The High Court · 2025

The State, ACB City Range, Hyderabad, rep ACB Cases, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. by its Special Public Proseculor for ...RespondenUComlrl ainanl unsel for the Appellant: Sri Cherukuri Masthan Naidu unsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Bala Mohan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor e Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT ,ttl I tr I t,l )'+- lilllllflllt Y HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER ilillilliiil CRIMIITAL APPEAL Nos.734 and 735 OF 2AO7 COMMON JUDGMENT: 1 Criminal Appeal No.734 of 2OO7 was frled by ,A.1 and Cdtry#+I - Appeal No.735 of 2OO7 was fiIed by A2. .{1 was convicted fol,rlre offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) t/w 13(21 of ,ilr.e Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigor<itts imprisonment for a period of six months and one year, respective lv .tll uncler both counts. A'2 was conviited under Section 12 of-ll-iF'-- Prevention of Cormption Act, 1988 aI1d was sentenced to rigorr;r-tsr imprisonment for a period of six months vide judgm C.C.No.79 of 2OO3 dated 04.O6.2007 passed by the Prin':i';':rl ent 111 I *special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, H-u"deial:'aC -Sirrce both the appeals are fiIed questioning the very L jrriti;l judgrnent of Speciai Court, both the appeals are disposed oif b-!' v"irv of this Common Judgment. '2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that 41 worked as St:tt-j:'r Assistant in RTA Offrce, Central Zone, l{hatratabad and A2 \r',-stl.-r.'- registered. RTA Agent. Tlne defacto cornplainant is P.W'1' He 1 o I lpl,ri complaint u.ith the ACB on 07.O3.2OOl at 1O.30 a.rn. Accord i::Er tr-r --, -./ llllllilil ) P.w.i' he was authorizeci agent in the RTA" A tiJence was issued by the Joint commissioner of RTA, Hyderabad, to,render services as an agent in the RTA ofirce" p.w. 1 applied for reassignment of lorry bearing No.KRZ 5936 on behalf of Kerala Transport Compaay. One P.K.Nair was the representative of the said transport company. The application, relevalt papers and challan were handed over to ,{1 on

01.03.2001. Two days after giving application, [r.W. 1 rnet A,1, who demanded Rs.5O0/- as bribe for doing the- work. Again on O5.O3.2OO1, P.W. 1 met Al and asked him the R.C.book, for which A1 demanded to pay br-ibe ot Rs.Soo/- for derivering the R.c book and asked p.W"1 to come on 07.03.20ti1 with the bribe amount. "Aorl, ,l

3. On O7.O3.2OOi, p.W 1 u.ent to the ACII office and met DSP/P.W.S. P.W. 1 lodged a -*.rirten complaint Ex.p11. The said complaint was hlecl at 10.30 a.m and the trap wi;'rs arranged within 2 Y" hours i.e., at 1.00 p.m. p.W.S arranged. for independent witnesses, P.W.2 and another. The trap party inclirding p.Ws.1, 2, S and others gathered in rhe ACB office at 2.OO t'.m. p.W.2 narnely Y 3 Yadarah was asked to accompany P.w.1 to the oflice " ^il]ilI#i \1 l:' observe what transpires in between A1 and P.W. 1. 4. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings, the trap p.rut1,' went to the ofhce of RTA at Ktrairatabad at 3.45 p.m. Both P.YF t and2 went inside tl.e ofhce, and about 4.O0 p.m, P.W. 1 came otit and relayed signal indicating acceptance of bribe. When the trr,1P parry-' entered into the office of A1, ,A.2 was found sitting opposite. A L. Sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on the hands of 4l to verify whether he handled the bribe amount, which prrrved negative. 42 was asked to rinse his hand in sodium .^.Uo,a'r,,.- solution and the solution turned pink in colour indicating that tfie bribe amount $,as ha:rdled by him. ,A,2 produced the tailrr,'c1 currency notes irom his left side shirt pocket.

5. The relevant hle was seized including the attendance regi,it,:r I DSP questioned A1, 42, P.Ws.1 artd 2, and ttreir statements'"r;t'i..' recorded in the second mediators report. After concluding inir second mediators report Ex.P9, A1 and A2 were arrer-.llrJ- Thereafter, the investigation u.as handed over to P.W.6. PUi .tr l xlll,t 4 exarnined witnesses, coliected relevant Cocuments ald filed .,J[ltJ sheet after obtaining sanction order from the competent authorit3'.

6. P.W. 1 deposed about the demand of bribe prior to lodffi; complaint. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 stated about demand arrd acceptar,yx: of bribe by A1 on the date of trap, and A1 asking A.2 to collect lre amount.

7. P.W. 1 was a licenced agent in the oflice of RTA at Khairatabrr<j, tl r1, A2 was also a iicenced RTA agent as admitted by P.W.1 and the Investigating Offrcer/P.W.6. 42 entered into the witness box ar:d examined himself as D.\\i.l He stateC that t1e application :ir: question was processed -+;tien i-.niiustei by A1, and for processing the said application hleci by P.\,\r. 1. A lpromised. to pay him Rs.sOClf towards A2's service cbarg,:s. When lhe application *"= *rd" l'lJu P.W. 1 on 01.03.2001, A2 rvas also present. p.W.f stated tilurl lJr:: service charge of Rs.SOO.r- as Cer:tanded b1.. A2 was high. Both A2 and P.W. 1 approached .{1, bur: A1 aske.d p.W. 1 and A,2 to setilt: their issues. The i'ehicie was inspected on 03.o3.2o01 and the frfr was processed. As cn 05.03.200i, rvork u'as complete a,,d a niirv number rvas assignecl ro ihe ,.,ehicie co the basis of "rr**j,[l j 1') 5 made by P.W.1. 42 took the R.C book to his house on 05.03.2001 to hand it over to P.W. 1. However, when A2 attempted to give R.C.book (Ex.P2) to P.W. 1, P.W. 1 informed tJ'at he would collect the R.C book on O7.03.2OO1.

8. D.W.llA2 further stated that on the date of trap i.e.,

07.03.2001, P.W. 1 paid Rs.5O0/- to him in between 2.30 p.m to

3.00 p.m as a service charge outside the RTO oIlice and wanted to apolog;ze to Al and also thank him. Both A2 and P.W. I then went and met A1 in his oflice. Immediately, the ACB personnel entered into the office and conducted test. Though, A.2 explained the events that transpired, the DSP, ACB did not pay attention to his version.

9. P.W. 1 did not state in his complaint Ex.Pl, which was made on 07.03.200 1 i.e., that application for assigning new registration number was processed on O3.O3.2OO1. On O3.03.20O1, inspection of the vehicle was complete and certihed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. The said hle r,l,as processed and tJle new number was assigned on 05.03.20O1 itself.

10. P.W.3, who worked as Assistant Secretar5r at ICrairatabad and in-charge of the relevant fiie*Ex.P3. admitted as follows: 5 "It is true that a.s seen from Ex.p3 fiLe ihe appLtcatian at page No. 13 taas receiued in our cfice cn 0 1 .O3 , C 1 and. i.t t as pit ip bg AO1 on the uery same tiate fot ord.ers to i.nspect the uihicte.'I ordered for th.e inspection of th-e ueittcle on 01.03.01. Thereafter, the file Luas sent to concented. MVI for inspectton of the uehicle. Onlg on productian of uehicle before the MVI he tuitt uerifg the cha"sis and engine nunt-ber of the uehicle uith reference to the RC book and then he wifi end.orse about his inspection mentioning the details. As seen on the reuerse of page No.1 of Ex.P3 file the tuMI inspected, the uehicle and. ertified on 03.03.01. Again on 03.03.01 after such an inspection of uehicle bg MVI AOl harl put up tni trte before me for reassignment and transfer of ownership oy ueiicle on 03.03.01 and on the uery same date I passed orders. Thereafi.er, AO1 Lwd put the file before me on 05.O3.O1 assigning neu.s number ApgW-4936. Accordinglg, I passed orders on 05.O3.01. Ex.P7 is the attendance regi_ster' of our olftce and as seen from Ex.p7, 4.O3.O j tucts SUNDAy. Afiir mg orders of req ssigning new nurnber, the file wqs sent to computer section for data entry. Afi.er enteing the data in the can-puters ih-e enties u,ill mad_e in nC !9o!c, 11 Ex.P2 at paEe Nc.6 the er;tries were mad,e bg AO1 and througit sectiatL su-:.:eti.ntende!.Lt ;_t ujas f,tacea before me on the so.m-e da"- clti. c.ccot-d.ingig I sigr.ed. as regi.steing authoitg. There ti;c:s nc aelet1 on- ti.e pai of AOl inputting up the file t,sfq7.; :n.e c .. ,,,, y ,toa.. Onty aft.er signature on Ex.P2 d.t.O1.03.0l it tuts riarig fLr aetiuJring to the cnnerned pqrtA " ^05.O3.01

11. P.W. 1 specificaliy menrioned i.l his complaint that on o5.o3.2oo1, there w-as a demand oi bribe to hardover the RC book, however he did not state the fact that the h1e was pr-ocessed and the inspection was a_lso complete. at--\ * lI 7

12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants l would submit that the complaint was falsified and even according to the Assistant Secreta-ry, the entire processing was complete. Once the process was complete, it cannot be said that there was a demand for bribe. l,earned Senior Counsel submitted that the back ground of the case and all the surrounding circumstances in a case have to be looked into, and not oniy the events that transpired on the trap day. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in A.Ifishan Rao v. State of Telanganal. Further, learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case of K.Shanthamma v. State of Telangana2 and argued that unless demald of bribe is proved, only on the basis of recovery of the amount, accused cannot be convicteci.

13. The grievance of the cornplarnant/P.W.1 is that the applicatron was made on O1.03.200 1 and when P.W. 1 met A1 on 05.03.2001, A1 demanded Rs.50O/- for deliverhg the RC book.

14. It is not in dispute that it is for A1 to deliver the RC book to the concerned party. P.W.1 was at aathor'sed agent and according 'zozq (g)aro ica.)go l(rs) ':(2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 574 to P.W.3. the Assistant Secretary of the RTA ofhce, stated that as on O5.03.2O01, RC book Ex.P2 was ready and onl1r after signature, RC book will be ready to be delivered to the concerned parfy. P.W.3 stated that he had signed on Ex.P2 on O5.O3.O1. However, the RC book was not handed over to P.W. 1. The grievance of P.W. 1 is that for delivering the RC book, Rs.SOO/- was demanded. On the date of trap, P.W.2, who is an independent person accompanied P.W. 1. In the presence of P.W.2, A1 demalded the amount and asked ,A.2 to receive the said amount. After A2 received the amount, Ex.P2 RC book was handed over to P.W. 1. i5. The processing of fi,le and entries rn the R.C book being :cmpleted on O5.O3.O1, cor:robolates r,,tth tite version cl P.W.i that A1 demanded Rs.SOO/- to be paid lor delivering R.C book to P.W. 1. On the date of trap, after A1 demar:deC the alrlcuiit ancj directed it to be paid to A2, and after ,{2 received the arnount, RC book Ex.P2 r"'as handed over to P.W. 1. There leaves no roorn ior doubt that the prosecution proved the demald and acceptance of bribe by A1. i6- The case of A1 is that there rvas a departmentai enquirv and P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in the sajd depa:trnental enquirl,-. However, 9 the certihed copies of the earlier statements made during departmental enquiry were neither fiied nor confronted to P.Ws.l and 2. The version of A2/D.W.1 is that the R.C.book/Ex.P2 was collected by him on O5.03.20O1 to harld it over to P.W. 1. However, P.W. 1 insisted that he would come to the offrce and collect the R.C book on 07 .O3.2OOL. In his chief eramination, D.W. 1 stated that in between 2.3O p.m to 3.00 p.m on the date of trap, P.W. 1 met him outside the olIice and handed over the tainted currency of Rs.SOO/- to him. Thereafter, both of them went to A1, since P.W. 1 wanted to apologjze to A1. The defence of A1 that P.W. 1 met A2 outside the ofhce on the date of trap cannot be beiieved. According to ttre prosecution, the first mediators'report was drafted from 2.OO p.m to 3.15 p.m and the trap parg started ltom the office of DSP, ACB at 3.15 p.m. When P.W. 1 .,vas in the ofhce of ACB in between 2.30 p.m to 3.OO p.m, the question of P.W. i meeting ,A.2 outside the offrce and handing over the bribe amount, does not arise. Apparently, D.W. 1 entered into the witness box to help A1. The defence of A1 that P.W. 1 met A.2 outside the ofhce u,as not even suggested to P.W.2/independent mediator nor the trap laying officer/P.W.5. It is ax adrnitted fact that .\1 was not competent to issue reassignment 1C (' number and transfer of the ownership. However, 41 w-as the person to hand over the R.c. book which was completed in ail respects to the concerned party. The defence taken by ,{1, that 42 had taken the RC book on 05.o3.2o01 itself and ttrereafter, on the date of trap i.e., on O7.O3.2OOL money was handed over to A2 and thereafter, both A.2 and P.w. 1 met A1 is falsihed, as evident from the record. 17 - r\2 u'as also an agent in the oflice of RTA. He was not narned in the complaint by P.W.1 nor is it the case of p.W. 1 and p.W.2 that on the date of trap, A2 had either demanded or accepted the arnount on behalf of 41. Admittedly, 42 rnas sitting at the tabie of Ai opposite to him. 42 innocently handled the b.tre arnouni at the instance of A1, which was passed on b1- p.W. 1 to hrr:i, rthrn Ai drrecred to collect the amount. A2 took the amot:.nt and ci:rcecl in irls pc.cket.

18. A2 was convicted under section 12 of the pi:eve.tion oi. Corruption Act, 1988. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted: "12. Punishment for abetment of offences defined in 7 or 11. - Whoever abets anv ofi-^nce Sectioas punr.shable under Section 7 or Sec:ion 1 1 whet"her cr iict 17 that offence is committed in consequences of that abetment, shall be punishable u.ith imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than sk months but which may extent to hve years and shal1 aiso be liable to fine."

19. Abetment is an act involving knor.vledge and mensrea. Abetment is not dehned under the Prevention of Cormption Act. Section lO7 of IPC defines what constitutes abetment. Section 108 of IPC defines who is al abettor. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence. Abetment can be gathered from (1) \ Instigation of any person to commit an offence. (2) engaging with\ _, one or more persons to commit such offence. (3) intentionally aiding or by any act or illegal omission being involveri in the commission of such offence.

20. None of the above ingredients are satisiied in the present case. On the date of trap, when A.2 was sitting in iront of Al , A2 handled the bribe amount as directed by A1. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that merely accepting the arrrount would amount to either instigating A1 or engaging with him or aiding the act of accepting bribe. For the said reasons, no case under Section 12 of the Act is made out for abetment aga-inst 42. '!' r t2

21. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.734 of 2AO7 is disn:issed Since the appeilart is on bail, the concerned Court is directed tc cause appearance of A.1 and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence.

22. Criminal Appea,l No.735 of 2OO7 is a-l1ou,ed setting aside the conviction of A.2 ir C.C.No. 19 of 2003 dated C4.O6 .2OO7 . Srnce A,2 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. //TRUE COPY// A.V.S.S.C.S.M. JOt T REG SARMA ISTRAR $e TION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER (For His Lordship's kind Perusal) To, 'l . The Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Hyderabad.(with records, if any)

2. The lnspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, City Range, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, Advocate tOpUCl 5 One CC to Sri Cherukuri Masthan Naidu, Advocate [OpUC] 6 11 LR Copies 7 The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs New Delhi B The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, Hiqh Cou( for the State of Telangana. High Court Buildings at Hyderab'ad. - 9 Two CD Copies kamlqh Y? HIGH COURT DATED:0510212025 k e f, o (-) ytF- S{ri 16 1 2 7 ttB 2[25 ! OF 5p,a1(.H ('. (' 7 C,I n COMMON JUDGMENT GRLA.Nos.734 & 73S ot 2007 CRLA.No.734 ot 2007 IS DISMISSED CRLA.No.735 of 2001 IS ALLOWED r"t("4 & (4 ,,- G6\?6