The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A. Viswanath Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala (Standing Counsel SPL PP for ACB) The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: ..--.....- TITE HONoURABLE sRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMIN AL APPEAL NO.287 OF 2o09 JUDGM ENT: The appellant rvho workecl as Mandal Revenue Inspector was convicted fcr- the offence under Sections 7 & 13(1)(cl) r/w.section 13(2) of ther prevention of Corr,ption Act, 19gg and s,:ntenced to undergo on€ year Rigorous Imprisonment Lrncler t,c,tl_r counts. Questioning; the said conviction, present appeal was filed. 2. Heard ljri A.Viswanath, learned counsel fbr thc appellant and Special public prosecutor for ACB appeannrq for the respondent iSt ate

3. PW. 1 rs the defacto complainant. According to him, he approache<l the appellant_Accused Officer on 02.O2..2OO2 and requested to enter his name ancl his brothers nanrt:s in the Pahanis, Ro R regrster, on the basis of Civrl Cou rl ,s order. Appellant lh,:, .11.*"O,y demanded Rs.1g,O0O/ as bribe for making relevant entries into the RoR register and also for issuance of Pattedar F,ass Books ancl Title Deeds. pW. I agair met the appellant on 06_02.2OO2 at his house and appellant insi:;ted that an amount c,f Rs. 1O,OO0 /- had_ to be paid at his r.rffice on 08 .O2.2OO2 anrl the remaining amount after completion of the entries in the re.,rr:nue records 4

4. PW. 1 then approached the DSP, ACB-PW.6 and narrated his grievance to the DSP. Since PW. 1 is illiterate, the complaint was scribed by a constable-PW.3. The complainant was asked to come on 08.02.2002 with the bribe amount and meanwhile, PW 6 caused enquiries into the correctness of the complaint'

5. The complaint was registered on O8'O2'2OO2 at 6 OO A'M' PW.1-complainant, independent mediatot-PW '2, PW 6 and others gathered in the office of PW.6. The independent mediators PW'2 and another enquired about the compiaint with PW l' Thereafter' currency notes were smeared with Phenolphthalein powder' Before going to the trap, what all transpired in the office of PW 6 was drafted, which is Ex.P2-pre trap proceedings'

6. The trap party then went to Sangareddy and reached office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kowdipalli Mandal at 11'15 A'M' PW.2 was asked to accompany PW 1 into the ofhce of the appellant and ',vatch what transpires in between them' At about 1 1.3O A.M. both PWs. 1 and 2 entered into the ofhce and at 1 1 45 A.M., PW. I came out and relayed signal to the trap party indicating the acceptance of bribe by the appellant'

7. PWs.2, 6 and other trap party members went into the office- PW.6 in troducecl himself to the appellant and then Sodium 5 Carbonate liolution test was conducted on both hands of the appellant. I.:st on both hands of the appellant provecL positive. On questioning, the money was handed over by the appellant from his pant pocke t

8. The r:o tplainant, appellant and other office mr:tnbers were examined by pW.6 during post_trap proceedings and their statements v.rere also recorded in the second mediator,s report which was rnirrked as Ex.p6. 9 ' The ap,pe ant on being asked about the relevant crocuments, handed over Ilx.p3-pahani Register and trx.p4-Form l./ register of the office, to the DSp, which were seized.

10. The in.i,r:stigation was handed over to pW.7 Inspector, by P.W.6, who cc)ncluded investigation and after obtainir:g, sanction from the competent authority filed charge sheet. 11 The leanrr:d Special Judge on the basis ol rhe tridence of PW. 1, PW.2, Ij;<.p3, Ex.p4 and also the recovery on the rlrete of the trap, found theLt the appellant demanded the bribe as I-r(, was the officiating oiTi,ler to do the work of pW. 1 i.e., makrng enr_ries into the revenue records and convicted him accordingl-v. 6 an extent of

12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant would submitthattheCivilCourtpassedJudgrnent'wherebythe the peaceful defendants were restrained from interfering with possession of the plain tiff / complainant herein, to Ac.1.9 guntas out of Ac.2.18 guntas situated at Chandoor Village Mandal, Kowdipally District, Medak' Counsel further argued that no evidence was placed on record to show that the family owned more than 6 acres antl that an application was made to effect entries in the revenue records Once there is no evidence of giving an application, the question of any pending work with the appellant does not arise. The appellant during the course of post- trap proceedings explained that the amount was thrust into his pocket, however, talse averments were made in the second mediators report. Since the application which was claimed to have been filed by PW. 1 was not placed on record' the conviction has to be set aside- 1 3. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in C.M.Girish Babu o' C'B'I'' Cochia r' In the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court whiie accepting the defence of the accused, held that the burden on accused can be proved by preponderance of probability' ' nra zoos sc zozz 7

74. ln punjabrao a. Sae oJ MaharoLshra2, th,: Honourable Supremc Crturt helcl that the eXplanation given in his 313 Cr.p.C. examinatiorr can also be looks6 into. Further, the rl:fence of an accused ne€ i not be established beyond reasonable doubt. 15. In T.Ramesh Redd.g u. State of And.hra pradeshs this Court helcl that solitary testirp6ny of the defacto comp.ainant was not free frorn infirmities. Further, the evidence rvas not wholly reliable and there was no corroboration, 1br whir:h reason, convlction vra s set aside th rugh the traced, horvever, Exs.p3

16. Learned public prosecutor argued that application r,r.a s not maintained in the revenue office reflected that PW. I and his brothers owrr ntore than 6 acres of land and the name s were not mutated in tlLe revenue records, nor pass books we re issuecl Since the n,orl: was pending rvith the appellant, the the learned Spt:<:ial Judge was proper. and I) 1-registers conviction by 77 . The Inve stigating Officer_pW.7 examination ers follows; admitted clurr ng CTOSS_ "I did rLot trA to secure the copA of registerecl sale cleed under tt,hich. pW. I and his brothers satd to l,.rtue AIR 2002 Supreme Court 186 2010(1) ArD (crt.)3al (ppr 8 purchased 6 acres 15 guntas of land in Chandur Village to know uhether the PW.l uersion is true or not. Similarlg, I did not attempt to secure the copg of decree or judgment giuen by the Junior Ciuil Judge in fauour of PW.1 to knotu uhether PW.1 has ftled suit before the Junior Ciuil Judge and got decree or judgment in his fauour pertains to 6 Acres 15 guntas of land, situated at Chandur Village. I did not seize the intuard registers of MRO office pertains to the releuant peiod, to know LDas there anA application fteld by PW.1 for enteing his name and his brothers name in Pahani, and RoR to proue thot PW-l has submitted the application. "

18. The genesis of the complaint is that an application was made by PW.1 for the purpose of making entries into the revenue records. Admittedly, no such application which was claimed by PW. 1 to have been made to the MRO, is filed. None of the office records speak about such application being made by P.W- 1 and further, the employees of the office also did not state about any application being made by PW. 1.

19. PW.2 and the DSP/ P.W.6 admitted that no proof of applicatron being fi1ed into the MRO office was provided by PW 1, either at the time of frling complaint Ex. P I or at the time of the 7 9 first media,ors report. The order of the Civil Court rvhich was later mar.ke I as Ex. D 1 , was also not provided to the t)Sp 20. PW.2 ivas examined as a witness to spcak about his accompanl.ir-rq pW. 1 into the office and witncsslng tlre appellant accepting brilte which was received by the appellant and kcpt in his right sidr: pant pocket.

21. During cross_examination of pW.2, he admit _r,ci that he acted as me,cliator in four other ACB trap cases. He further admitted thi11 : "No in:;tructions Luere giuen to me bg the DSp ACL.|, in tlrc ACB olf .tce to follow pW.l and obserue euents thttt took plctce betueen pW. 1 and A.O. Nouhere it is mentut,te:d. in post t rc:Lr:' proceedings Ex.p6 that I entererl the MRO office at Koudopallg along u_tith complainant (pW. l). On 1t<:rusal of the pahani books of 19g2_g3 to 2OoO_2Oot of the MRO Kottdapallg the name of pW. I tuas entererT and st.otoed in Srg.!,1o.57/ I tuith the ertent land hotdirtg I A:re 20 quntos ltlt pW. 1. After receiuing the signal immecliately Si Surga Rat Inspector ACB rushecl into the office MR(.t and caughr h:.old the hands of the AO. The A repr.esented that @DsP% r acce t anll bibe ary.,:!-Lnt from the conplaino !'w.1 handetT ,ct4:r the uad of currenctl notes bu rertresctttinq that it C''NSTS1 o Rs. lO 000 ma (.iou tuho is natt ueof his uillaqeasAO asked sent b Si Blrco o d h.im toutr trd.s - 1 10 hand loan. When the DSP A CB asked PW.l about the uersion of AO, he also con rrned the same The office of the MRO was thoroughlg checked bg the ACB officers for the ctpplication of PW.1, but in all in uain' The entire staff of the office of MRO including the AO clearly represented that PW.l did not file ang application to the MRO for issuance of RoR Books."

22. From the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.6 and PW'7, the following emerge; 1) No enquiry was made in respect of PW. 1 and his famiiy members owning land to the extent of Ac.6. 15 guntas prior to the trap or during post trap proceedings. 2) During the course of post-trap proceedings, neither the application was found, nor any of the witnesses in the office including the MRO stated that PW. I had made any application for issuance of RoR books.

23. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any work pending with the appellant to be completed in favour of PW. 1 and his family members.

24. PW .2 - mediator admitted that at the time of post-trap proceedings, the appellant stated that he did not demand or - 1 77 accept an\/ bribe, but accepted the amount towarcls lc,an that r.vas arranged try DW. 1-Bhooma Goq6.

25. [n la:1, pW.2 stated that the said explanation E,iven by the appellant dr;ring post trap proqeedings was admitte.l b_v pW. 1. PW.2 u,as not cross-examined by the public prosecLltor, on the basis of his :rdmission made in the Court that pW. t h.ad admitted about hanrliirg over Rs.lO,OO0/-to appellant informinyl that it was the amount sent by Bhooma Goud.

26. The apprellant examined Bhooma Goud as ilw. l. DW. I in his evidence sta.t,r.l that he gave the amount to p\dr. I requ,:sting him to hand it over to the appellant. Nothing was elicitecl blr the public prosecutor. in the course of cross-examination to discredit the evidence of D\V. 1. 27 . As I'relcl by the Honourable Supreme Cou rt it,r t]rr: cases of C.M.Girish Babu case ond punjabRao,s case ref_errecl supra, the burclen on rhe appellant to explain his defenr:r_, is by preponclerance .f probability. At the earliest poinr of time, as seen from the evrclerce of pW.2, the appellant informed the llSp that the amount $,as received from pW. 1 as it was sent by [),il/. 1. The said version u.€rs not disputed by prosecution. The rrclmitted version was not.,vrilten in the post_trap proceedin gs_Ex.l),5, rvhich 12 ! creates doubt regarding the manner in which the post-trap proceedings were conducted ancl drafted vide Ex.P6.

28. The prosecution failed to prove that P.W.1 applied for cffecting entries in the revenue records. The question o[ any work pending with the appellant does not arise. At the earliest point of time, the appellant explained that the amount of Rs.1O,OO0/- was arranged by D.W.1. The version of receiving Rs.1O,000/- as loan from P.W. 1, which was provided by D.W. 1, was proved by the appellant convincingly.

29. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellant succeeds and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged ..- //TRUE COPY// sd/- K' sRlNlvAsA BAo JOINT REGISTRAR ECTIO N OFFICER o n e F ai r " ?pJ,,fi ,S i jll: ;iie ill iJ K U RE N D E R TS "'::e To 3 4 6

1. The Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases' City Civil Court at , +il:"ti"lxo"ctor of Police, Anti-corruption Bureau' Nizamabad Range' t,nco?"st""r"ory' Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and company Nizamabad 1'1 L h t[3's;]'?Y"R'i'1'"''nn'n';nq&3gi3g1.i':1,fi Court for the State ot I elan( 3ffi 33 3 Sllt.Y'l'#il,iil ilIix8li],?l'on'n b 7 8. Two CD CoPies P' VH/PR HIGH COURT DATED: 3110112025 6 JUDGMENT GRLA.No.287 ot 2009 r q o t - =-.-.--: i'i li r: .5 i,. o ( L^ 01,;i,, 2u25 ((. * o ALLOWING THE APPEAL .1,.64 - *"'