In the case of B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra pradeshl, the Honble three Judge bench of supreme court herd that

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI' DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR counselfortheRespondent:SRlSRIDHARcHlKYaLASpecialPublic Prosecutor for ACB The Court made the following: ORDER -==z*aT 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMIIIAL APPEAL t{o.2603 OF 2O1a JUDGMEITT: 1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(21 of the Prevention of Cormption Act, 1988 (for short 'the ActJ and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.13 of 2015 dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant, worked as Village Revenue Ofhcer, Vennampally Village, Karimnagar District. P.W. 1, who is the resident of the said village purchased land in Sy.No.263 having paid sale consideration, on O5.O2.2OO7. On

20.06.2007, P.W. 1 submitted an application with a request to mutate land purchased by him in his name in revenue records and also to issue pattadar pass book and title deeds. The Tahsildar/P.W.3 endorsed on the application given by P.Wi. and handed it over to the appellant for processing the application for mutation. The appellant submitted mutation register in the month of November, 2OO7 and after making enquiry, salction orders were I 2 passed by P.W.3/Tahsildar on 20. 17.2OO2. The proceedings were issued, pattadar passbooks and title deeds were prepared and halded over to the appellant to deliver it to p.W. 1. Appellant allegedly demanded bribe from p.w. I to deriver his pattadar passbooks ald title deeds. 3' According to the prosecution case, p.w. 1 went to the ACB oflice arrd met p.W.5/lnspector ACB. He gave complaint on I2.72.2OO7. In the said complaint, it was mentioned that the appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 1o,ooo/- towards bribe on 22.1L.2OO7 and also on 05.12.2007. However, the demanded amount was reduced to Rs.7,OOO/_.

4. On the basis of the complaint Iiled., p.W.5 arranged trap on 74.12.2OO7. On the said date, p.W. 1/complainart, p.W.2/mediator, P.W.S/DSP and others who formed the trap party gathered in the office of the DSp. The formalities required to proceed to lay trap were an fo[owed and Ex.p7, which is the pre-trap proceedings was prepared. Around 1.30 p.m, the trap party went to Vennampally village' while the other trap pargr members stood at a distance, P'w' 1 entered into the office-cum-residence of the appellant at 3.1o 3 p.m and came out within 5 minutes stating that the appellant was not available. P.W.S made enquiries and he was informed that the appellant would be back by 4.30 p.m. Accordingly, the trap party members waited. After the appellant arrived, p.W. 1 entered into the house-cum-office of the appellant, came out and relayed signal to the trap party. The trap part5r entered into the house and conducted tests on the halds of the appellant. The test on both the hands proved positive. The amount was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the table drawer. After receiving the amount, the pattadar pass book and title deeds were handed over to p.W. 1.

5. P.W. 1, who :s the complainant completely tumecl hostile to the prosecution case. He stated that he had differences with his father and younger brother regarding property. p.W. I then approached the appellant for pattadar pass book and title deeds and the appellant promised that he would hand over the same after they were ready. Ex.P1 complaint was drafted by father of p.W. 1 and given to ACB oIficials. On the date of trap, P.W. 1 entered into the office and asked the appellnnt to hand over pattadar pass book and title deeds. Accordingly, the appellant handed it over and refused to 4 accept the amount offered by p.W. 1, as such, p.W1. kept the amount in a table drawer and gave signal to the trap part5r. public Prosecutor cross-examined p.w. 1. after decraring him hostile to the prosecution case. Nothing was elicited during the course of cross- examination. 6 The application made by p.W. 1 for issuance of pattada_r pass books and title deeds is not disputed. Further, completing the preparation of pattadar pass books and title deeds' is also not disputed.

7. It has to be seen whether any case is made out by the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the alleged demand of the appellaat.

8. Apart from the evidence of p.w. 1, there is no other evidence to suggest that demand was made by the appellant on 22.11.2007 and O5.12.2OO7. The contents of Ex.p1 were totally disowned by p.W. 1. There are no other witnesses who were examined to speak about the alleged demand made on 22.rr.2ooz and os.r2.2007. on the date of trap, though two independent mediators were availabre, the i =- 5 DSP/P.W.S did not make any attempt to send arly one of the independent mediators along with p.w. 1 to observe as to what transpires in between p.W. 1 and ttre appellant regarding bribe amount. There is no reason given by p.W.5 as to why any of the independent mediators was not sent on the date of trap.

9. In the case of B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra pradeshl, the Honble three Judge bench of supreme court herd that presumption under Section 2O of the prevention of Cormption Act carl only be drawn a-fter the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was dema,d for bribe. In the said case, compraina,t did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand was concerned. Iil 1 the said circumstarces, the Honb1e supreme court held that prosecution lailed to make out a case and accordingry, acquitted the accused. t earned counser also reried on the judgment in the case of state ofMadhya pradesh v. Babbu Rathore and anotherz. 10' In view of the prosecution failing to prove demand, no reliance cal be placed on recovery of the amount. In fact, the amount was admittedly recovered from the table drawer and p.w. 1 stated before ' lzor+; t: scc ss ']120201 2 Supreme Court Case, 577 l', I I 6 the Court that since the appellant refused to take any arnount, P.W. I himself placed the amount in the table drawer. Since the prosecution failed to prove demard aspect, no reliance can be placed on the recovery of amount from the table drawer to infer guilt of the appellant, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside.

11. In the result, the judgment of tria,i Court in C.C.13 of 2015 dated 07.O9.2O18 is set aside and the appellant is acquittgd.

72. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. To //TRUE COPY// Sd/.A,V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER I V

1. The Special Judge for Trial OF SPE and ACB Cases at Karimnagar.(With Records if any)

2. The lnspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, 3. One CC to SRl. SRIDHAR CHIKYALA, Special Public Prosecutor ACB [OUT] 4. One CC to SRl. DIDA VIJAYA KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 'vtr p a HIGH COURT KS, J DATED: 29t01\ZO2S l. o t q 1tl 9TA 16 'oe 0 4 n i1 2025 t'1 H .,r {.' . ?r'r JUDGMENT CRLA.No.rl603 of 2018 ALLOWING THE CRL.APPEAL + *{4 VF qltf'?5