In P.Satyanarayatra Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P r, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterate

IION'BLE SRI JUSTTCE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1O64 OF 2O1O JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(dl r lw 13(21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under each count, vide judgment in C.C.No.16 of 2OO8 dated 24.O8.2O1O, passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the a t was working as Senior Assistant, Malkajgiri Circle, GHMC. P.W.l has been working as a Public Health Worker, Malkajgiri Circle, GHMC since 03.O6.2005. P.W. 1 was being paid Rs.4,20O/- per month as salary out of which, Rs.5O9/- was deducted for LIC premium. However, from October, 2O06, he was being paid a total sum of Rs.3,70O/-. P.W.L was not paid the salary as per the new pay scale as contemplated by the Pay Revision Commission since the year 2OO5. P.W. 1 approached the appellant for payment of his salary as per the new Pay ficale, and also approached P.W.3 fbr the same. In z the month of December, 2006, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- to revise the salary of P.W. 1, and subsequently, reduced the bribe to Rs.5,OO0/-. Unwilling to pay the bribe, P.W. 1 gave a complaint to the Anti Cormption Bureau on 24.O7.2OO7. A trap was laid on 26.07.2007 in the o{fice of the appellant. The tainted bribe amount was recovered from the top rack of the almirah situated behind the table of the appellant. The tainted amount was found in a Xerox paper cover. Both the hands of the appellant tested positive in the phenolphthalein test. The Xerox paper cover that came into contact with the tainted amount also tested positive.

3. P.W. 1 deposed that the appellant was not paylng his salar5r as per the new Pay Scale. However, as per the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, and 4, an option form has to be submitted to implement the new pay scales. P.Ws.2 and 7 admitted that the file of P.W. 1 that was allegedly recovered from the appellant did not contain the option form. P.W.3 deposed that P.W. 1 submitted his option form after the date of trap, in the month of September, 2OO7. 3

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that P.W.t has not submitted an opl.ion form to implement the new Pay Scale as per the pay revision commission. P.W.3 admitted that the said option form was submitted by P.W. 1 after the date of trap. Hence, there is no favour pending with the appellant. The allegation that the appellant demanded bribe in December, 2OO6 is not believable. Moreover, the report to the ACB was given on 24.O7.2OO7 with a delay of seven months. There is no explanation given by P.W. 1 for the said delay.

5. Learned counsel further argued that D.W. 1, who is the securit5r guard in the office of the appellant, deposed that the appellant was in a meeting in another ofhce, and P.tM. 1 went inside the offrce of the appellant in his absence. D.W.2, who works in the same office room. as the appellant, deposed that P.W. 1 kept the currency notes in the top raik of the almirah in the absence of the appellant, as the almirah was open at that time. He lurther deposed that when the appellant came back to the of{ice, P.W. 1 caught hold of both the hands of the appellant, and pleaded to do his work, and went away. 4

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that P.W.8 deposed that the appellant gave explanation to him that the money was kept in the almirah in his absence, and that he was falsely implicated due to office union rivalry. D.Ws.l and 2 deposed that the appellant is the Vice-President of the MRPS Organization. P.W. 1 deposed that he is a member of Harijana Mala Communit5r. It is the defence of the appellant that there are ill-feelings between both the communities, and therefore, a false report was given against him. Learned counsel further argued that the spontaneous explanation by the appellant was suppressed in the second mediators report. The prosecution failed to prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe amount. None of the ingredients of Section 7 or Section 13(lxd) of the PC Act are made out.

7. 'Learned Public Prosecutor submits that Ex.Pl1, which is the Chart giving details of the salary of the appellant, reflects that the new pay scale was implemented but the benefits were not given to P.W. 1. Accordingly, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. 5

8. The crux oli the complaint is that new Pay Scale was not implemented by the appellant and benefits were not given to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 deposed as follows: "To effect pag reuision the emplogee has to exercise his option. I got made the necessary entries in mg seruice book uith manager of office bg name Easabuddin Kfuilid. I haue submitted mg option form in the office to the Manager, Easabuddin Khalid." 9 P.W.3 deposed as follows: 'It is tnte as per the procedure for pag fixation one has to exercise option and stbmit option form. I am not anDare uth.eth.er P.W.I has submitted ang option fonn for pag fixation till tle date of trap. It is true P.W.1 has giuen option fonn after the date of trap in the month of 9/ O7."

10. The Investigating Officer/P.W.S deposed as fbllows: " The allegation made bg P.W.1 in his report is tuith regard to fixation of paA as per reuised pay scales of 20O5. It is true to effect reuised pag scales the emplogee has to submit option form expressing his desire to adopt new pag scoles. I seized the releuant file Jiom the possession of AO and I haue gc>ne through it but I do not find said option form in the said file. The said file utas seized on the date of trap i.e., on 26.07.2007. I cannot sag uhether P.W.7 submitted option form pior to 26.07.2OO7 since I dkl not find the same in the file seized."

11. The allegatirrn of the appellant demanding bribe was in the month of December, 2006, according to P.W. 1, and ttrereafter, there is nothing in the complaint or in the evidence ol P.W. 1 lor the Court to infer that any demand was made by the appellant between 6 December, 2OO6 and the date of complaint, i.e., 24.O7.2AO7. Further, to effect the pay revision, P.W. 1 did not exercise his option of submitting option form, nor was any option form found. Though, P.W. 1 stated that he has submitted his option form to P.W.3, however, P.W.3 did not speak about P.W. 1 submitting any pay hxation form. P.W. 1 is also an employee in the very same office. In the absence of any option that was exercised or any request made by P.W. 1, the question of the appellant implementing the new pay scales does not arise.

12. It is for the prosecution to prove the 'demand' made by the ppellant beyOnd reaso e doubt. The allegation of de d lor bribe is nearly seven months prior to the complaint, which gives rise to any arnount of doubt regarding the correctness of the allegation of demand by the appellant. There is no explanation by P.W. 1 as to why he waited for more than seven months to lodge a complaint. What transpired over the seven months is also not explained by P.W. 1. 7

13. In P.Satyanarayatra Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P r, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that mere acceptance of any amount dehors proof of demand would not be suflicient to bring home charge under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the conviction was reversed.

14. In B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2, the Hon'ble 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 Cormption Act.

15. The recovery of the amount was from the top rack of the almirah, which rvas situated behind the table of the appellant. P.W.2, who is an independent mediator, did not accompany P.W. 1 when he met the appellant in the office. According to P.W.2, the appellant showed. place where the tainted currency was kept. As instructed by the Inspector, P.W.2 picked up the tzrinted currency notes from the Xerox cover which was on top of the almirah behind the seat of the appellant. t 12Ot51 10 Supreme Court Cases 152 '12otc1 13 srpre.e Court cases 55 8

16. D.W.2 is an outsourcing employee, who was working in the said office. He was looking after the issue of birth and death certificates, and also trade licence, etc. According to D.W.2, his seat was opposite to the seat of the appellant. According to D.W.2, on the date of incident, P.W. 1 came to the oflice,, and enquired about the appellant, and when he was not present, he went towards the table of the appellant, and kept the currency notes in the top rack of the almirah. When D.W.2 was going outside, the appellant entered the room, in the meantime. P.W. 1 questioned him about his PRC, to which the appellant asked him to submit the option form first. Then, P.W.1 held the hands of the appellant, and pleaded him to do his work, and went away. Immediately, the ACB oflicials entered into the office.

16. The evidence of D.W.2 cannot be brushed aside only for the reason of him being a defence witness. Delence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment on par with prosecution witnesses. No reason is given as to why P.W.2 was not asked to accompany P.W. 1 to observe what transpires in between P.W. 1 and the appellant. P.W. 1 is an employee in the same office, as such, the question of 9 D.W.2 objecting to P.W. I accessing the almirah in the oflice does not arise. D.W.2's evidence is probable in the present facts of the CASC.

17. Mere recovery of the amount cannot form basis to infer that the appellant demanded and accepted the amount towards bribe when the demand itself was not proved by the prosecution, and the very version of demanding bribe is doubtful. The Purblic Prosecutor argued that Ex.Pl1 reflects implementation of revised pay scale. If the pay scale was already implemented, the question of lodging a complaint does not arise. It is the specific case of the prosecution that pay scale was not implemented. i8. When P.W. 1 was questioned, he admitted that he belongs to Harijana Mala communitSr, however, he denied having knowledge about the appeilant actively participating in Union activities and also working as \,'ice-President of MRPS employees wing. He further denied having knowledge about any differences in between the Union lead by MRPS activists and Union lead by the activists of Mala Mahanadu (Union including SC and ST employees). It is, 1C however, not disputed by P.W. I that there were two. rival Unions in the oflice and he ryas the member of one of the Unions.

19. The false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out in the present facts of the case. As already discussed, the demand itself was not proved by the prosecution and the consequent . recovery cannot form basis to find the appellant guilg. In view of the above discussion, bene{it of doubt is extended to the appellant. 20. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.16 of 2OO8 dated 24.O8.2O1O passed by the Additional Special Judge for SpE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. is on bait his bail bonds shall stand Since the discharged. 2L. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. /ffRUE COPYII SDI.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR / ECTION OFFICER To, at HYderabad. (With records)

1. The Addl. Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases' City CivilCourt z. Theinspector of Police, AC8, CIU Range' Hyderabad' - . 3. Two CCs to Pubtic Pro*utor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) + One CC to Sri' D Sangeetha Reddy' Advocate {OPUCI 5 Two CD CoPies DL/PSL V'd HIGH COURT DATED: 1 9/03/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1064 of 20'r0 1Yrtr ST{/c ()^ I t o (J 2I RPn 2025 c * hr SPrTC ALLOWING THE CITIMINAL APPEAL E ccR\(/d \?- d.r,\ ^5