ChindoliManohar v. StateofTelangana

Judgment

1. The appellant was convicted for the offencer; under Sections 7 and l3(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of eor-r -rption Act, 1988 (for short 'the ActJ and sentenced to r,t.rdergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.99 of 2O7O dated

22.05.2014 passed by the II Additional Special .,udge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same . l'resent appeal is filed.

2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is as follor,,s P.W. 1 is the de facto complainant, on u,ir:rse complaint a trap was laid against the appellant. The appellanl was working as a Senior Assistant in the office of the Commissr tner, Municipal Corporation, Karimnagar, from 18.12.2OO4 to'27 12.2005. p.W.2 is a civil contractor. On 07. 12.2OO4, the Munic:ilral Corporation, Karimnagar, allotted a contract to P.W.2 for laylt',g a pathway in Deer Park under the ISMT Scheme, with an el;t mated value of Rs. 3,85,22 1/-. P.W. 1, being the authorized agcrlt of p.W.2, was 2 ,*ffi1!1.:r entrusted with the execution of the work, as per the authorization letter marked as Ex.P1. P.W.1 completed 60% of the work. A bill for Rs. 2,00,0971- was prepared by the Public Health Department and sent to the Municipal Commissioner's ofhce, where the file was processed and a.cheque (Ex.P8) was prepared and signed by the Municipal Commissioner. However, the cheque required a counter-signature by the Regional Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Warangal.

3. Although P.W.4 and the Municipal Commissioner instructed the appellant to obtain the counter-signature, he failed to do so Subsequently, P.Ws.1 and 2 approached the appellant multiple times, requesting him to obtain the required signature, but he demanded a bribe of Rs. 3,000/-, at the rate of 1% of the sanctioned amount.

4. Unwilling to pay the bribe, P.W. 1 approached the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar Range (L.W. 10), and submitted a complaint (Ex.P2), based on which a case was registered in Crime No.18/ACB- KNR/20O5 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

FIR (Ex.Pla) was issued, and investigation was taken up by L.W.10 3

5. During the investigation, L.W. 10 securecl the presence of mediators-P.W.3 and G. Raji Reddy (L.W.2)-and prepared the pre-trap proceedings (Ex.PS). A trap was laid with the assistance of P.W.6, Inspector, ACB, Adilabad.

6. On 27.12.2005, around 11:4O AM, P.W. 1 u,ent to the ofhce of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Fierrimnagar. Upon seeing P.W. 1, the appellant inquired whether ht: :rad brought the bribe amount. When P.W.1 replied 1n the effirmative, the appellant asked him to hand over the bribe ftrr obtaining the counter-signature on the joint cheque of Rs. i',')7,577 l-, which had already been signed by the Commissioner on 18.11.2005. Upon receiving the bribe of Rs. 3,000/-, the appellant accepted the money and placed it on his office table.

7. Following the pre-arranged signal, L.W.i0. along with the mediators and staff, entered the appellant's ofhce and caught him red-handed. Chemical tests on both of the appellernt's hands were positive (vide MOs.3 and 4). The tainted amrr.rnt (MO.s) was recovered from the office table at the instance of the appellant. L.W. 1O also seized other material objects (L{t.)s. 1 to 6) and 4 documents (Exs.P6 to P1O), and post-trap proceedings 'were recorded under Ex.Pl2.

8. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exhibits Pl to P14 and Material Objects (MOs) 1 to 6 were marked. On behalf of the defence, D.Ws. I and 2 were examined, and Exhibits Dl to D4 were marked

9. The learned Special Judge, based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, rejected the defence put forth by the appellant that no official favour was pending. The court concluded that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe amount and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment, as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no ofhcial favour pending with the appellant at the relevant point of time, and hence, the question of demand and acceptance of bribe does not arise. He further points out that, during cross- examination, P.W. 1 admitted that the appellant resisted with both hands when P.W. 1 attempted to place the money on the appellant's table. He also submits that the cheque in question 5 (Ex.P8), along with the relevant file pertaining to P.W.2, was 1n the possession of P.W.4 on the date of the trap. and the same was recovered by the investigating ofhcer. This aspect is not disputed by the prosecution, as it is borne out b1'' .he record.

11. He further contends that the evidence c- P.W. 1 is not corroborated by any independent evidence ancl, therefore, does not sufhciently support the prosecution's c€-s':. The learned counsel draws the Court's attention to the crotls -examination of P.W. 1, wherein he deposed as follows: "[t is true that i.n the month of August 2005, when the biLl 'us scttt to the Municipal Corporation Offce, Karimnagar, the Accused ()ili er v,as not the concerncd clerk. (IVitness further states that he is not a', t:,e v'helher the Accused Ofiiccr v'as the concerned person dt that point )l timo Yrho was dcaling with the bills, but the contractor Srinivas (l.lI/.4) know's.) The contractor Srini,,,as told me that the bill was prepared arl 'he cheque was signed by the Commissioner. I did nol visit the Municipal t ot.torunon O/Jice in conncclion with processing of the bill. It is true tlnt I a'r, ttol knov ttith whom the bill was 11,ing or at what stage it was. In corurcctioti with the bill, I never met the Acatsed Olficer."

12. The learned counsel for the appellant thert:frlre submits that P.W. 1 was unaware of the status of the bill, inchrding with whom it was pending, and that he was not monitoring its processing. He also categorically admitted that the appellant 'vas not dealing with the bill in question during September ao:[ October 2005, 6 and that the cheque related to the bill was recovered from the Accountant, Maqsood Mirza (P.W.4), by the ACB officials.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that p.W.4, who is the Accountant, was in possession of the concerned bill marked as Ex.P8 on the date of the trap and was the competent authority to deal with it. Ex.P8 was recovered from p.W.4 by the investigating ofhcer on the day of the trap. In his chief examination, P.W.4 deposed that he was responsible for handling the accounts of the Corporation, maintaining the cash book and cheque book, and processing the sanction of amounts related to various contract works. He stated that he had prepared the cheque in favour of P.W.2 on 18.11.2005 and obtained the signature of the Municipal Commissioner on the same day. Since the account was a joint account, the cheque required counter- signature by the Regiona_l Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Warangal.

14. He further deposed that on the date of the trap, i.e.,

27.12.2005, he produced the cash book and cheque book- marked as Exs.P7, P8, P9, and P1O-before the Inspector, ACB, as per the latter's instructions. In his cross-examination, he 7 stated that P.w.2 had approached him regardinp the subject bill. /. He also admitted that during the post-trap prc)leedings, he did not state that the appellant had been entrusted with the cheque for obtaining the counter-signature, as was the errlier practice'

15. In light of the above evidence of P.W.4, the learned counsel argues that no ofhcial favour was pending witl:r the appellant on the date of the trap, and therefore, the trial c lurt erroneously convicted the appellant. He further contends th rt the conviction was based merely on assumptions and presumpl.ions, and hence, he prays that this Court may be pleased 1.r set aside the conviction and acquit the appellant. t6. On the other hand, Sri Vishal Gandhi , learned counsel representing the learned Special Public Prose,:t. tor for the ACB, submits that the learned Special Judge has :itlhtiy appreciated the evidence and material on record, and tras recorded well- reasoned findings in convicting the appellant. He submits that although P.W. 1 turned hostile and deposed contrary to his evidence in chief examination, the prosecu.-i':rn case remains intact. He points out that the chief examinatj ln of P.W. 1 was recorded on 25.01 .2011, whereas his cross-t:xamination took 8 place on 01.06.201l-after a gap of five months and 24 days- during which period, the appellant is alleged to have won over P.W: 1. He contends that the hostility of P.W. 1 does not dilute the prosecution's case SO S to warrant acquittal of the appellant from serious charges of illegal gratification.

17. He further submits that P.W. 1, in his cross-examination, made contradictory statements-initially stating that the appellant resisted when the bribe amount was placed on the table, and later stating that the appellant did not resist. These contradictions, he argues, indicate that P.W. 1 was influenced by the appellant. He emphasizes that the tainted bribe amount was recovered at the instance of the appellant on the date of the trap, and that the chemical test on both of the appellant's hands yielded positive results. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully proved the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe amount. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. i8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the ACB, and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no official work was pending with the appellant as 'ijt 9 on the date of the trap. It is an admitted fact t rat, on the said date, the official task of delivering the cheque rra-ked as Ex.pg to P.W. 1 was not pending with the appellant, brrt was, 1n fact, pending with P.W.4. Even as per the prosecut;orr,s own version, Exs.PS to P10 were recovered from the posseSsior. of p.W.4.

19. In his cross-examination, p.W.4 admittecl that it was p.W.2 who approached him with regard to the cheque in question. He further admitted that he did not state, durin3 the post_trap proceedings, that the appellant had been er: tL,sted with the cheque for obtaining the counter-signature, as v,as allegedly the earlier practice.

20. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that p.\\/.1 was not the person concernecl with the bill related to Ex.pg. It was p.W.2 who was the actual contractor and directly concer,t:c with the said bill. As already noted, P.w.2 himserf approacherl p.w.4 regarding the bill, and not P.w. 1. It is arso an undisputecl ract that Exs.pg to P10 were seized from p.w.4. Therefore, r-LLe prosecution's contention that the appellant was responsibl,: for getting the cheque (Ex.P8) counter-signed by the Regional Lreputy Director, Town and Country Planning, cannot be accepted. 10 2L Furthermore, P.W. 1 turned completely hostile to the prosecution's case. He was initially examined on 25.O1.2O1 1, and his cross-examination was conducted on O1.06.2011. This cross- examination took place in the presence of the learned Special Judge, who had ample opportunity to observe and assess the demeanor and conduct of P.W. 1 while he deposed contrary to his earlier chief- examination.

22. The learned Special Judge, in his judgment, observed as follows: "It is no doubt true that it has also come on record that Exs.PS and P10 Luere recouered from the possession of P.W.4 bg the Inuestigating Officer. For that matter, there is no denial on the part of the prosecution also on that aspect. Euen according to the prosecution, the cheque (Ex PB) was tuith P.W.4 onlg. It is nobodg's case that Ex.PB utas entrusted to tLrc accused." The learned Special Judge, having observed that the appellant was not entrusted with the task of obtaining the counter-signature of the Regional Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, nevertheless erroneously convicted the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that there is no corroboration of the testimony of P.W. 1 regarding the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The learned Special Judge failed to properly appreciate the fact 11 that there was no independent evidence sr..prporting the alleged demand and acceptance. Furth:r-more, the prosecution failed to discharge the statutory tlrrden under Section 2O of the Prevention of Corruption Act ,vith respect to proving the demand and acceptance of the l ribe by the appellant 23,. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. Distri:ct Inspector of Police, State of A.P', the Hon'ble Supreme Cour-t reiterated that t I mere acceptance of any amount dehors proof c. demand would .. not be sufficient to bring home charge undcr Sections Z and, 13(1)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the conviction vrais reversed.

24. In B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra pradr:sh,, the Hon,ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of thc amount cannot form basis to constitute the offence under Sectiorrs 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruptior Act.

25. When once the allegation of demand is r.c,: proved beyond reasonable doubt, mere recovery of the antount from the appellant is of no consequence, since the worl< of the appellant t 1ZO151 tO Supreme Court Cases 152 '120141 13 Srp.eme Court Cases 55 12 was not pending with the appellant but with p.W.4, as admitted by P.W.4.

26. In result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.99 of 2OLO dated 22.O5.2014, IS hereby set aside and the appellant 1S acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

27. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Sd/- K.SHYLESI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// s CTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

2. The lnspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Adilabad, Karimnagar Range.

3. One CC to the Sri T.Bala Mohan Redddy, SC for ACB, Special Public Prosecutor TS

4. One CC to Sri V. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Kam/psl R/ ..l /r. l: 2il EP 2m \\-(..1- \\. l!'r' '/ - * .4' HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.620 of 2014 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL n-o{,id V. di{ff