The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'VEN F2() o.113() r{ c AL UGOPAL 10 The present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant/ accused uncler Scction 37 4l2l of Cr'P'C'' aggrieved )y the judgment dated 18.01 20 1 0 in CC No' 12 of 2OO5 on the fil: of the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases' Hyderabad wherein and where unrlt:r the appellant was found guiltl for the offence punishable undcr Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read witlr Section 13(2) of Prevcntion o[ (]orruption Act' 1988 and was sent':nced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fin: of Rs'3'OOOi ' in default, to su[[t r simple imprisonment for six monrhs for the offence undcr Secliorr 7 o[ PC Act and further sentenced lrr undergo rigorous imprisonmcni tor a period of two years and to pay e hne of Rs 3'ooo/ - in delault, t() trndergo simple imprisonment for s ix months for thc of[e nr:c un(r(.r. sc(]tion r 3(txd) read with section 13(2) of pc Act'

2. llcrrr<l Sri Baded Venkata Ratnam learncd counsel for the appe ll:rnt errrtl Sri Vishal Gandhi' learned counsel representing' Sri T.Balarnoh:rrt tlcddy' learned special public prost cutor and stzrnding counsel [or I lrt respondent/ ACB'

3. 'l'ltc brict facts of the case are t]rat fbe appellant / erccu scd q,[i]s q:61ta111g as Assistant Director (P&P)' Sports Authority of Andhra -- - "T:E: Page 2of 13 Pradesh (SAAP), Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, being a public servant under Section 2(c) of PC Act, demanded an illegal gratihcation of Rs. 12,OOO/- from the de-facto complainant/ PW 1/GV Kumar, who was the proprietor of M/s.Sirrcre Services and Builders and engaged in cat€ring services, for processing and handing over the cheque pertaining to the final bill settlement of t1"e catering charges and when PW I expressed his inability to pay such amount, the appellant decreased the same to Rs.10,OO0/-. (a) The prosecution's case is that PWl, who was running a catering service at IIIT Canteen, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, was awarded a contract to provide catering for 50 participants o[ a National Shooting Coaching Camp from 15.f 1.2003 to 06. l2.2OO3- The work order, approved by the Deputy Director of SAAP, fixed the rate at Rs.I25l- per person per day. PWl later submitred a bill of Rs. 1,63,36O/-, which was returned for corrections. Mcanwhile, to meet ongoing expenses, an advalce of Rs. 1,00,OO0/- was issued via cheque on 05.12.2003, routed through the accused officer, r.r'ho allegedly dcmanded a bribe of Rs. 12,@0/-, later reduced to Rs. I0,OOO/ . On

22.12.2003, the accused again demanded the bribe over a phone call, ttrrcatening to withtrold the frnal bill payment. Unu'illing to comply, PW I lodged a complaint with the ACB the same dav. 4 Page f of l3 (b) On 23.12.2OO3, Crime No.25lACB HR/2003 was registered by PW5 under Section 7 of the Prevention o'Corn:ption Act, under Ex.PI.S/FIR. Fotlowing discreet inquiries that revealed the accused had a poor reputation, PWS decided to I ry a trap' With mediators PW2 and Mr.Sasibhushan present, all necessary pre-trap formalities were completed, including applying phenolphthalein powder to the lntended tainted currency notes brought by PWl and noting down their serial numbers in Ex.P5/pre-trap rroceedings' The trap team procceded to PWl's canteen at IIIT, Gachibowli, where PWl called the accusecl. Upon arrival, the accused demancled and accepted the bribe with his right hand and placed it in his pant pocket' The trap team, obsen,ing from ncarby, immediately apprehentled the accused, conducted a sodtum carbonate test, recovered th: tainted notes, compared their st'rral numbers with the serial numbt'rs already noted in Ex.P5 and loulrcl thcm tallying and completed posl:'trap proceedings under Ex.P7. TItt r:hcmical tests conducted on the accused and his wearing appare I r'ielded positive result. The accused was arrested at 5:25 PM on I he s.i m( dir\ ' (c) lnvcstigation was done lirstly by PW5 rnd later it was entrusted to PW€r ancl to PW7. Upon completion of nvestigation and obtaining Ex.Fl/sarrction from PW3, PW7 laid char 3e-sheet into the trial Court against the accused for the offences under Sections 7 and T Page a Df 13 l3(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of pC Act alleging thar the investigation revealed that on 23.12.2@3 the accused, being a public servant, while working as Assistant Director, SAAp, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, by abusing his oflicial position, demanded iliegal gratification of Rs'lo,Ooo/- from pwl for showing officia.l favour or processing and handing over the cheque pertaining to the Iinal bill settlement o[ the catering charges.

4. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences with which the accused was charge-sheeted, assigned CC No.12 of 2005 and after completing required procedural aspects, proceeded with trial. During trial, the prosecution examined pWs. I to 7 and got exhibited documenrs under Exs.pl to pl7 and material objects MOs. I to g. Exs.Xi to X3 were marked during cross_examination of pWl. Thc accuscd dicl not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Howevcr, the :rccused, during his examination under Section 313 oi Cr.p.C., submitred that upon the request of pWl to extend a hand loan of Rs. i0,OO0/- on rhe ground that cleararrce of cheque for Rs.l,OO,O0OI- rlould be dela,l,ed by three days, on OS.12.2OO3 the accused gave Rs. lO,OOO/ as hand loan to pWl and that on the date of trap, he w,ent to the cantcen to had lunch and on that occasion, pWl repaid him the said amounr. He further submitted ft* "T* the accused reduced .) Page 5 of lJ thebillamountofPWlfromRs'1,63,36O/-toRs'l'41'489/-PW1 developed grouse and got him implicated in the present case'

5. Basing on the evidence adduced' the trial Cor:rt found the accusecl / appellant guilty The Court held that the accused offrcer had nothing to do with the rejection of P'Ul's bill or the reduction of the arnount, and that PW t himset{ had voluntarily agreed to provide catering services at the rate of Rs'125/- per indMdual. As deposed by PW4, every bill had 1o be processed through the accused. Although the accused clainred that he had given a hand loan to PWI by obtaining the arrount from one UBVN Krishna Rao, his brother-in-law' he did trot examine him to establish this claim. The evidence of PWs l ' 2' 4 ' and 5 that the accused demanderi and accepted from PW I on the date of the traP' illegal gratification Consequently, the Court found the accused guiltr and sentenced clinchinglY Proved him as stal-ed supra

6. Challenging the said judgment' the a ccused/appellant preferred the present criminal appeal mainly con tending that the judgment ol the trial Court is contrary to law and u eight of evidence' and is liable to be set asidc, The appcllant never dr:tnaltded any bribe from PWl, and the complaint u'as based on f'rlse ald baseless allegations. The ACB hastily registered the FIR without veri$ing the credibility of PW1 or the antecedents of the Appellant. Importantly, the Appellant had no authority to issue any cheque or extend ollicial favour to PWl, as the financial dealings were rnana€ed by PW4, who had already received and disbursed funds, including a personal cheque of Rs. 1,00,0OO/ to PWl. Further, PWI suppressed material facts regarding the bills submitted and misrepresented the dates and amounts involved. The only bill available on the alleged date of demand (05.I2.2OO3) was Ex.X.2 for Rs.1,63,350/-, and' not Ex.P.2 as claimed. There was no pending official work with the appellant that could justify a bribe demand. The appellant consistently stated that the amount received was repayment of a hand loan, not a bribe, and this explanation was provided spontaneously during post-trap proceedings. The trial Court erred in rejecting this defence solely on the ground that thc alleged lender i.e. his brother-in-law was not examined, while failing to draw adverse inference against the prosecution lor the same. (a) Thcre is a correction in Ex.P I /complaint with regard to the date of demtrnd by the accused. Precise to say frrstly 15.12.2003 was written stating that on that day when PWI expressed his inabitity to pay hugc amount oi Rs. I2,OOO/-, the accused reduced the same to Rs. IO,0OO/- and subsequently it was corrected asO5.12.2OO3. Basing I I i ! { 1 I i i i T on the above correction, learned counsel for the apll:tlant vehemently contended t.hat this itself is sufficient to inter that the complaint has been tampered only with a view to prosecute the accused and to implicate him in a false case. He further contend( d that even it is assumed that the oflicial favour is pending with tht: accused, there is nothing pending with the accused. as on the date of trap to be extended to PWl. (b) Overall, the evidence does not support tl- e conclusion that the appellant demanded or accepted illegal grzrtilcation, and the judgment deserves to be reversed' (c) To substantiate the above contenti'lns, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the clecisions rendered in C.M.Glrlsh Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court qf (r:ralar, Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra2 and SVS Kodanda Rao Vs. State of AP3' Basing on the above decisions, lean-rcd counsel or the appellant contended l.hat mere possession and recovery o[ r:r-Ll rency notes from the accused without proof of demancl is not sulficicr r to establish guilt under Section 7 or Section i3(1)(d) of the PC Act Dcrnand of bribe is a sinegua-nonfor constituting an offence. Unless thc crosecution proves ' AIR 2tto9 sup,"me coun 2022 ' AIR 2002 Sup,eme court 486 3 zoo: (t) elo (crl.) 933 (AP) Page 8 of I3 demand beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not arise. If there is no credible evidence proving that the accused demanded a bribe, recovery alone cannot justi$ conviction. When the prosecution witnesses grve inconsistent statements regarding demand or recovery, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Evidence regarding the initial demand, the motive, or the opportunity to show favour must be clear and cogent. Contradictions in the complainant's statements or {ailure to prove a pending official favour weaken the case, and the accused must be acquitted. When the accused gives a plausible and consistent explanation that the amount was loan repayment, and if the prosecution fails to rebut this, the benefit must be given to the accused. Non-examination of kcy witnesses to support the accused's version should not bc fatal to thc defence unless the burden is on the accused. A consistent defencc that the money was not a bribe and it was for loan repa.vment, if not effectively disproved, creates a reasonable doubt, and acquittal should follow.

7. On the other hand, <.rpposing the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/CBI submits that the trial C-ourt had rightly and appropriately convictcd the accuscd basing on the evidence available Page 9 of t.3 on record particularly the evidence of PW4 and ttrrrt admittedly the accused has to scrutinize every bil'l and that t he cheque for Rs.1,OO,OOO/- was given to PWI through the accusec and hence' non- pendency of official favour with the accused cannot rc countenanced' lt is further contended on behalf of the respond€lrt tainted currency notes were recovered from the J'osscssion of the accused, a presumption under Section 2O of the A:l comes into play that when the andtheaccusedhastorebutthesame.ItiSpertincrttonoLethatthe accused had been caught red handed while demanrl ng and accepting the bribe and the chemical tests conducted to his h Lnds and wearing apparel yielded positive result. The hndings o[ tl- c tri:rl Court are reasoned findings and they cannot be disturbt<l basing on the untenable and baseless grounds urged hercin-

8. This Court, having heard thc learnc''1 i ottnsel for the appellant and the respondent and upon perusal o[ t]r ' rct:ord including theimpugledjudgmentofthetrialCourt,isscizer]rllth(]lactthata cheque for Rs. 1,OO,OOO/-, which has been signc I bv the Deputy Director, had already been given to PW I as ardvatr '( pir-\'ment' The pending amount of Rs'45,250/- was to be paid as ( n thc clate of trap to pw 1. It is the allegation of the complainant th rl for the balance amount, which was pending under scrutiny, the r( (ruse d/ appe llant made a demand for bribe. l ! : i I l i I ; t ! i I ! I I Pagc I0 of l3

9. When the factual matrix of the case on hand are meticulously scrutinized it reveals that an advance pa5rment of Rs. 1,OO,O0O/- was made to PWI through the accused on 05.12.2003. However, the original complaint indicated the date of the alleged demand as 15. 12.2003. Subsequent correction of this date to reflect

05.12.2003 raises serious doubts regarding the authenticity and credibility of the prosecution's case. The insertion of the earlier date appears to be a calculated alteration, and this tampering casts a shadow on the veraciEy o[ the allegations made by pWl. Such correction, without proper explanation or corroboration, weakens the prosecution case and lends credence to the defence version of false implication.

10. Further, it has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses themselves that although rhe zrccused facilitated payment processing, he had no authority to alter the bill amounts, either by increasing or decreasing them. This erdmrssion negates the ttreory that any offrcial favour was pending from the accused toward PlMl at the time of the alleged demand, which is an essential element of t}le offence under the PC Act. [t is an admitted fact that the amount due was Rs.45,250/- and for such meagrc amount, it cannot be expected that the accused demandcd a huge sum of Rs.12,OOO/- without there t I I I I f u i i l r ! I I I I ! I I I I I Y Pagellof13 being any power or authority to settle, increas,: or decrease the amount.

11. PWl alleged that on 22.12.2003, thc accused again demanded the bribe from him over a phone c.. ll, threatened to withhold the final bill payment and summoned hirr ro the canreen on the day of the trap. However, the prosecution faited :r) produce any call data records to substantiate this aspect. In a case clying heavily on circumstantial evidence and the credibility of the : rrnplainant, such an omission proves fatal. The non-production of th<.sc records creates a reasonable doubt regarding the genuineness o[ thc . r.rsion of pW 1 .

12. The nature of the complaint and its, litrcr correction, coupled with the tailure to provide critical corrol or-ativc evidence, points to the possibility that PWl may not have ap1; r,acht:d the Anti- Corruption Bureau with clean hands. The suggesticn bv the dcfence that the complaint was manipulated to falsely implr .rrtc- thr: accuscd gains plausibility under these circumstances.

13. In view of the above findings, the Cor-Lr r holcls rhat the prosccution has failed to prove the demand and a(.(.,,1)t:rnce of illegal gratihca[ion by the accused as required under lau. T hc eviclenc_'e on record does not inspire confidence and fatls short o rl-rc standard of proof necessarl. for conviction in criminal cases. i i I i. I' I I E I ? ! I i t i ! I I I t I Page 12 of tJ of criminal jurisprudence

74. It is a fundamenhl principle that the burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecu on, and the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. In a criminal trial' the prosecution must prove its case beyond a, reasonable doubt. This staadard is not a mere formalit5r but.a substantive safeguard against wrongful conviction. If there exist any reasonable doubt a_risirrg out of the evidence or lack thereof, the benefit of such doubt must go to the accused. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any reasonable doubt, tJle accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Another golden thread which runs through the web o[ the admrnistration of justice in criminal cases is t.I-at if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilr of thc accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable ro the accused should be adopted. Thus, mere suspicion, holr,,evcr grave, cannot substitute proof. In cases where the prosecution,s case suffers from rnconsistencies, lacks corroboration, or f:rils to establish essential ingredients of the offence, the accused is cntitled ro an acquittal

15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view the hndings o[ the rri.rl Court needs interference of this Court by setting the same and acqurttrng the accused for ttre charges with which he was charge_sheeted Page l3 of l3

16. In the result, the criminal appeal is al]owed setting aside the judgment dated 18.Ol.2OlO in CC No. 12 of 2OC5 on the hle of the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Jases, Hyderabad. Resultantly, the accused/appellant is found not gr-ultv for the offences under Sectior-rs 7 and 13(lxd) read with Section .l(2) of PC Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the above charges. Since the appellant/ acc:used is on bail, his bail bonds, stand:; r;ancclled.

17. Interlocutory applications, if any, per,ding, shall stand closed Sd/- K.SHYLESI INT REGISTRAR JO coPY'/ 'ITRUE sEbTloN oFFlcER To, 2 J. 4. 5 Karn'P The Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB C:'ses' City Civil Court' Hyderabad. (with records, if anY) ;;;- lda"t of Police, Anti corruption Bureatr' Hyderabad Range' Hvderabad. oir" Ci i" Sri Badeti Venkata Ratnam' Advocate [9P J-Cl o;; aa to Sri T Bala Mohan Reddv, (Sc FoR ACB siPL PP TS) [our] Two CD CoPies SI- Y4' HIGH COURT DATED:3110712025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.113 of 2010 -a ,'- '' :.:: l: .- (. . .\, ",<. \\ I 04 0['iffi I il :i ,j '; e ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL 6 n* s6f 1 i I i t ! ! E I t t I