, then both of his hands shoul<l have yielded a positive result. PW11 himself admitted that it is not possible to wrap money inside a newspaper using only one hand. He further stated that the person who placed the amount inside the newspaper must have wrapped it using both hands, which would. have led to phenolphthalein particles transferring to the outer portion of the newspaper. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish who wrapped the tainted amount in the newspaper.

22. Regarding the recovery, the prosecution,s evidence does not clearly establish that the amount was recovered at Appellant,s instance. The evidence shows that after conducting phenolphtharein tests on Appellant's fingers, DSP, ACB, instructed LW3 to veri$r the I j I I 1 .: I a , l l i 16 newspaper, and LW3 found the tainted amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Moreover, PW. 11 admitted that if a person had wrapped the tainted amount in the newspaper, the outer surface would also contain phenolphthalein particles. However, the prosecution only tested the contacted portion of the newspaper, while the rest was not subjected to any test, as deposed by P.W. 11. Thus, the recovery of the amount was not conclusively linked to Appellant. Furthermore, the prosecution's case is that the tainted amount found inside the newspaper was recovered from the wash basin. However, the testimonies of PWs 1,2, and 11 indicate that PW1 had placed the amount on the table in the master bedroom.

23. As already discussed, it remains unclear who wrapped the bundle in the newspaper. Since the evidence establishes that Appellant could not have wrapped the bundle, as only one of his hands yielded a positive result, the fact that the amount was recovered in a newspaper on the wash basin cannot be a basis to infer that Appellant had knowledge of the newspaper bundle or had placed it on the wash basin. Even assuming that Appellant placed the newspaper bundle containing the tainted amount on the wash 1-7 basin after seeing the ACB officials, as stated by pW2 and pW1 1, the prosecution failed to clearly establish the exact location of the wash basin. while PW2 and PWl1 stated that it was near the door, this was not depicted in the rough sketch. pwl1 a-lso admitted that the table, wash basin, and newspaper were not shown in the sketch. However, PW2 deposed that the tainted amount was recovered from the platform of the wash basin, despite pw1 stating to DSP that he had placed the amount on the table in the master bedroom.

24. Furthermore, Appellant's defense remained consistent, as pW2 admitted that when questioned by DSp, ACB, regarding the tainted amount, Appella,t stated that he did not know how the amount appeared on the wash basin platform. pwl1 also admitted that Appellant spontaneously told DSp that he was unaware of how the currency notes wrapped in the newspaper ended up on the wash basin platform. 25- The invol'ement of p.w. 1 in the criminal case registered against him by his wife is not disputed. Appellant ar-rested him and a i l I l :: l : i 18 produced him before the Court. Further, the charge sheet was already sent to P.W.9, who was the then Public Prosecutor. It is his evidence that the appellant did not reduce the gravity of the offence or increase the gravity of the offence during the course of investigation. The core issue for which reason complaint was lodged is that the appellant promised to help in reducing the gravit5r of the offence while filing the charge sheet. The said allegation cannot be believed when the undisputed evidence of P.W.9 is looked into.

26. The Court has to look into the case in its entirety including the back ground of the case. The appellant having aiready concluding investigation and sending charge sheet to P.W.9 would only indicate that he had done his investigation in the normal course, as such, the question of demanding amount for reducing the gravity of the offence or helping in filing the charge sheet as claimed in the complaint becomes doubtful. In the present circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved that there was a demand of bribe. As already discussed, the recovery aspect is also suspicious. For the said reasons, the appellant succeeds. ----a. 19

27. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No. 122 of 2O15 dated 29.06.2018 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stands discharged. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

28. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR ) SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Surender (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal) \ To, if any) 1 . The Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases at Karimnagar (with records,

2. The lnspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar 3. '1 'l LR Copies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

5. The Secretary. Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

6. One CC to Sri T Bala [\/ohan Reddy, Special public prosecutor for ACB loPUCl

7. One CC to Sri Nyayapathi Prashant, Advocate tOpUCI 8. Two CD Copies VA/gh w- HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1889 of 2018 1HE Sr4 f, rJ 2 B npn Zrtzl f( F (. t o(.! n tr *1" ,'o ALLOWING THE CRLA @ IY lrK ^b