The High Court · 2025

counsel for the Appellant: sri Todupunuri Kartikeya Goud represented by Sri P. Prabhakar ReddY CounselfortheRespondent:SriT'BalaMohanReddy,SCSPLPPACBTS The Gourt delivered the following: JUDGMENT :-BF-Z .:'' / HON'BLE SRI JIISTICT K'SURENDER ,CRIM'[NAL APPEAL No'788 OF. 2O1O JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant, '{1 frled this appeal' The trap was la:d against A1 and A2. However, on account of the death of A2' the case was abated againl;t him in the trial Court' 2. The appellanl /A1 was convicted and sentenced t:> undergo rigorous imprisonrnent for a period of six months ancl one yea'r under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) ri w 13(2) of the l?revention of corruptior.r Ac1., 1988, respectively, vide judgment in c'c'No'58 of 2OO5 dated 1o r)6 '2olo'passed by the Principal Spt"cial Judge for SPE & ACB Cases' Hyderabad' Aggrieved by the said conviction, 1.he prr:sent appeal is filed' 3. Briefly, tht: case of the prosecution is that the complainant/P'W'1 was working as a Driver in APSRTC' Karimnagar'-I Dt:pot since 1989' During 1()81-85' while he worked as a driv:r in Asifabad Depot' in the month r.'f November 1985, he vras suspended for irregular marntenance <:'f scheduled timings, ztnd rr departmental enquiry was collducted' A punishment was imposed by way of postponing four increments' Aggrieved.bl'the same' P'W'I approached Labour Ccurt' wherein 2 the Laborrr Court reduced the punishment to postponemerfi of 2 increments. P.W. t handed over the copy of the same to Depot Manager, who promised to look into the matter. During 1990, P.W. 1 observed a pay difference of Rs. 1,300/- between his salary and the salary of his colleague driver Sri Mir Moinuddin, though they were appointed at the same tirne.

4. It is further ttre case of the prosecution that P.W. l/complainant approached ,A.1 for rectifying his sa-lary and also for claiming arrea-rs, for which A1/Junior Assistant, who had to process the file, demanded a bribe of R.2,000/-, out of which P.W. 1 agreed to pay Rs. 1,000/-. A.1 processed the frle and sent the sarne to Audit Office, Karimnagar Region. A2lNtdit Superintendent had to process it further, and when P.W' 1 approached A2, A2 demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,O0O/-. When P'W' 1 approached A2, Al was also present, ald when P.W. 1 requested to process the file, both A1 and A2 demanded Rs. 1,OO0/- each and directed P.W. 1 to pay the bribe arnount at Arjun Hotel on

15.09.2003.

5. The complainant/P.W. 1 approached the DSP, ACB on

13.O9.2OO3 and. gave a Telugu written complainant, which is Ex.P4, to the Inspector of ACB, who in turn informed P.W.7/DSP' '{ -:tt:i-Ji8gE.::r;;i,' 3 in the The said cornplairt was scribed by one of the ':onstal>les ACB Office to the narration of P'W'1 P.W.7/TraP Laf ing Of{icer asked P.W. I to come to the ACB Office' Karinrnagar on 15.09.2003. The rr:ime was registered and the trap was arrat'rged on 15.09.2C,03. D:ring the pre-trap proceedi4g.s, P.Ws' 1,2,7 and present. A11 the formalities requil:ed trefore others were followed. The Proceedings were proceeding to ttLe trap were drafted as pre-tr1p proceedings' which is Ex'P6' Tht': trap party then went 1.o thc office of the appellant' 6. P.W.1 went into the oflrce of the appellrrnt, arrd the other trap party memllers took positions at a distance' A1. about 1'O0 p.m, the t:ap piLrly observed that P'W'1' along r'tith A1 and' A2' was comirLg out of the off,rce and going towards Hotr'l Arjun' The ffap party follov'ed them from a distance' Once they reached the Professional Cor-rrier shop on the way' all three of them stopped' anditwa.sobser.vedbythetrappartythatP.w.l,Al,andA2 were talking w,.th each other. The trap par.ty therr found that P.W.l took oul' a wad' of ctrrrency notes fi.om hi:; pocket and offered it t-o tt'e appellant and 42' Both of them received the amount urith 1-t-eir right hands and kept it in their rr'ght-side pant pockets. On conveying the sifri' the trap party sulrounded both Ili 4 A1 and A2 and took them inside the hotel' ,{2 resisted' The appellant/Al rinsed his right-hand fingers in sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink, while the left-hand solution remained colourless. A1 produced the amount from his right-side pant pocket, and on amount of Rs'1,OOO/ was recovered from A1. The test on the right-hand hngers of A2 turned positive' and the left hand remained colourless. An amount of Rs'1'OO0/- was also seized from L2.

7. The version given by Al, A2, and the complainant were all recorded in the post-trap proceedings' The post-trap proceedings were concluded. Ex.PS is the post-trap proceedings' P.W.7 then halded over the investigation to P'W'S' Having 8 concluded the investigation and also obtained sanction for prosecution, a charge sheet was filed against A1 and also against 1'2. g. Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant/Al' and the case against A2 was abated since he died during the course of the trial. .€,::ttxttl--':.t: _]: 5

10. The mtrin cotrtention of the learned counsel for th': appellant is that no vrork uas pend'ing with him and the concerned file of P.W. 1 was sent to the audit in the month of Augpst 20t)3'

11. Learne d cotLnsel for the appellant/A1 submits that even according 1,o P'v/s.2 and 8, in their cross-examirl.ation they admitted that the appellant had informed them ab'rut the file being sent to the audit in the month of August 2OO3 itself' after his part of the processing of the {ile was complete P'Ws'2 and 8 further adrnittecl that, apart from the first instance' the amount was thrusl. into the pocket on the date of trap' ln the said circr-rmstan ces, t,rhen no work was pending with thr: appellant, the question of crlnvicting the appellant does not arise''

12. On the other hand, the learned Special Publir: Prosecutor submits that though the frle was processed by th'e appellant, however, it is the case that both Al/appellant and A2 were responsibl,'- for processing the frle' Both of them harl demanded the bribe iunour.t. only for the reason that the appe:llant passed on the file to ,{2 after his part of the work was complete does not mean that there was no demand for a bribe. He ful:ther argued that, as on the tlate of the trap, the trap party had v"itnessed the passing of the alnount to both the appellant and 42' 6

13. P.W. 1, in his cross-examination, admitted as follows: "The d-ate and time and place is also not mentioned in Ex'P4 as to uhen I met A.O.1 on O2.09'2OO3' Likett-'ise I haue aLso not mentiorrcd in mg 164 Cr.P.C. statem'ent' It i's true that I haue not mentioned. in ig 161 Cr-P.C statement that I haue met A'Os' 1 oni z in tlrc moith of Jutg, 2003 or on o2'o9'2o03 or 15'09'2o03 ioi tn"t theg demaided.-bribe on o2'09'2o03 and directed me to get tle amoint on 15-09.2O03 to Arjun Hotel'". "It is hue th.e reasons leading to mg suspbnAion are mention'ed in Ex.Pl. It is true there are seueral Cen'sures in mg S'R' and amounts toere olso recouered for hauing committed irregulaities and for causing damage to tle uehicles- Th'e same is Ex'PS'" I

14. The back ground of P.W.l is that he was suspended by the Corporation for dereliction of duties' According to P'W'1' he had failed to operate the scheduled services up to Adilabad and' without any instruction from the higher authorities' cancelled the service up to Adilabad from Jangaon and reached Asifabad' Furttrer, the said. act of P.W. 1 resulted in inconvenience to the travelling public. The preliminary enquiry, which was conducted' also proved that the allegations against P'W' 1 were correct' Ex'PS is the service record of P.W. 1.

15. As seen from Ex.PS, the Service Record of tlee complainant reveals a long history of disciplinary actions' The complainant was censured on thirteen occasions, including for causing d.amage to vehicles, absenteeism from duty, obtaining low mileage, and other acts of misconduct' He was placed under -#w7 1 suspension clnce cn 10'12.1985' His pay was reducerl on four occasions, with re,luctions effective from variou s date:; in 1986 and, 1987. H:Ls anr:ual increment was deferred on five r)ccasions' Additionally, mone taqr recoveries were ordered again:';t him on two occasions, amounting to Rs. 75 and Rs' 1000 respectively' for damages causel to offrcial vehicles'

16. The antecedt'nts of P.W.1 are questionable' Further' the evidence ol, dr:roand is also without any in,lependent corroboratiotr. The independent mediator lP'W'2, DSP/P'W'8' P.W. 1/complainal1, ar-rd P.Ws.3 to 5 (department witne:sses) have all admitted that the appellant had completed his part of the job in the proce:;sing of P.W' 1's hle'

17. There is no dispute regarding the appellant being the person responsible for tlLe preparation of bills' However' his job was completed emd pending with A2/deceased. Acr:ordinE: to P'W'1' A2 demand.ed Rs. 1,OOO/- for processing the frle' The complaint/E)x.P4 ,'ras filed on 13.09'2003 at 11'00 a'rrl' The said complaint tvas C rafted by another person and m'::ntioned a demand made b1r both the appellant and A2' t 8 i8. Admittedly, the appellant had completed his work and passed it on to A2. It is not the case th.at the appellant had any say regarding the processing of the fiIe a-fter his job was completed. When the job of the appellant was already completed in the month of August 2OO3, the alleged demand on O2.O9.2OO3 becomes doubtful, more so in the background of the admission by P.W. 1 about not mentioning the demand for a bribe on O2.O9.2OO3 and 1 5.O9.2003.

19. On the date of the trap, according to P.Ws.2 and 8, there was a lot of commotion, and A2 lnad revolted and fought with the ACB authorities. In the normal course, an employee would not frght against the DSP, ACB, and trap members. The appellant stated that P.W. t had thrust the amount into the shirt pockets of the appeltant, and immediately, ACB ofhcials arrived there and caught hold of them. All the circumstances viewed together, i.e., the background of P.W. 1 and there being no independent evidence to support and corroborate the allegation of demand made by P.W. 1 on t}le trap day, would go to show that P.W. t had implicated the appellant.

20. Though it is mentioned in the second mediators'report and also stated by P.Ws.2 and 8 that the trap party saw P.W. 1 J I I I {:ry 9 passing thr: amount to the appellant and A2, that is Rs.1,000/- each, the post-t.rrp proceedings were drafted after thrrre rvas a lot of commotion, arrd the ACB personnel had forr:ed A1 and ,{2 into the hotel vrhere the post-trap proceedings took plac,::. The post- trap procet:dings were drafted in the hotel an<1 not as and when the events transpired. If tfre second mediators' report had been drafted as and ,vhen the events transpired, it would have lent credibility to thr claim of the prosecution that the',' have seen P.W. 1 passing on the amount to the appellant and A2. However, in the beLckgro und of the case, and the entirr: post-trap proceedings beirLg drafted after considerable time, the version given by F'.Ws.2 and 8 that they had seen the anrount being passed on to the appellant and A2 is doubtful. Both P.Ws.2 and 8 are interest-ed u'i -nesses. 2L. The Fton'bk: Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab 1 , found that a trap vitness is a partisan witness, who is interested in the trap. Su,:h evidence must be tersted like any other interested witnesses, ald the Court should look for independent corroboration befor,:: recording conviction. '(1972) 3 supreme Courr Ca es 652 10

22. In view of the observations of the Hontrle Supreme Court, which are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case, it can be said that the version of the prosecution is marred with improvements, doubts, and suspicion about the manner in which the trap was laid, mainly in the background of the antecedents of P.W. 1, which cannot be overlooked.

23. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of 6.p2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that mere acceptance of any arnount dehors proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home charge under Sections 7 and i3(1xd) of the Act. Accordingly, the conviction was reversed'

24. In B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh3, the Hontrle Supreme Court held that mere recovery of the amount cannot form basis to constitute the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

25. The allegation of demand is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of the amount from the appellant is of no consequence, since the work of the appellant was already '120151 10 Supreme Court Cases 152 '1201+; 13 supreme court cases 55 11 complete and tre demand on two dates i.e'., 02.Ct9'20O3 and

15.09.2003 are ,rmission, as admitted by P.W. 1'

26. In th,: result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.58 of 2005 daterl 10.C6.2010, passed by the Principal Special .Iudge for SPE & A(lB Cirses, Hyderabad, 1S hereby set aside, and the appellant is actluitted. Since the appellant rs on bail, his bail bonds shall star.d cancelled.

27. Acco.:dingl'r, the Criminal Appeal is allowed To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO rJOIN'l- REGISTRAR 1 1\ I I I I \v SECTtON OFFTCER 1 The Principal rlpecial Judge for SPE & ACB &ses, City Civil Court, at Hyderahad. (wilh records, if any) 2. The ln:;pector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karim nagar Range, Karimnerga r. 3- Two CC.s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State cf Telangana at Hyderabad. [OllT]

4. One CC to Sri lodupunuri Kartikeya Goud, Advocate [OpUCj 5. Two CD Copies Kam/psl HIGH COURT DATED:30101112025 JUDGMENT GRLA.No.78tl of 2010 ALLOWING'I'HE CRIMINAL APPEAL z' 4i" ? t.l i i,. I 1 ; : sr'qi i ? 1 lttr( ?s6 a o r1, \ .,',i'. \'.*\:.:r - \,\ {; \, iI