G.Devadanam v. The State represented by CBl, Hyderabad

Judgment

This Crimirral Appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused challenging the conviction recorded by the Spqcial Jud.ge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No. 11 of 20O5, dated 13. L2.2OlO, for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Briefly, th e facts of the case are that a case-RC No. 03(A)/2005-was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Sri G. Devadanam, Telephone Mechanic (Accused Officer. hereinafter referred to as tht: Appellant), on

16.2.2005, based on a r.vritten complaint (Ex.P2) lodged by PW. 1 on the same day. In his complaint, PW. 1 alleged that the Appellant clemanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,OOO/- lbr providing a CCB PT connection at Amzad Cycle Tela/Taxi, A-Power House, Ramgundam.

3. The complaint was received by PW.8/Police' Inspector, CBI on 16.2.2005 at 1:30 PM at Jyoti Bhawan Guest House, NTPC, Ramagundam. Aftt:r verifying the complaint, it w-as faxed to the I 2 SP, CBI at 2:lO PM, and PW.9 was directed to register the case. .PW.8 was instructed to proceed with further investigation.

4. On 16.2.2005, PW.8 - Trap Laying Ofhcer summoned two independent witnesses to act as mediators-PW.2 and another witness, Sri Shankaraiah (not examined). They were introduced to PW.1 and Ex.P2 was shown to them. Subsequently, PW.8 recorded the pre-trap proceedings in the First Mediators Report (Ex.P3) on 16.2.2005. The trap organized by PW.8 was successful, and the Appellant was caught red-handed when he demanded and accepted thb illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from PW.l near Ashok Engineering Workshop on 16.2.2005. Both hand washes of the Appellant were collected, and when subjected to a chemical test, they yielded a positive result. The tainted bribe amount was seized from the T-shirt pocket of the Appellant

5. The investigation prima facie revea,led that the appellant had demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.1,OOO/- from PW.1 in exchange for the ofhcial favour of providing a CCB PT connection. Following this, after obtaining the sanction from PW.7 - Dy. General Manager to prosecute the Appellant, a charge sheet was fiIed against him for offenses punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corn:ption Act. 3

6. First, it mu.st be determined whether the .prosecution has proven the demand and acceptance on the date of the -trap treyond reasonable doubt.

6.1. According tc, PW. 1, on the trap date, he and PW.2 both went on a scooter, while the remaining trap party mernbers arrived in a Sumo at the appellant's workplace. The Sumo wasi stopped at the power house, approximately 100 yards frorr. the telephone exchange at Ramagundam. PW. 1 stated that they stopped their scooter at the telephone exchange, which belonge.cl to PW.2. PW. 1 and PW.2 then entered the telephone exchange, wh,ere PW. I called the appellant by his name. The appellant calne out of the telephone exchange. took his scooter, and PW.1 silt on the back. The appellant then took him to the centre of Rarnagundam, with PW.2 following them on his scooter and the trap peLrty following in the Sumo.

6.2. PW. 1 stated that the appellant stopped his scooter at Ashok Engineer Works, u'here PW.2 and the CBI team also stopped at a distance. PW.1 stated that at this point, the appelJ.ant asked him whether he had brought the amount. PW. 1 then h,anded over the amount to the appellant, who took it with his left hand, counted it with both hands, and placed it in his left T-shirl pocket. PW. 1 I l''., 4 further stated that the appellant told him that the connection would be provided the next day. However, during cross- examination, PW. 1 stated that on the date of ihe trap, the appellant had taken him on his scooter to the location for providing the telephone connection. This ccintradicts the claim that the appellant was taking him to a secret location specifically for collecting the bribe. Moreover, the location where the bribe was allegedly accepted was not pre-determined by the appellant.

6.3 PW. 1, in his cross-examination, stated that he had not paid any amount to the appellant when the appellant took him on the scooter to the location for givi ng the telephone connection. He further stated that the appellant stopped the scooter only at his request after traveling half a kilometer, as PW. I informed him that he had urgent work and needed to take his child to Bellampally due to illness. Upon PW. l's request, the appellant stopped the scooter by the side of the main road, in front of Ashok Engineer Works. PW.8 also admitted that, as per Ex.p4, the appellant took PW. I on his two-wheeler to provide the connection, and it was PW. 1 who stopped him midway on the pretext of urgent work and then paid the amount of Rs.1,OOO/-, 5

6.4. PW.2, the rnediator and accompanying witness, stated that PW. 1 sat on the appellant's scooter, and he (PW.12) started PW. l's scooter and followed them along with a CBI constable, Brahmananda Reddy. He further stated that the appellant and PW. 1 stopped their scooter at the shop of Ashok Engineer Works, and he. also stopped his scooter at some distance. He observed that the appellant and PW.l were talking to each other, while the CBI team stopped at a distance. PW.2 stated that PW. l took out the amount from his left shirt pocket with his right hand and handed it over to the appellant, who took the money, counted it with both hands, ,end kept it in his left shirt pockr:1

6.5 Both PW.s 1 and 2 deposed that immediately after the exchange of money, PW.9 arrived and caught hold of the appellant's hands above the wrist level. Howevrlr, there is no testimony regarding PW.2 giving any prior arranged signal indicating the denrand and acceptance of a bribe. Even PW.8, the CBI Inspector, did not depose about PW.2 making any such signal

6.6 Further, Py\t.2 stated that he was not aware of the conversation between PW. 1 and the appellant zLfter the scooter was stopped. PW.B also stated that PW.2 dicl not hear any conversation between PW. 1 and the appellant, as he was at a I ::':.\ 6 distance of 100 yards. PW.8 admitted that pW.2 also stated that -When PW. 1 met the appellant and inquired about the DD ald telephone connection, PW.2 did not mention any demald made by the appellant at that point. PW.8 also admitted that he himself did not hear any conversation between pW. 1 and the appellant.

6.7 Thus, besides PW. 1, no one has spoken about any demarid for money made by the appellant. Moreover, pW.2 stated that PW. t had kept a cassette recorder in his right pant pocket. The same was removed, played, and the recorded conversation was transferred to another cassette. PW.2 admitted that this cassette was played during the post-trap recording. He further admitted that they heard the conversation recorded by the digita_l voice recorder, but the conversation was not transcribed into writing in the post-trap proceedings.

6.8 PW.8 admitted that he had provided a digital voice recorder to PW. I with instructions to record the conversation between PW. 1 and the appellant. He further stated that he recovered the recorder during the post-trap proceedings from pW. l. pW.t had switched on the digital voice recorder, and pW.g had transferred the recorded conversation from the digital recorder to a new audio 7 cassette recorder. However, he stated that the conversation found in the digital voice recorder was not incorporated Ln ExP4.

6.9. From the above, it is clear that the place of demand and acceptance of the bribe was not pre-planned by. tht: appellant. The appellant had stopped the scooter only on PW. 1's request, midway to the location whr:re the telephone connection was to be provided. Further, even though PW.2 was an accompanying witness and followed PW. 1, he did not make any signal nor t':stify regarding any demand made by the appellant. Lastly, zlth-6rugh a cassette recorder was provided to PW. 1 to record the conversation between PW. 1 and the appt:llant, and though it was played cluring the post- trap proceedings, PW.8 admitted that the conversation was never transcribed into writing in the post-trap report, 11or was the new audio cassette fi1ed as evidence. Moreover, PW.2 initially claimed the conversation v,as inaudible but later admitted that there was no mention in ExP'4 regarding the inaudibility of tlrc recording.

7. PW.1 stated that the CBI officer arrived imrr-ediately, caught hold of both the hands of the appellant at the wrist level, and took him aside from the road. The amount was seized, eLnd from there, the appellant wzrs brought to the telephon,: exchange at Ramagundam. *i.3 8

7.1. PW.2 stated that after the exchange of the amount, PW.9 immediately caught hold of the hands of the appellant. He further stated that he and Brahmananda Reddy also - reached there immediately. Both the hands of the appellant were dipped in the solution, which turned pink. PW.2 further stated that they then proceeded to the telephone exchange, where they met PW.3 and informed him that they had caught the appellant accepting a bribe. It was at this point that PW.2 picked up the amount from the appellant's T-shirt pocket.

7.2 There is a clear contradiction between the testimonies of PW.s 1 qrrd 2, as evident from the above. Firstly,. according to PW. 1, the amount was seized at the scene where the exchange of the bribe took place, and only thereafter was the appellant brought to the telephone exchange. However, PW.2 stated that they first brought the appellant to the telephone exchange, where they met PW.3, and only then was the amount recovered from the appellant. Further, PW. I initially stated that the inspector picked up the arnount from the appellant, but later added that it was PW.2 who picked up the amount under the instruction of the CBI offrcer. 9 7 .3 Moreover, according to PW. I , the appellarrt took the bribe amount with his left hand, counted it with both hands, and then placed it in hls left T-shirt pocket. However, PW,2 admitted that, as per ExP4, q,ht:n the TLO asked the appellant about the amount received from PW. 1, the appellant stated that the amount was in his right-hand l'-shirt pocket and showed the amount in that pocket. Despite this, PW.2 also admitted that on page 3 of ExP4 (post-trap proceedings), it is mentioned that the tainted amount was recovered from the left-side pocket of the appellant's T-shirt. This discrepancy regarding whether the amount was recovered from the left side pocket, as mentioned in ExP4, or from the right- side pocket, as indicated by the appellant in response to the TLO's questioning, is signihcant 7 .4 Furtherm ort: , PW.2, in his chief examinatron, stated that immediately after the exchange of the amount, ['W.9 caught hold of the appellant's hands, following which he ancl Brahmananda Reddy also reaclied there. He stated that bottr hands of the appellant were riipped in the solution, whicLr turned pink Thereafter, thev proceeded to the telephone exchErnge, where the money was recovered. However, during cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that both hands of the appellant were subjected to the sodium carbonate solution test only after the aprpellant himself 10 showed the amount. This inconsistency in PW.2t testimony regarding the sequence of events raises concerns.

7.5 Additionally, PW. 1's evidence establishes that the appellant took the bribe amount from PW. 1 with his left hand, counted it with both hands, and then placed it in his left T-shirt pocket. PW.3, the Junior Telecom Officer, stated that the appellant's hands were washed in his room itself. Given that the appellant had counted the bribe amount with both hands, the solution was bound to turn pink.

7.6 PWs. 2 and 3 admitted that, as per Ex.P3, after all members washed their hands with soap and water, a phenolphthalein powder packet was left at the guest house. They also admitted that Ex.P3 does not mention carrying sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powders for future use. If Ex.P3 does not record that sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powders were carried for future use, it raises questions regarding whether the solution used in the trap test was properly prepared and accounted for.

7.7 Lastly, PW.2 stated that no proceedings were drafted at Ashoka Engineering Workshop, where the appellant was apprehended. PW.S also admitted that Ex.P4 proceedings were prepared on JTO/PW.3's computer and that no proceedings were 11 drafted at the actual place where the appellant \r,as apprehended, Furthermore, there is no testimony indicating th:rt rough notes or draft notes were prepared by PW.8, the inspector, during the post- trap proceedings. The fact that Ex.P4 was typed only after the proceedings had concluded casts doubt on the tn:thfulness of the proceedings, especially given that no notes were prepared by the trap party membt:rs. Oflicial Favour:

8. Now, it rnust be examined whether the appellant had any pending offrcial favour on the date of the trap.

8.1 According to PW. 1, he made an application for a coin box collection telt:phone, and the appellant demanded a bribe for providing the CCtl PT connection. PW.3, the then Junior Telecom Officer (JTO), stated that after the trap, the CBt officer enquired whether the telephone connection was given to PW. l PW.3 informed that the rvork had been completed on \2.O2.2OOS and also provided a printout from the computer to show that the work was completed on that date.

8.2 PW.4, the then DE, stated that after laying the trap, they verified the telephone exchange at Ramagunriam and found that the dial tone , was functioning in the exchirnge. They then I 1 :!,1 -\ L2 proceeded to the pillar and found that the dial tone at the pillar ,.was also functioning. From there, they went to the distribution point and found that 5O meters of wire had been drawn against the required 90 meters. He further stated that the delay in providing the connection was due to the. iinavailability of 40 meters of drop wire, and that in the absence of the 40 meters of drop wire, the connection could not be given to PW. 1's CCB PT.

8.3 PW.3 also stated that except for the drop wire, the rest of the work up to Five Star Pan Shop had been completed by the date of the' trap incident. He confirmed that, as per ExP.2O proceedings, 40 meters of drop wlre was required to give the connection to PW. l's CCB FrI.

8.4 PW.4 further stated that, as per Ex.P2O, there was 40 meters of drop wire available in the Ramagundam telephone exchange. Ex.P2O proceedings are the observation proceedings drafted after the trap party, along with PW.3 and PW.4, visited Pillar Nos. 24 and 29. ln Ex.P20, it was opined that 40 meters of drop wire was required to provide the connection and that, to date, the connection had not been provided despite sufficient drop wire allegedly being available at the exchange. 13

8.5 The prosecution's case is that, S pe:r Ex.P22 (store indent), although one bundle of drop wire was available in the store, the appellarrt did not make use of it. Since it is the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 that 40 meters of drop wire was required to give the connection to PW.1's CCB PT, the prosecirtion claims that the delay was intentional.

8.6 PW.4 stated that the JTO is the custodian of the drop wire and that stock registers are maintaine<l to record the availability of sto<:k. However, he also stated thett the CBI officer did not verify th,: stock register, and the prost:cution did not present this register as evidence. He admitted that he was not shown any recorcl except the Ex.P20 proceedings, which stated that recovered clrop wire was available in the exchange

8.7 Further, PW.3 admitted that Ex.P2O does not mention that CBI officials r,'erified the stores and found sufficient drop wire in the exchange. It is also the evidence of PWs. 3 ald 4 that, although Ex.P22 states that drop wire was available, it does not mention that CBI officials verified the stores and confirmed the availability of sufficient wire. Moreover, PW.3 stated that he had no record to show that the material mentioned unrler Ex.P22 had been delivered by the date of the trap in this case. He added that, I -i'- l 74 after being shown Ex.P22, he collected the material from the sJores. However, there is no record to conlirm that he had collected the material from the stores based on Ex.P22.

8.8 Thus, aside from mentions in Ex.P2O and Ex.P22 by the trap part5r, there is no other record to prove that the wire was actually available. It is unclear why the stock register maintained by the SDE, who is the store in charge, was neither collected nor presented in evidence. According to PW.3, the SDE maintains a record of stock availability. However, the record was not collected, nor the SDE was examined. PW.8 himself admitted that he had not physically verified the stock of drop wire in the exchange. PW.3 further admitted that he was not shown any record pertaining to the stores of the SDE's offrce.

8.9 Additionally, even though 40 meters of drop wire was allegedly available, PW.4 admitted that the 40 meters of drop wire in the Ramagundarn exchange was used and recovered wire. He further stated that any damaged wire cannot be used. PW.3 also admitted that recovered wire from disconnections could be in a damaged condition. Thus, even if the wire was available, the appellant could not have used it if it was found to be damaged. 15

8.10 Lastly, PW.ll also stated that their department would only supply 5O meters of drop wire. If additional wiLre was needed, recovered drop wire would have to be used. However, he admitted that he had no record to show that recovered drop wlre was available in their office. He added that while re,:overv wire was available, no reco::ds were maintained for it. WherL the store itself did not have any recorded recovery drop wlre available, the question of appellant completing the work by JLaying down 40 meters of drop wire does not arise

8. I I Nevertheless, PW.3, in his cross-examination, cleariy denied that the required drop wire was available and that the service connection of PW. 1 is not completed for want of drop wire.

8.12 What is most significant 1S that, PW.3 stated that the subscriber had to purchase a coin box telephont: before the CCB PT connection could be prouided. He further stated that even if the drop wire was available, the connection could not be given without the installation of the coin box telephone.

8.13 PW.3 himself admitted that after the trap, t]rey inspected the line up to the drop wire and the location where the connection was to be given, and they did not find any coin box instrument there. Thus, the Iack of drop wire was not the primarv issue because, -r-f, 16 even if the drop wire had been available, a coin box telephone would still have been required to provide the connection to the CCB PT. The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.5 to establish that PW.t had purchased a coin box telephone from him. PW.5 stated that under Ex.Pl2 (cash receipt), he sold the instrument to PW. 1 on LO.O2.2OO5. However, it remains unclear why PW. 1 did not provide the coin box telephone to the appellant before the date of the trap, despite having purchased it on 10.02.2005. PW. 1 himself adrriitted that by the date of the trap, he had not handed ovdr the coin box to the appellant.

8.14 Moreover, the prosecution did not allege that even after PW. 1 provided the coin box telephone, the appellant deliberately withheld the connection. This is evident from PW. l's testimony. PW. 1 stated that after receiving Rs.1,00O/-, the appellant asked hirn to accompany him to the location for providing the connection. However, PW. 1 informed the appellant that he needed to take his child to Bellampally. The appellant then asked him to at least send his brother with the coin box so that the connection could be given immediately. At that moment, the CBI officials rushed in and caught hold of the appellant's hands. PW. 1 further 77 stated that on the date of the trap, the appellant asked him to bring the coin box so the connection could be prc,vided. However, PW. l told him th:Lt he was going to Bellampally due to his child's ill health. PW. 1 again admitted that the appellant asked him to send his brother along with the coin box so that the connection could be provided immediately.

8.15 PW.8 also admitted that the appellant had asked PW.l to bring the coin box and that PW.l had left immetl.iately, citing his child's illness as the reason.

8. 16 It is evident from PW.l's own statements that the appellalt repeatedly requested him to provide the coin box so that the connection could be given. The appellant even asl<r:d PW. 1 to send the coin box via his brother

8.17 Furthermor€, PW.1's claim that he could not bring the coin box to the location because he was going to BellarLpally due to his child's ill health appears to be false. PW.S stated that PW. 1 never mentioned his son's illness to him, either during Ex.P3 or at any time thereaJter. Moreover, PW.2 admitted that l)W.l stated in Ex.P4 that he enquired the appellant about the DD and telephone connection, and that the appellant informed hirr that his work I 18 was over, and that the appellant took PW. 1 on his scooter to go to .the location for giving connection.

8.18 Therefore, while an official favour was pending with the appellant-i.e., providing the CCB PT connection-it is evident that the delay was not due to the appellant's actions but rather due to PW. 1's reluctance to hand over the coin box telephone, which was necessary for providing the connection. This is further supported by the fact that the appellant was more than willing to provide the connection, as the wiring had already been laid, with only 40 meters of drop wire remaining, and all other work had been completed. 9 It has to be seen whether the appellant demand bribe on 10.02.20O5 and 15.02.2005:

9.7 As per PW. l's complaint, on 1O.2.2OO5, he met the appellant, who demanded a bribe of Rs 1OOO for providing the connection. Again, on 15.2.2OO5, a day before filing the complaint, the appellant allegedly made the same demand.

9.2 However, in his testimony before the court, PW. 1 stated that on L5.2.2OO5, the appellant increased the demand to Rs 15OO for giving the CCB PT connection. PW. I further said that 79 the appellant rvarned that the connection would not be provided unless he paid Rs 1500. He also stated that since he did not have enough money, he provided. Rs 1000 to the CBT during the pre- trap proceedings. PW.l then said that the appellent came to his house, saw that his father was unwell, and reduced the amount to Rs 1200. He also mentioned that the appellant ztsked him to pay Rs 200 later, after the connection was given.

9.3 During cross-examination, PW. 1 stated that the appellant did not demand Rs.1,5OO/- from him c,n 15.2.20O5. He said that the appellant initially asked for Rs.1,OO0/- but later, on the day of payment, asked for an extra Rs.SOrl/-. PW. 1 also admitted that in Ex.P2, he did not mention that the appeliant increased the dernand to Rs.15OO/- on 15.2.2005. He further admitted that Ex.l)2 does not mention that the appellant came to his house, sau, his father was sick, reduced the demand to Rs.1200/-, or asked for Rs.2O0/- to be paid later.

9.4 PW.8 confirmed that PW. l's complaint (.Ox.P2) does not mention that the appellant increased the demand iiom Rs.1000/- to Rs.1,500/-, later reduced it to Rs. l,2OO/-, or said that Rs.200/- should be paid aftr:r getting the connection. PW.8:rlso stated that PW. l gave awritten complaint (Ex.P2) at 1:30 PM to the SP, CBI, r I I l i -l'i 20 Hyderabad, stating that the appellant demanded Rs.l,0OO/- for providing a CCB PT coin box public te1ephone.pW.9, the CBI Inspector, also admitted that PW. 1 did not mention in his complaint that the appellant first demanded Rs.1,2OO/-, increased it to Rs.1,5OO/-, and then reduced it to Rs.1O0O/-.

9.5 Further, PW.S admitted that as per Ex.p4, pW. 1 stated that after he gave Rs.1,000/- to the appellant, the appellant took it and put it in his T-shirt, saying that the remaining Rs.200/- should be paid later. PW.9 also admitted that in Ex.p4, pW. 1 stated that'the appellant first asked for Rs.1,5OO/- instead of Rs.1,OO0/-, but on PW. 1's request, agreed to reduce it to Rs.1,200/-, took Rs.1,00O/-, and, asked him to pay the remaining amount later. However, PW.9 denied that he recorded in pW. l,s Section 1 6 I Cr. P. C statement that the appellant demanded Rs.1,500/- and later reduced it to Rs.l2OOl- before the complaint was filed.

9.6 From PW. l's statements, it is clear that he has changed his version regarding the bribe anount, giving different figures at different times. There is no clarit5r on whether the appellant demanded Rs.150O/-, Rs.12O0l-, or Rs. 10OO/-, as pW. 1 27 has given varying statements in court, in his complaint, and in Ex.P4 (post-trap proceedings).

9.7 If the complaint is to be believed and the appellant initially demanded Rs.1,OO0/-, it does not make sense why he would later ask for an additiona-l Rs.2OO/- or. the trap day, especially when ['W. 1 claimed it was pre-decided. The complaint does not mention any prior agreement that PW. 1 would pay Rs. 1,000/- first and Rs.2OO/- later after the connection was provided

9.8 Similarly, if the bribe amount was Rs.1,500/-, complaint does not specify when the demand was increased from Rs.1,000/- to Rs. t,500/-. Though PW. 1, in his chief examination, stated that the appellant raised the demand to Rs.1,SOO/- on

75.2.2005, he contradicted this in cross-examinatj.on, stating that no such demand rvas made on that date

9.9 Because of these contradictions and inconsistencies, the prosecutior-r has failed to prove the deman<l for the bribe beyond a reasonable doubt. The discrepalcies in PW. I 's statements are significant, especially in light of the appellant's defence. The defence contends that the appellant received Rs.1,000/- as parl of the security deposit he had paid on behalf of l.'.. -d-! 22 PW. 1 and that the case was foisted upon him because he was {emanding repayment. PW. 1 admitted that a customer cannot obtain a connection without paying Rs.1,200/- asa securit5r deposit and that this deposit is made only after a demand note is issued. PW.4 confirmed that Ex.P24 (demand'note) was issued by him on 3.2.2005. During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that once a demand note is issued, Rs.1,200/- must be deposited. As per Ex.Pl (receipt for Rs.1,2OO/-), this amount was deposited on

4.2.2OO5. He further stated that anyone could make this payment as Iong as the demand note was received. PW.7, the then Deputy General Manager who approved the prosecution sanction, admitted during cross-examination that, as per Ex.,P19 (demand note issued by the telephone department), a demand note was issued to PW. I for Rs.1,200/- asa securigr deposit. He also confirmed that anyone could pay the amount on behalf of the subscriber and that the office would issue a receipt upon receiving this pa5rment.

9.10 Thus, the appellant's defence is that PW.4 issued a demand note, and he paid Rs.1,2OO/- as a securit5r deposit on behalf of PW. 1, as permitted under the process. The receipt for this pa5rment, Ex.Pl, was obtained. 23

9.71 PW.1 initially testified that he gave Ii,s.1,2O0/- to the appellant as a deposit for a Coin Box Collection (CCB) telephone, that the appellant deposited the amount for the telephone connection, and that he later pro\,'ided Ex.Pl (receipt) as proof of payment. PW. I also admitted that he did not pay any amount at the time of applying and that the demand note rvas issued later after processing the application. However, in his <:omplaint, PW. 1 stated that on 10.2.2005, the appellant gave him a demand note dated 3.2.2005, informing him that Rs.I,2OO,| was paid vla demand draft (DD) and that Phone No. 255616 was allotted to him. This claim contradicts Ex.Pl, which shows the amount was paid in cash

9.12 During cross-examination, PW. 1 admitted that Ex.Pl is a cash receipt issued by BSNL, yet he did nrtr! enclose Ex.P 1 with his complaint. He further admitted that he never mentioned Ex.Pl in Bx.P2 (his complaint), Ex.P4 (post-trap proceedings), or his Section 16 1 tlrPC statement. The frrst tim,: he referred to Ex.P1 was during his court testimony.

9.13 Though PW.l claimed that he gave Rs.1,200/- to the appellant 2-3 days after submitting his application, he also admitted that, apart from his oral statement, there is no proof that !' -.t- 24 I i he paid Rs. 1,200/- to the appellant as a securit5r deposit. His e-vidence cannot be relied upon due to the following reasons: first, there is a clear discrepancy regarding whether the amount was paid via DD or in cash, as evidenced by ExPl. Second, ExPl was neither referred to in the complaint nor filed'by PW. 1. Moreover, PW.2 admitted that ExPl was recovered from the appellant. In light of PW.4 and PW.7's evidence, which confirms that the security deposit could be paid by anyone on behalf of the subscriber and that the office issues a receipt upon receiving the payment, the appellant's defence appears probable

9.t4 PW.2's evidence a-lso confrrms that, Ex.P4, PW. 1 stated that he inquired wilh the appellant about the DD and telephone connection, and the appellant informed him that his work was completed before taking PW. I on his scooter to the location for providing the connection. Further, PW.2 admitted that Ex.P4 recorded PW. 1 inquiring about the DD and telephone connection in his presence. If ExPl, the cash receipt, is dated

4.2-2OO5, there is no reason why PW. 1 would be asking about the DD on the trap day. Though PW.2 admitted that Ex.Pl was recovered from the appellant on the trap day, PW.8 contradicted this by stating that he received Ex.Pl along with the complaint/Ex.P2. PW.8 even denied that Ex.P1 was seized from 25 the appellant on the date of the trap. If Ex.P1 was indeed recovered from thc appellant and PW.S also admitted that Ex.Pl is the receipt for Rs. 1,2OOl- d.ated.4.2.2005, it is r:vident that the appellant paid the amount in cash. PW.8's t:vidence clearly contradicts PW.2's. PW.1's claim that the amorinl was paid via DD is proven false when compared to the evidence on record. PW.S admitted that u'hile Ex.P2 mentions a DD pa5rment, Ex.Pl establishes that the amount was actually paid in cash.

9. 15 Furthe:rmore, PW.8 admitted that PW. t had not enclosed any proof of payment of Rs.1,20O/- towards the securit5r deposit for his telephone connection, as per the demand note enclosed with E',x.P2. He also admitted that PW.1 neither mentioned nor enclosed Ex.Pl in his complaiot/Ex.P2. PW.8 further conceded that he did not mention the recc,very of Ex.Pl in either the pre-traD or post-trap proceedings (Ex.lrl} or Ex.P4). It is unclear why the prosecution suppressed the recovery of Ex.Pl from the appellant on the date of the trap.

9.16 Additionally, PW.8 admitted that PW. 1 did not specigr when he paid Rs. l,2OO /- to the appellant and that, apart from the contents of Ex. P12, there is no other evidence to establish that PW. 1 paid Rs.1,2OO/- to the appellant towar<ls the securit5r I, 26 deposit before the trap. PW.8 clearly stated that, as per Ex.Pl, the 4ppellant himself paid Rs. 1,20O/- towards the securit5z deposit

9.17 Additionally, as per Ex.P4, PW. 1 stated that after handing over Rs.l,OOO/- to the appellant, the appeJlant took the amount, placed it in his T-shirt, and stated that the remaining Rs.200/- should be paid later. Notably, the complaint mentions a demand of Rs.l,0OO/-, yet PW. 1 later claimed that the appellant demanded an additional Rs.200/- on the trap day. This discrepancy strengthens the appellant's defence-that he accepted the money from PW. 1 as part of the security deposit which was paid byhim, rather than as a bribe.

9.18 Though this defence is not explicitly recorded in Ex.P4, it gains credibility ln light of PW.8's admission that Ex.Pl's recovery was not documented in Ex.P4. This omission further weakens Ex.P4's reliability. Moreover, since Ex.P4 was t5ped later on PW.3's computer after the proceedings were completed- without referring to any rough notes and with no such notes being made-it cannot be entirely relied upon as an accurate record of events.

10. Regarding the complaint, PW. 1 stated that as he was unwilling to pay the bribe, he called the CBI oflice, and officers 27 arrived at the NTPC guest house in Ramagundarn on 16.2.2005. However, he late: added that on 15.2.2005, SI Rama Rao (who was not examined) came to Bharyanagar along with two constables. PW.1 further stated that on 16.2.2005, two other ofhcers came to the NTPC guest house. He also t-eiterated that he met Rama Rao on 15.2.2005 at 1O:00 PM at €r guest house in Bhagranagar, wl-rere the officer questioned him about his allegation and v,.hether he had lodged the crtmplaint due to personal grudge. PW.1 then stated that on 16.2.2005, he went to the NTPC guest house, met Rama Rao again, ,and submitted a written complainl (trx.P2) in the presence of PVr's. 8 and 9. A panchanama was prepared, and he handed over Rs.1.,000/- to the CBI ofhcer.

10.1 Hoq'cv,:r, in his cross-examination, PW.8 denied being at NTPC guest l.rouse, Ramagundam, on 15.2.2OC15. He admitted that Rama Rao rva s a member of the trap team, but he denied that Rama Rao was present with two constables at NTPC guest house on 15.2.2OO5, contradicting PW. 1's claim that he rrret them there. to.2 There is a clear contradiction between PW. 1 and PW.8's statements. Further, it remains unexplained why PW. 1 did not lodge the complaint on 15.2.2OO5 itself when he allegedly met I 28 Rama Rao, ald instead, Ex.P2 was only filed on 16.2.2005 before --.li l. PW.8.

10.3 Moreover, the prosecution's case is that the complaint was received at l:3O PM on L6.2.2OO5, as endorsed on Ex.p2, and was received via fax at 2:IO PM for registration, as endorsed on ExP27 /FIR. Further, according to PW.8, after the complaint was received at l:3O PM and sent for registration to Sp, CBI via fax at 2:IO PM, discreet enquiries were made in the meantime. Thereafter, Ex.P3 was drafted, with proceedings commencing at 3:00 PM and concluding at 4'.15 PM. 1O.4 From the above, there arises a doubt as to how pW.8 could have completed his enquiries rega-rding the genuineness of the complaint within 1 to I Yz hours. It appears that the case was registered hastily without a preliminary enquiry. 11 The facts of a case must be considered in their entiret5r, and individual circumstances cannot be relied upon in isolation.

12. Though recovery was made in this case, the aspect of demand has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, PW. l's evidence is unreliable for proving demand on the trap date, J: 29 as his statement contains discrepancies and improvernents. Lastly, while thr: appellant did accept money from PW.l, his defence that the ,mount was taken as a security deposit appears credible, especially in light of Ex.Pl's recovery from him.

13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of P. Satganarag anq. Murthg o. District Inspector of Police 1 , and in N.Vijagakumql u. State of Talnlril Nadu 2, held that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the aspect of demand beyond reasonable doubt and mere recovery of the amount divorced from the circutnstances cannot form bas.is to convict the accused.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellant could prove his defence. Accordingll., the appeal is allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.11 of 2005, da1,ed 13.12.2O1O Since the appellarLt/ Accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged SD/- C,V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA JOINT REGIS RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, o t. The Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad. (With records) 2. One CC to Sri Kristipati Papi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC;] 3 one CC to Sri T {irujan Kumar Reddy SC for CBI IODUC] 4. Two CD Copies L/PSL , L) HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1544 of 2010 /t, : t7, . ,,: (- /,,;- i' _: t -;,": i; *' [l I nii, i'u:: I t OE.SpA-1C c ALLOWING THE APPEAL