The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1828 OF 2OO9 JUDGMENT: 1. The appelta:tlAl was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under Sections 7 and 1.3(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2), and A.2 wls convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months untle: Section 12 rlw Section 7 of the F'revention of Corruption Act 1988 vide judgment in C.C.No.61 of 2005, dated

18.12.2009, passed by the learned Principal Speciz'Ll Judge for trial of SPE zurd ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved b1' th.e said conviction, the appellants filed the present appeal.

2. Heard Sri C.Sharal Reddy, learned Coun,;el for the appellants ancl Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Pubhc Prosecutor for l\(lB.

3. Briefly, ttLe case of the prosecution is that t'.W. 1 is the complainant. r\c,:ording to him, he purchased a residential apartment in Srinivasa Nagar, Secunderabad, an,:l he got it registered in .[tr,: name of his daughter, Meenalrumari (not examined). Afte r ,rccupying the apartment, for the purpose of tax 2 'i' i. assessment, he approached MCH office at Secunderabad on

26.02.2004. A,1 was working as the Tax Inspector. Upon enquiry, A1 informed that Rs.3,43Ol- tax has to be paid. On 27.O2.2OO4, P.W. 1 again met A1 at 3.30 p.m in his ofhce, and A1 allegedly demanded Rs.2,500/- towards bribe to process the application for the transfer of ownership of the document in the name of Meenakumari. Aggrieved by the said demand for bribe, P.W. 1 went and met the DSP, ACB/P.W.S, and gave trx.P1-complaint. P.W.5 then asked P.W. 1 to come on the next day, i.e., on

28.O2.2004.

4. On 28.02.2O04, the trap party assembled in the ofhce of DSP, ACB. P.W.2 is an independent mediator, who was summoned by the DSP to act as a witness to the trap proceedings. P.W.2 was asked to accompany P.W. 1 when he meets ,{1 to obserwe what transpires between them. The trap proceedings were concluded in the oflice of the DSP around 2.30 p.m. Thereafter, the trap party left for MCH ofhce. They reached the MCH ofhce, Secunderabad at 3.3O p.m. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 went inside the off,rce. A1 then gave a receipt to P.W. 1 to obtain a photocopy of the said receipt. Both P.Ws.l and 2 came out and informed the DSP, and after taking the photocopy, they again - 3 entered the chzrmbers of A1. There, A.2 was present in the room of A1. A1 took the photocopy from P.W.1, and de:rranded the bribe. While P.Vr'. 1 was giving the amount to A 1 , A 1 ,rsked P.W. 1 to handover the amount to A2. A2 took the amount aed kept it in his pocket, and thereafter, P.W.1 went outside and c'onveyed the signal to the trap party indicating the demand and a,:ceptance of the bribe amount

5. The DSP arrd other trap party members then entered the office and enquired with P.W. 1, and P.W.1 informed that he handed over the amount to A2 at the instance of A1. A test was conducted on .[lLr: hands of A2, which turned posit.ve, and the amorrnt was recovered from the pant pocket of A2.'lhe relevalt papers, includi.ng made up hle of P.W.1- trx.P8 rvere seized.

6. The post tr':lp proceedings were concluded in the ofhce of MCH, and thereafter, the investigation was han<led over to P.W.6/Inspectcr. P.W.6 concluded the investigation, and filed a charge sheet against A1 and 42.

7. Learned fipecial Judge, having recorded the evidence on both sides and having considered the version of the prosecution and the accused, found both A1 and A2 Cuilty. 4

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would subrnit that as per the evidence of P.W. 1, ,A1 gave him a handwritten chit on 26.02.2004 stating that Rs.3,43O I - had to be paid as tax. The s€une was not prodriced before the Court even though P.W. 1 deposed that he gave the same to the ACB officials. P.W. 1 deposed that on the date of the trap, he gave the cheque and other documents to A,1. A1 issued Ex.P2 (same as that of Ex.Pi2a) receipt, and asked P.W. 1 to get a Xerox of the sarne. However, P.W.4 deposed that the said receipt was in the hand writing of one Narsaiah, (not examined) bill collector, and it contained his signature. Hence, the evidence of P.W. 1 that he gave the cheque and other documents to ,A.1 ald that A'1 asked him to get a Xerox of the same is false.

9. Learned counsel argued t}:,at A2 is a private person, who is working as al assistant to one Suresh, Bill Collector, for Rs.SO/- per day. He is not a known person to ,{1. P.W.4 deposed that he saw A2 for the hrst time in the ofhce on the date of the trap. He deposed that he also saw A1 crying, stating that he did not do anything and that he did not demand any bribe. It was suggested to P.W.S that when P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Xerox 5 shop, they met the trap party and informed them thert A1 did not demand any bribr:

10. Learned counsel submits that P.W.4 deposed rhat the Bill Collector and th,: Tax Inspector are not responsible :br mutation proceedings. P.r'\/ 5 admitted that it is the Commissioner, who is competent to issue mutation proceedings. P.W.2 admitted that there is no specific mention in the post trap proceedings that he accompanied P.W.1 into the office of A1 a-fter taking photo copy of Ex.P2. Hence, 1-hc evidence of P.W.2 that he was art eye-witness to the demand :lnd acceptance cannot be accepted, The entire case of the prosecution 1S false and A1 has lreen falsely implicated thou.gtL he has nothing to do with P.W. 1's file. Instead of examining or prosecuting Narsaiah, 8il1 Collector, who signed on Ex.P2 ancl asked P.W. 1 to get Xerox copy, A I has been implicated. i1. Learned counsel, in support of his argumehts, relied on the following judgments: a) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra I>:adesh and anotherl t 120151 10 Sup.e.e Coi.rrt C.r:es 152 ) 6 b) V.Sejappa v. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga2 c) C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kera_la3 L2. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the ACB would submit that the amount of Rs.2,SOO/- u,as received as a bribe for taking care of the entire proceedings relating to the transfer of ownership in favour of the daughter of P.W"l. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, that A1 was not competent to mutate the name of the beneficiary is of no consequence.

13. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi and othersa. The Honble Supreme Court was dealing with a case wherein the trial Court had convicted the accused. However, the conviction was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hontrle Supreme Court set aside the finding of the High Court, and restored the conviction recorded by the trial Court mainly on the basis that the burden placed on the accused, against whom the presumption under Section 20 of '120161 t2 Supreme court cases 150 t 12oo91 3 Suprere court cases 779 120181 9 Supreme court cases 242 o 7 the Act applies, u.as not discharged even by the preponderarce of probability, alrl there was no explanation to rebut such presumption.

14. P.W. 1 altl P.W.2 entered the office of the appeilalts and met A1. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, A1 received the cheque drawn towards tztx, issued the receipt, and asked P. W. 1 to get a photocopy. It is not the case that when P.W, 1 hrst rr.et A1, there was aly demanct by A1. Without demanding the irmount, the receipt/Ex.P12a ,,vas passed on. According to P.Ws. i and 2, the receipt/trx.P12re. which is the duplicate of trx.P2 ltr:hotocopy of the receipt, u,,as issued by .{1. However, P.W.4 stal.ed that the receipt was in the hand writing of Narsaiah. It is artmitted that the said Narsalah was working in the same office, however, the said Narsaiah 'wa.s not examined by ACB. The version of P.W.4 that the receipt uas written by Narsaiah was not disl.ruted by the prosecution. In the receipt/Ex.P2/Pl2a, the details oi-the cheque given by P.W. 1 zre recorded. Both P.Ws.l and 2 canne out with the receipt, informed the DSP, and again went insi<le the ofhce after taking the photocopy. P.W. 1 and P.W.2 admitter'l that it was A1 who wrote ttLe receipt Ex.P2/Pl2a ald hande<l it over to (' 8 P.W. 1, which statements are incorrect, when evidence of P.W.4 is considered.

15. P.W. 1 in his chief examination stated "AO1 issued a receipt and asked to take a Xerox copg of the receipt from outside." P.W.2 stated in his cross-examination that "AO1 scribed the prouisional receipt."

16. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that what transpired in the office was deliberately suppressed by P.Ws.l and 2 appears to be correct. No reasons are given as to why Narsaiah, who has written the receipt, was not examined. It is further not clear as to why P.Ws.l and 2 suppressed the fact that the receipt was written by Narsaiah and deliberately gave a false version that it was A1 who had issued the receipt.

17. P.W.2, in his cross-examination, stated that there is no mention in the post-trap proceedings that, after P.W. 1 obtained the Xerox copy of the receipt ald while entering the office for the second time, P.W.2 also accompanied P.W. 1. P.W.2 specifically stated that it was A1, who scribed the provisional receipt Ex.P2/Pl2a. The defence of the appellants is that A'1 was falsely implicated, and on the date of the trap, there was no demand and / I 9 acceptance by 41, and that the amount was forcibl5.thrust into the pocket of A12

18. P.W. 1 admitted in his cross-examination as follows: "Com.miss,iarLer is the competent authoitg to issue the proceedingls;. AO1 is the tax inspector. His dutg is to collect house tax."

19. P.W.4 admitted in his cross-examination as foilows: "As per th'e .4ct, Commissioner is the competent p,zrson to issue Mutatic n orders and h,e can also delegate tc DeputA Commissiorur. AOl is no taag concented u-tith the inulation orders. Narsaiah BiIl Collector is the in charge of th.e \A/ard-11 Block-3, Sn'niuasnagar. Ex.P12is the prouisional recetpt book, is in the han-d u.triting of Narsaiah. Ex.P12(a) is als:o in the hand witirLg of Narasaiah a.nd it also contain the signature."

20. P.W.5 adrrritred in his cross-examination as follo,,rrs "It is tnte rCommissioner Municipality is alone comtr.'etent to issue the mutation proceedings. . . .. I haue not :;e'ized ang slip giuen bg AO1 to P.V/.l else to giue the particular s of tax amount. I am not anuare tuhether the receipts Ex.PL2 are not scibed bg AO1. .. As per the re':ord A2 is attached to a bill collector 7.'A narne Suresh."

21. Admittedly', A'1 was not the competent pers(rn to issue mutation orders, but it was the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, raxd further, .A1 was in no way concerned with the mutation orders. It is to the knowledge of p.W. 1 that the ,l 10 Commissioner is the competent authority to issue the proceedings, and A1 was the Tax Inspector and his duty was to collect tax. When it is within the knowledge of P.W. 1 that A.1 was not competent to issue mutation proceedings, it is not known as to why P.W. 1 did not meet anyone else in the ofhce for the mutation proceedings. The alleged demand was made on

27.O2.2OO4, the complaint was filed at 5.45 p.m on the same day, and the trap was arralged on the afternoon of the next day. Narsaiah, who had executed the receipt, was not examined by the prosecution. The version given by PWs.1 and 2 tltat A1 had scribed the receipt, is incorrect. Even according to the prosecution version, P.W. t had knowledge that A1 was not the competent person to issue mutation proceedings. All these factors collectively give rise to doubt about the correctness of the demand for a bribe by A1. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that A1 had demanded bribe from P.W.1.

22. As held bv Hon'ble Supreme Court in severa-l judgments, including P. Satyanarayana Murthy's case (supra), the recovery of the amount divorced from the circumstances is of no 11 consequence. Ac:cordingly, beneht of doubt is extereded to the appellants.

23. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in (1.C.No.61 of 2005, dated lll l2.2OO9 is set aside, and the apnellants afe acquitted. Sincr: the appellants are on bail, their baii bonds shall stand discharged.

24. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed SDi- T. JAYASREE DEPUTV REGISTRAR / I I \l \i Y //TRUE COPY// sECTtoN oFF|CER 'o'', The Prir'rcioal slrecial Judge for sPE and ACB cases' City 3ivil Court' at HYderabacl. ('vYirh records) z ii"inrr."t3, ' l eotice nia cn-tt Range' Hyderabad ; o"; Cc to S,i. (l sharan Reddy, Advocate IoPUC] 4. Two CCs io puoric i[secutor'ior ACA' High Courl fo the State of 5. Tvro CD CoPies DL/PSL Telangana a1. [l Tderabad (OUT) HIGH COURT DATED:26103i2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1828 of 2009 5 .i,,1 \ e i3 09 Arlr 2025 * Dt-5D1r( ---;= l-. ) ,. ( J .\ l ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL W{