The High Court · 2025

Judgment

The present criminal appeal is Iiled by the complainant/t:itate/ACB aggrieved by the judgment dated

05.09.20i1 in CC No.19 of 2009 passed by the learned First Additional Special Judge for SPtr and ACB Cases -cum- V Additional C)hief Judge, City Civii Court, Hyderabad wherein the accused was lbund not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 artd 13(2\ read with Section 1 3 ( 1 ) (d) of Prevention of Corruption .i\ct, 1988.

2. Heard Sri Vishal Gandhi, learned counsel representing Sri T.Balamohan Reddy, learned standing counsel for appellant/ACEi and Sri E.Umamaheshwar Rao, learned counsel representing -sri Enuganti Sudanshu Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/ ac:cused.

3. CC No.19 of 2OO9 is a case registered basing on the complaint lo<Jged by the de-facto complainant Mr.Kanakanti China Mallikharjuna Rao/PW1, who is stated to be the owner of limestone quarry, alleging that the accused, being the Assistant Director, Mines and Geologr, Miryalaguda of Nalgonda District at that particular point of time, demanded an illegal gratiflcation of Rs.2S,OOO/- as bribe for issuing permit and to withdraw the notice dated O7.O2.2OOB issued against PW1 calling for his explanation complaining that he transported more than the quantity permitted. PW 1 further complained that the accused threatened him to cancel his licence in the event of not complying with his demand of payment of bribe amount- Accordingly, Cr.No.3/ACB-CIU-HYD/2008 for the olfence under Section 7 of PC Act was registered on 22.O2.2008. It is the further case of the prosecution that PW9/Deputy Superintendent of Police/ACB, upon obtaining presence of PW4 and one Bandi Parasuramudu as mediators, and upon completion of required formalities and demonstrating the trap procedure to PW 1 and others, laid trap against the accused and caught hold the accused upon his demalding and accepting the tainted currency notes from PWl. The TLO recovered the tainted currency notes of Rs.25,OO0/- and another amount of Rs.15,0OO/- from PW3, a quarry lease applicant on his voluntary production, to whom it was handed over by the accused. Upon completion of investigation, PW9 laid charge-sheet in the trial Court against the accused alleging that the investigation revealed commission of offences by the accused w Pase 3 of ll punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. 'lhe, trial Court took cognizance of the offences and assigned CC No.19 of 2OO9 and upon completion of required formalities, proceeded with triai

4. f)uLring trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to 9 and exhibited docurnents under Exs.Ai to A20 and MOs.1 to 11 on its behalf.

5. Thr: accused denied the case of the prosecution contending t-h:rt he was not in the office on the date of clemand and that on the date of trap i.e. on 22.02.2008, while he was talking to three members of Audit Party from AG Office, at about

01.15 PM PWll came to his chambers and handed over wedding invitation se nt by My Home Industries, which the accused took and kept on his; table. The accused further contended that on the alleged date of demand i.e. on 2O.O2.2OO8 he was not in the office and that on ttrat day he went to inspect My Homes Industries Ltd To substantrate the said contention, he relied upon Ex.D13 camp chart. In support of his case, the accused exhibited Exs.D 1 to D14. Howev'er, no oral evidence is adduced on his behalf Page 4 of ll

6. The trial Court, basing upon the evidence adduced and submissions made on either side found the accused not guilty holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of pendency of official favour with the accused officer, demand and acceptance to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly, acquitted him under Section 248(ll of Cr.P.C

7. Aggrieved by findings, appellant/complainant/ ACB preferred the present criminal appeal mainly contending that the findings of the trial Court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a right perspective and came to erroneous conclusion recording acquittal of the accused despite the unshaken and unimpeachable evidence of PWs.l and 2 with regard to demand and acceptance and the proven chemical test and also the evidence of PWs.4 and 9 on the aspect of recovery of tainted currency notes and placed heavy reliance on the hostile evidence of PW3. It is further contended that reliance placed by the trial Court on Ex.P13 to arrive at a conclusion that on the date of trap the accused uras absent is on a wrong presumption since on the next two days, though the accused officer attended the office, he did not sigrr in attendance register/Ex.P13, which itself clearly rebuts the casr,: of the accused that he did not attend the office on the date of trap. So far as the findings of the trial Court that due to the animosity developed by the PWs. 1 and 2 against the accused they Eiot him implicated in the present case is concerned, Exs.D1 and D1l, which laid foundation to come to such conclusion by the trial Court, do not belong to PWs.1 and 2 and they belong to one K.Rachzriah, who is no way connected to PWs.l ar,d 2. (a) 'I'o substantiate the above contentions, learned counsel appezrring for the appellant relied upon the decision rendered in The State of Karnataka Vs. Chandrashal. Basing on the above clecision, learned counsel for the appellant contends that in corru6rtion cases, once both demand and acceptance of illegal gratificertion are incontrovertibly proved, convictions must fol1ow and thr: administrative technicalities like pending official fan our etc., cannot neutralize the clear evidence of corruption, I ManLL/S(l/l 2 -s 5/2024 and legal presumptions under Section 20 of PC Act may be invoked irrespective of the bribe amount's perceived triviality. (b) Stating above, learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to allow the present criminal appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial Court. B. On the other hand, Sri E.Umamaheshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent/ accused vehemently opposed the present criminal appeal mainly contending that by adducing oral evidence of PW5 and documentary evidence of Exs.D13 and D14 the accused could able to establish that he was not in the office on the date of trap and hence, his demanding PW1 to pay illegal gratification for doing official favour cannot be believed and in the absence of any proof of demand the question of raising the presumption under Section 2O of PC Act would not arise. He further argued that the tainted currency was not found either in possession of the accused or in his room and in-fact Rs.4O,OOO/-, which included the tainted currency amount of Rs.25,O0O/-, was recovered from PW3. He further submitted that when the ACB officials entered the room of the accused immediately after receipt of pre-arranged signal from P\Ms.l and 2, the audit party members were also in the room of accused and in that view of the matter the evidence of PW3 that he was handed over the amount by the accused immediately aLlter receipt of the same from PW1 appears to be far from truth since there is every likelihood of audit party evidencing the fact of h.arLding over of tainted money to PW3 by the accused PW3 turned frostile and deposed that he had no acquaintance with the accuse:d and the accused did not give him the amount. (a) [,e,:rned counse] for the respondent further submitted that the attender, as per the case of the prosecution, who was present at the room of the accused at the time of handing over the bribe, thougtL cited as a witness, was not examined by the prosecution tr: know the real facts transpired at that time. The prosecution rrLiserably failed to establish the fact that the accused handed over [ainted currency notes to PW3 immediately after receipt of the same from PWs.l and 2. It also failed to establish the proof of ac,:eptance of tainted currency by the accused. (b) Further, in view of evidence of PWl, there was no need for obtaining fiesh permit book by 15.02.2008 without exhausting the previous lirrms and that basing on the evidence of pW2, the Paso 8 of 11 accused issued a notice for recovery of amount to PW2 i.e. the brother of PWl in pursuance of the orders of the District Collector, Nalgonda and hence, the accused became hurdle for the mlnrng owners (c) The learned counsel appearing for respondent/accused further contended that the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence, especially the voluntary demand for illegal gratification. There is no perversity in the judgment warranting interference. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9 . This Court, having considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and upon careful perusal of the entire record, is of the opinion that the accused has successfully established, through oral and documentary evidence, that he was not present in the office on the alleged date of demand. In light of this, it is implausible to infer that the accused could have demanded illegal gratification from the de-facto complainant in exchange for extending any official favour.

10. Wil.h respect to the alleged receipt and recovery of the tainted amourrt, the prosecution's case is surrounded by serious doubts. Notably, the tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of t-he accused. Instead, it was voluntarily produced by PW3, an in<li'zidual stated to be an applicant for a mining lease While the alk:ged demand was for a sum of Rs.25,OO0 l-, the amount reco''rered was Rs.40,000/-, for which no satisfactory explanation 1iS provided by the prosecution. Furthermore, PW3 turned hostik: and categorically stated that he did not know the CCr-rSCd 1 1. l'ht: accused, in his defence, contended that PWs. 1 and 2 merely visited his ofhce to deliver a wedding invitation card, which he receirzed and placed on the table. The trap-laying officer, although listed K.Venkata Ramana, an attender who was allegedly present in thr: accused's room at the relevant time as a witness, failed to exanrine him. The non-examination of this key witness, without an1, juLstification, adversely affects the credibility of the prosecution s case.

72. l-ht: record also reveals that, at the time of the alleged trap, an audit team was present in the office of the accused Page l0 of 11 However, no member of the audit team was examined by the prosecution, despite their presence being potentially critical to corroborate or refute the prosecution's version. Further, the evidence of PWl reflects that there was no urgent necessity for obtaining a fresh permit book as on the date of trap or demand, particularly since the earlier forms were yet to be exhausted. Additionally, it is evident from PW2's testimony that the accused had issued a notice for recovery of dues against PW2, the brother of PW1 based on the directions of the District Collector, Nalgonda. This gives rise to a possibility that the accused may have become arl obstacle to the interests of certain mining operators, thereby suggesting a motive to falsely implicate him.

13. Upon a careful scrutiny of the above factual matrix, this Court frnds that the prosecution's case lacks credibility, thereby justifying the conclusion that the accused is not guilty. In that view, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused of the charges. This Court finds no perversit5r or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court and sees no ground, much less any valid ground, to interfere with the said lindings. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal deserves for dismissal.

14. ln the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed conflrming thr: judgment dated 05.09.2011 in CC No.19 of 2OO9 passed by the learned First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases -(rum- V Additionai Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

15. Mr:scellaneous applications, if any pending, stand dismissed. SD/-P.GOWRI SHANKAR qPUTY REGtSTRAR //TRUE COPY// I I To, \ SECTION OFFICER t l!9 frrst Additicrnar speciar Judge for spE & ACB cases cum V Additionar - Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records, if any) 2. The Deputy SLrperintendent of police, Anti Corruption Bureau ClU, 3. Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High court for the state of rerangana at 4. One CC to Sri T Balamohan Reddy, Standing Counsel forACB [OPUC] l. 9n" !! !o Sri Erruganti Sudanshu Rao, AdvJcate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OU1-] Hyderabad Kam/PSL I I HIGH COURI' DATED:1 510712025 ,rl r'i'- 1rl' 0 s 0tT 2025 1 :i ::- ,i I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.58 of 2012 DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL \6 Rlar