Criminal Appeal No. 382 of 2013 · The High Court · 2025

The State represented by CBI, High Court of AP., Hyderabad ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri T.Pradumyumna Kumar Reddy, for SRI T.S.ANIRUDH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, SC FOR CBt The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.382 and 384 OF 2013 COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Criminal Appeal No.382 of 2073 was Iiled by A2, and Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2Ol3 was filed by A1.

2. A1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(21, and A2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 109 IPC r/w Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide judgment in C.C.No.S of 2006, dated 26.O4.2OL3, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

3. Since both the appeals question the conviction of the appellants/Al and A2, they are heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that K.Ramesh Kumar (A1), ar employee working as UDC in Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad during the year 2OO4, and M.Krishna (A2), a private person functioning as a Travel Agent without aly authori zation 2 from the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad during the same period, entered into a criminal conspiracy- A1 abuse'1 his offrcial position as a pr:Lblic servant by receiving passport app 'ications and processing the same in the Regional Passport Office Hyderabad, unauthorizedly 1'a cilitating them for monetary considerz:-tion.

5. On the basrs; of a reliable source of information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad, registered a case vide RC.29(A\|2OO4 or:' 28.O9.2OO4 against the accused. The CBI team, lead by R.M.Khar, Dy.SP, CBI, Hyderabad-P.W.36, a-L>ng with two independent witnesses, Tajamul Akbar (P.W.2) and T.Nageshwar Rao, Manager, Bank of Baroda, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-L.W.4, took positions neitr a coconut shop in Market Police Station lane, Secunderabad eLt rrbout 9.15 a.m on29.O9.2004. At about 9.30 AM, A1 came near the coconut shop on a Hero Hondrl Motorcycle bearing registration No. AP i3E 8658-MO2, stopped his motorcycle, and made a telephone call from his mobile phone. rrlfter about 5 minutes, A2 carne near the coconut shop on a Bajaj Scooter bearing registration No.A.lS 49 11-MO1, parked his vehicle nr:ar the Hero Honda, and after having a conversation for a couple oi minutes, A2 3 opened his scooter's front dickey, removed a polythene bag containing 25 passport applications and cash of Rs.28,500f -, and kept the polythene bag in the side box of A1's Hero Honda motorcycle. Then, both of them started their respective vehicles and, while they were moving towards the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, the CBI team stopped them and seized 25 duly filled-in Passport Applications and an amount of Rs.28,500/- from the possession of A1, and 58 cash receipts issued by the Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad, and a small diary from the possession of A2, in the presence of two independent witnesses. The same has been incorporated in the proceedings drawn on 29.09.2004 at Market Po1ice Station, Secunderabad, in the presence of two witnesses.

6. It is alleged that during the course of investigation, it was revea-led that the above 25 applications pertained to 25 applicants who gave their applications to ,{2 (who is an authoized travel agent) through local agents. A2 handed over the said applications to A1 along with the amount of Rs.28,5O0/-, which includes an application fee of Rs.25,0O0/- @Rs.1,000/- per application and 4 illegal gratificatron of Rs.3,SOO/- @ Rs.l4O/- per application, for unauthorized submission of those Passport Applicalions in the Regional Passport Ofhce, Hyderabad, without the actuai presence of the applicants. .A.1, by influencing his colleagues in the office, facilitated the sr.rb mission of such applications.

7. Further, it is aileged that with regard to the seizrtre of the 58 cash receipts o1'the Regiona,l Passport Ofhce, Hyderahad from the possession of A.1 , it was revealed that 57 of these receipts were related to 57 applications earlier given to A 1 by A1,2 for similar unauthorized sub:nission and processing in the passpc,rt offrce. The officials who were posted at the verihcation countor and cash counter, and u,hc, received these 57 applications, admil ted that they had received thr:se appiications ald accepted the passport fee from A 1 without eith er authorization letters from th : respective applicants in the name of A1 or the personal presence of the respective appiir:ants. Further, it is alleged that no authorized travel agent was invol'red in the submission of these applicants, and thus Al was accepting Passport applications from A2 unauthorizedly, outside the office premises, for pecuniary advantirge and for 5 influencing his colleagues in the office to get these applications processed.

8. It is further the case of prosecution that according to Chapter- IV of the Passport Manual, 2001, Passport Applications should be accepted only when submitted: (i) direcfly by the applicant or (ii) by his/her immediate family member (parents/children/brother/sister). If they are submitted by anyone else, including travel agents, then it should be done only on the basis of a written letter of authority from the applicant, in which the identity of the authorized representative should be clearly indicated with reference to an identit5r card number or voter's identity card or driving licence, etc. This letter of authorit5r should be taken on file and the counter personnel should mention the same on the application form.

9. The sanction orders under Section 19 of the Act has been obtained from the Department for prosecuting A1, being the public servant, and thus A'1 is liable for the offences under Sections 8, 13(1)(d) r/w l3(2) of the Act, and A2 is liable for the offences 6 punishable under Section 109 IPC, and Section 8, a-nd Sections 13(1)(d) r /w r3l2l) ,:f the Act

10. Learned Special Judge, basing on the oral and r:locumentary evidence produiced by the prosecution, convictetl both the appellants

11. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 36, marke'd Exs.Pl to P135 and MOs. L to 4. Ex.D1, a carbon copy of Ex.P3, was marked on behalf of the defence.

12. Sri T.Pracllnrmna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on trehalf of Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for A I rvould submit that the applicants P.\Ars.3 to 8 and 32 gave their applications to P.W. 10, who runs Geeta njali Travels, Nizamabad. P.W.9, the applicant, gave his applicatioa to P.W. 11, who runs Sony 'Travels, Armoor, and P.Ws.12 and l3 gave their applications to P.W. 14, who worked in a travel agenc F at Siricilla- P.W. 17 and P.Iil.21 gave their applications to P.W.1,10, who was running a telephone booth. P.W.20 stated that if :rny passport applications were asked to be frlled up, he used to fill them and also 7 used take them to Regional Passport OIIice, Hyderabad. P.W.2 1 gave his application to P.W.22. Counsel submits that the travel agents P.Ws.1O, 11, 14,20, and 22 did not support the case of the prosecution in handing over the applications to A2. None of the applicants or the travel agents have identified A.1.

13. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that there is no evidence with regard to the passport application forrns being submitted by A1 to the officer in RPO, Hyderabad, for processing the applications. In fact, the oflicia,ls of the Regional Passport OIIicer, who were examined as P.Ws.23, 24, and 26 to 31, and who were the Assistants in the Regional Passport Office, were declared hostile, and they did not speak anything against A1. In view of the above, none of the ingredients of Section 8 or Section 13(1(d) of the Act are made out against A1.

74. Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for A2, argued that there is no incriminating material against A2. He was not identified by any of the travel agents. The applicants for passport also did not identifr A2. He has nothing to do with the case and has been falsely implicated by the CBI. 8

15. According tc, P.W.36, who is the Investigating Ofhcer, on receipt of reliable information, he registered a crime on 28'09'2OO4' According to his verification, he came to know that A1 was meeting everybody and ,:ollecting passport applications of var ious persons from A2 and subrnitting them in the passport office. A.t about 8.30 a.m, along with other CBI offrcers, he went near the Passport Office, Hyderabad. At about 9.30 a.m, they saw '.{1 coming on a motor cycle and A2 on a Bajaj scooter. Both of them conversed for a few minutes and A1l, opened his scooter dicky and gave a cover to A1. P.W.36, then went and questioned A1 and, A2 about the passport applications thzrt were in the polythene cover passed on by ,{2 to A1. P.W.36 then lbund 25 passport applications and iin amount of Rs.28,50O/- in cash, out of which Rs.25,000/- was rneart for the application fee ltrr 25 applicants and the remainin g amount of Rs.3,500/- was lowards commission. The cash and applications were seized. trLtring the proceedings, other documetrts were also seized, which in.cluded passports, photographs, transfer certificates, etc., of different persons. 9

16. Both the motorcycles of A1 and A'2 were also seized. From the possession of A2, passport receipts and other documents under Exs.P99 to P106 were seized. The police a_lso seized 58 passport application submission receipts, which were marked as Exs.p38 to 42, P44 to P75, Exs.P77 to P81, P83, P85, P86, p89, p90, and Exs.P108 to Pl17.

17. The plea of A1 and ,A.2 is one of total denial, and they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. A1 and A2 denied having acquaintance with one another.

18. P.W. 1, who worked as Superintendent in the Regional Passport Ofhce, Hyderabad, stated regarding processing of and applying for a passport. According to him, the application has to be made in person to the Passport Office and a payment of Rs-1,000/- would be collected. According to P.W. 1, A1 was working in diary section, as in-charge of the Section. On 29.O9.2OO4, P.W.36 called P.W. 1 and informed about the seizure of application forms and other documents from both A1 and A2. L9. According to P.W. 1, A2 was not an authorized travel agent, and only an authorized travel agent could submit applications. In 10 the cross-examineLtion, P'w'1 stated that A1 was nr'rt concerned with the count-ers for receiving and dispatchittg passport applications. P.'W 1 also stated that he is not ar'r'are of the 58 receipts that were seized.

20. P.W.2, an independent mediator, was asked by P'W'36 to witness the procee:dings. He was present when P'W.36 seized a]l the applications and other documents from A,1 and A2' P.Ws'3 to 8, who are the appiicants, and P.W.36 stated that tht,y gave their applications in ,Geetanjali Travels at Nizamabad, which was run by P.W. 10. All of thern stated that the amount was paid tc P.W. 1O after grving their applications. P.W. 10 stated that he us':d to collect Rs.1,400/- from t:ach applicant, out of which, Rs.1,0t)O/- was the amount for ttLe application fee, Rs.2OO/- for trz'-nsport, and Rs. 100 / - for the photo of the applicants when they were brought for submitting their applications. He used to get Rs.100/- for each application. P.W 10 did not speak about either A7 o:' A2. He was declared hostile to the prosecution case.

21. P.W.9, who is an applicant, stated that he gave his application to SonyTravels, rvhich was run by P.W. 11. P.W. 11 dirl not identify 11 either A1 or A'2 and was also declared hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.12 and 13 are applicants who stated that they gave their applications to P.W. 14. P.W. 14 did not identi$r either A1 or A2.

22. P.W. 15 stated that whenever any customer approaches him, he used to fiIl up the application and used to collect Rs.lOO/- from the application. He denied having acquaintance with either A1 or 42 or with Sri Krishna of Tirumala Travels, Hyderabad. He was declared hostile to the prosecution case

23. P.W. 16's evidence is similar to that P.W. 15. He was a-lso declared hostile to ttre prosecution case. P.Ws.17 and 21 gave their applications to P.W.2O. P.W.2O stated that he cannot identitr either A1 or ..A'2 and no applications were marked to him.

24. P.W.22 was working as an agent ln Chaitanya Travels at Karrrnnagar. According to him, he used to collect Rs.1O0/- from the customer for f,rlling up the passport application. He did not identify Al or 42.

25. P.Ws.23, 24,26 to 31 are the Assistalts working in the Regional Passpgrt Office, Hyderabad. Some of the applications and L2 cash receipts were marked through these witnesses. AI1 of them stated that A1 u,as working as UDC in the office and denied knowing 42. None of the witnesses from passport of{ice stated that ,A'1 used to submit application forms in the counters

26. The case of OBI is that the applications used to b,: collected in various travel agencies by the travei agents. The said applications collected along with the requisite fee and e>:tra amount. According to CIll, A1 was paid Rs.10O/- for each aplrlication. On the date of search, i.e., on 29.O9.2OO4, the applicatior:rs and other receipts were fortnd in possession of A1 and A2-'lh': documents included the docrrments pertaining to applicants for pa,ssport

27. Other than the offrcia-ls of the passport of{ice, none of the witnesses who ieppiied for passports or the travel agerrts identified A1 or 42. According to the evidence placed on record the receipts were issued by the passport office. The applications tr:<s.P7 to P3 1, cash receipts, Exs.P32 to 34 and 38 to 75,77 to 81,8.1,85,86,89, 90, 93, 108 to I l'Z were all marked during the course ,rf trial, apart from other docu.ments pertaining to the passporl. applicants. Admittedly, the :rpplications were not received either by Al or A2. 13 The money for the applications was also not received by Al or 42. However, the witnesses from the RPO office have identified the case receipts said to have been issued by them

28. The allegations against ,A'1 is for the offences under Sections 8, 13(1)(d). For an offence under Section 8, the ingredients that are required to be satished by the prosecution are: i) accepting any gratification for inducing any public servant by cormpt or illegal means; ii) to do any official act to show favour or disfavor to any person.

29. None of the witnesses from the RPO, Hyderabad have stated that they were induced by A1 or A2 for issuing the receipts or accepting the passport applications. Likewise, none of the applicants or the travel agents stated that the money collected was for the purpose of inducing any public servant, or that it was collected by travel agents or given by the applicants for the purpose of inducing any public servant in the Regional Passport Office. When there is no evidence before this Court to infer that any amount was either collected or given for the purpose of inducing 14 any public servanl or for doing any official act by Ai, the question of conviction under Section 8 does not arise.

30. To attract an offence under Section 13(1)(d) o[ the Act, a person must havr:, by cormpt or i1lega1 means, obtained for himself any pecuniary advantage, or abused his position as a public servant and obtained any pecuniary advantage.

31. As already cliscussed in the preceding paragraphs, none of the witnesses have stated that any amount was meant either for A1 or anyone in the passport office for the purpose of pl.ocessing the applications or :;rrbmitting the applications in the passllort office.

32. In the absenrle of any such evidence, it cannot be assumed, on the basis of certa-tn applications and amount being se'ized from A1 ard A2, that tfre said amount was meant for either inducing any public servant itr the passport office or that ,A'1 harl abused his oflicial position arLd collected such amounts from the applicants.

33. Admittedly', none of the travel agents who coller:ted passport applications ancl money, or the passport office as sistants who 15 issued the receipts, are made as accused in the present caSe. There is no allegation against any of them. I

34. The only evidence placed by the prosecution is the alleged seizure of applications, receipts, etc. If the case of P.W. 1, who is the Superintendent of the Passport Ofhce, is that the applications have to be directly submitted in the passport ofhce, then the applications found with A1 and A2 would not be accepted by the passport office. In such a case, merely because passport applications were found in the possession of A 1 , there cannot be any assumption that the applications were collected for being submitted in the RPO office. \ \

35. Insofar as the receipts are concerrred, it is not the case that the receipts were not issued to the applicants when their applications were submitted. As already stated, neither the \ applicants have spoken anything against A1 and A2 nor have the officials who seized the receipts found in possession of Al and A2 stated that the said receipts were issued to A1 and A2 for any consideration or at the instance of A1. Not a single witness from the passport office or any of the applicants for passport, have spoken against the appellants/Al and A2.ln such a scenario, it cannot be 16 said that any cf the ingredients of either Section 8 or Section 13(1)(d) of the A.ct are made out against A1 and ,{2 r'rssumption of A1 and A2 c,rmmitting the offence under the llrevention of Corruption Act. only on the basis of the applicationr'; and receipts seized from therr possession, cannot form basis to convict them'

36. In the rersttlt, the judgment of the trial Court jn C'C'No'S of 20O6 dated 26 O4.2013, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases,, H),derabad, is hereby set aside and r-he appellants are acquitted Siince the appellants are on bai1, thr:ir bail bonds shall stand canr:elled

37. AccordirLgllz, both Criminal Appeals are allorved' Sd/- K. :SRINIVASA RAO / r \Jotur REGISTRAR / \ 'rr.at,o* oFFtcER Hyderabacl. (with records, if //TRUE COPY// to',. 2 "" -n. ll Add tional special Judge for cBl cases' anv) to 3ri P. Giri Krishna, Advocate [oPUC] ^. 3"'J . il ;; io siir.s. Anirudh Reddv' Advocat"-t9-Pyg.l . 5,# & i" iiiir. s*i* x'*'inLoav' sc FoRCBI [oPLrc] . Two CD tlooies w 4 5 Kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1610412025 COMMON JUDGMENT CRLA.Nos.382 and 384 ot 2013 *\ c C) L) 30 I PH zc25 j) ,/Y , * D [.,)t-, \ToH BOTH THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE ALLOWED ,a8 .rd"L kt*'