The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O42 OF 2O1O JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.58 of 2004 dated

31.08.2010, passed by the Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Heard Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB,

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant, while working as the Junior Assistant in the offrce of District Educational Office, Sangareddy, demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.10,000/- from P.W. 1 for preparation of the first phase of the transport bill in respect of the supply of National Text Books by P.W. 1 in month of May 2OO2. The demand was made for obtaining a demand draft for providing transportation of text books and was 2 meant to be delivered to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 went to the ACB Office and met P.W.6/DSP, and lodged a Telugu written complaint Ex.Pl. In the complaint, P.W.1 narrated that he transported National Text Books in 45 Mandals of the District by engaging 2 lorries, and as per the transport agreement, he was entitled to an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- towards the transport charges. An amount of Rs.50,O00/- was paid, and the bill for Rs.1,52,702/- was prepared for payment to P.W. 1. However, a demand was made for Rs.i0,O00/- by the appellant towards a bribe' When the appellant refused to hand over the demand draft and insisted for payment of the bribe amount, P.W. I approached the ACB, DSP, and Iiled a complaint.

4. On the basis of the complaint filed on 17.IO.2OO2 at 9.00 a.m, the DSP, ACB registered the complaint and laid a trap on

18.70.2002. On the date of the trap, after concluding the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party went to the office of the appellant. Both P.W. 1-complainant and P.W.2-accompanying witness entered the office of the appellant around 12.00 noon, and at about 12.45 p.m, P.Ws.l and 2 came out from the examination wing of the building 3 and went into the office of the DEO at about 1:15 p.m. P.W. I and the appellant came out of the of{ice and left on a motor cycle. After half anhour, i.e., at 1.45 p.m, P.W. l and the appellant returned to the office, and the appellant parked his vehicle in the parking area Thereafter, P.W. 1 and the appellant entered the DtrO's building, and after some time, P.W. I came out and conveyed the pre- arranged signal to the trap party. The trap party then questioned the appellant about the bribe amount, and the same was recovered from him. Test on the hands of the appellant turned positive. Having concluded the post-trap proceedings, the relevant documents were seized. The investigation was then handed over to P.W.7-Inspector of Police, who concluded the investigation, and hled a charge sheet.

5. Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant, even though P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution case, mainly on the ground that the appellant was the person in-charge of handing over the demand draft, the amount of which had to be paid to P.W. 1. 4

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that P.Ws.1, 2, arrd 4 have turned hostile to the prosecution case. There is neither proof of demand nor any evidence to show that there was any pending work with the appellant. In the absence of proof of demand, the recovery of the amount is of no consequence. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments: af P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State ofAndhra Pradesh and anotherl. b) V.Sejappa v. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga2. c) C.M.Girish Babu v Kerala3. CBI, Cochin, High Court of

7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that though it was placed on record that the appellant was transferred from the C- 6 section, however, the prosecution proved that the appellant was looking after C-6 section on the date of the trap. In fact, the hostility of the witnesses is of no consequence, and the documents that were seized during the course of investigation are sufficient to find the appellant Cuilty, which was rightly done by the trial Court. 'J20151 10 srpr"." Court Cases 152 '120161 12 supreme court Cases 150 31200913 supreme Court cases 779 5

8. The case of the prosecution is that the hrst demand was on

76.10.2002 and then again on 77.1O.2OO2. On the same day, i'e', on l7.lO.2OO2, P.W. 1 approached'the DSP, ACB and lodged a complaint. P.W.lldefaclo complainant was examined before the Court at the time of his first chief examination on 29-07.2OOB. He stated that he met the appellant two or three times and the appellant informed that the accounts officer and the DEO were the persons responsible to give the demand draft, and when P.W.1 met the appellant for the fourth time, the appellant handed over the demand draft. The chief examination was deferred since the Court observed that the witness was reluctant to ansrver the questions put by the Special Public Prosecutor. Ex.Pl was marked and the chief examination was deferred.

9. P.W.1was again recalled and examined on 11.09.2008. P.W'1 stated that the bill had to be routed through DtrO, STO and the Accounts Officer. On 14th or 15th October 2OO2, the appellant informed that the work was complete and that only on payment of bribe of Rs.1O,0OO/-, the DD would be handed over to him. P.W.1 informed the appellant that he would pay the share of the appellant 6 and then pursue with the DEO and the Accounts Officer. P.W. 1 then met the D.E.O, who again asked P.W. 1 to meet the appellant. The appellant, in turn, informed that he would hand over Rs.10,OO0/- to the DEO. Thereafter, he went and lodged a complaint against the DEO. However, the trap failed, and the DSP advised P.W. 1 to file a case against the appellant. At this stage, P.W. 1 was declared hostile to the prosecution case. During the course of P.W.1's cross-examination, the version given in the complaint was denied by P.W. 1. However, he stated that after going through the contents of the complaint he signed it, and added that it was the DSP who dictated the complaint. P.W.1, in his cross- examination by the appellant's counsel, admitted that he gave a complaint to the ACB Officials against the DtrO, Srisailam, and that the trap failed. Thereafter, the DSP, ACB dictated the complaint- trx.P1 and obtained P.W. 1's signature. P.W. 1 further admitted that from 09.09.2OO2, P.W.4/Narsimulu was looking after the C6 Section. He further admitted that on 16.10.2002, a cheque for Rs.1,52,702/- was received by him, and it was acknowledged by P.W. 1. P.W.l also verified the signature in the concerned file at page 68. He reiterated that the appellant did not demand any bribe 7 amount.

10. P.W.2 is the accompanying witness who did not state anything about the demand and acceptance by the appellant. However, P.W.2, in his cross-examination, stated that P.W.1 wanted to give a complaint against the DEO and that the appellant did not demand any bribe. On the date of the trap, according to the admission of P.W.2, he met the appellant along with P.W.1, and the appellant informed him that he cannot do any favour since he was transferred from the Section.

11. P.W.3 is the independent mediator who neither accompanied P.W. 1 nor witnessed any demand or acceptance of the bribe by the appellant. P.W.4 is the Junior Assistant who had taken over the C6 Section from the appellant. According to him, the transport bill pertaining to P.W. 1 was handled by the appellant, and P.W.1 used to meet the appellant

12. In his chief examination, P.W.4 stated that he did not witness P.W.1' meeting the appellant. However, he admitted that he had initialed the note hle for the sanction of a bill of Rs. 1,52,707 I - to be 8 paid to P.W.1. The witness was declared hostile, and cross- examined by the public prosecutor. He has denied the suggestions put forth by the public prosecutor. However, P.W.4, in his cross- examination by the counsel for the appellant, admitted that the DEO issued proceedings dated IB.O7.2OO2, entrusting the C6 section to P.W.4, and the said proceedings are marked as Dl. The appellant handed over the detailed charge on 09.09.2002, and the entire records of the C6 section, including the files of P.W. 1, were taken over by P.W.4, and taking over charge is Ex.D2. P.W.4 further admitted that after O9.O9.2OO2 the appellant did not handle files, and there are no signatures of the appellant in the hle of P.W. 1.

13. P.W.6 is the DSP who admitted that he was aware of the DEO, Sangareddy, issuing proceedings on 18.07.2002 entrusting the C6 Section to P.W.4 vide Ex.D1. He a-lso admitted that the charge was taken over by P.W.4 on O9.09.2002, and there were no initials of the appellant after 09.09.2OO2 in the lile of P.W. 1. P.W.6 further admitted that P.W. 1 and others had endorsed on the Iile of P.W. 1 that the DD was received on 16.10.2002 itself. Similarly, P.W.B, who is the Administrative Ofhcer of the DEO, admitted Exs.Dl and 9 D2.

14. The version of the prosecution is that the appellant demanded bribe from P.W. 1 for the purpose of handling the outstanding amount. A11 the witnesses, P.W. 1, P.W.4, P'W.6, and P.W.8, admitted that after O9.O9.2OO2, the appellant did not have any say in the C6 section, where the file of P.W. 1 was pending. P.W. 1 admitted that he received his cheque on 16.1O.2OO2, i'e., two days prior to the trap, and he endorsed it on the file. 1 5. In the background of the hostility of P.Ws. 1 , 2 , and 4, and the admission by the DSP and the Investigating officer that the appellant was not in charge of the C6 section, the question of the prosecution proving demand does not arise. In the absence of proof of demand, and with evidence in the prosecution case itself that the appellant was not in charge of the C6 section, the recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant is of no consequence. P.W.1 admitted that he received the D.D for the outstanding amount on

16.10.2002, which is one day prior to lodging the complaint. The 10 prosecution failed to prove demand and also that the appellant was incharge of the C6 Section.

16. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C C'No'58 of 2004 dated 31.08.2O10, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on baii, his bail ' bonds s ha-ll stand discharged.

17. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed' /TTRUE COPY// SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Special Judge, for SPE and ACB cases, City Civil Court' at Hyderabad

2. The lnspector of Police, ACB, Nizambad, Range' Nizamabad 3. One Ci to Smt. D Sangeetha Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4.TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad (OUT)

5. Two CD CoPies ADK/,DL YY HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1042 ot 2010 ALLOWING THE CRLA g.."{n/> ,!io^' \ o (-) ,--:-:_--=r -.- !ri. STn;-a- i 3 0 NH 2116 * Ds sP,trcH t