Of High Court · 2025

The State ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad, Represented by its special Public Prosecutor, for ACB Cases, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: SRI NAGESHWAR RAO PAPPU SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI BONDEMPALLY RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent: SRI T. BALA MOHAN REDDY, APP The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURINDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.11 OF 2O11 JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(21 of the prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the ActJ, and was sentencecl to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under each count, vide judgment in C.C.No. 15 of 201O, dated23.12.2OlO, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SpE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that p.W. 1, who was running a barber shop, filed an apptcation in the offrce of M.D.O for loan from a Scheduted Bank, which offers a subsidy. There was a scheme floated by the State Government,..Kotivaralu,, for upliftment of backward classes like Dhobis, Barbers, etc., in various Districts. The individual benef,iciaries would be identified by the Mandal Parishad Development OIIicer (MpDOs), and the concerned MpDOs would forward the applications received from individua-ls like p.w. 1 to the concerned District collector. The proposa-ls would a-lso be sent to the District Collector for approval of loan to the applicants. I 2

3. The procedure would be that the applications would be processed, and thereafter, cheques would be given to the MPDOs to disburse them to the concerned benehciaries'

4. P.W. 1 applied for the loan' In due process' he was identified as a beneficiar5r, and his application was accepted' His name was also finaltzedforreceivingthesubsidZedloan.Theprerequisitesof opening an account and giving signed cheques for amount of Rs.829/- in favour of the Executive Director BC Corporation' SangareddY, were all comPleted'

5.P.W.lwenttotheBCCorporationOflrceatSangareddyand met t1-e appellant, who was working as a Junior Inspector of the V Cooperative Societiesp in the ofhce of the Executive Director' Backward Classes Si'i"" Co-operative Society Limited' Medak District. The appellant demanded Rs'SOO/- for handing over a cheque of Rs.20,O00/- to him' Further' the appellant informed P.W. 1 that only after paying Rs'SOO/- as a bribe' would the cheque be forwarded to the MDO's ofhce' ) t=*- 3

6. P.W. 1 then approached ttre Inspector, ACB, on 31.01.2004 and narrated his grievance about the appellant demanding a bribe for handing over the cheque. A Telugu written complaint/Ex.pl, was drafted by P.w-l. p.w. I was asked to return to the ACB oflice Sangareddy on 04.O2.2OO4. The pre-trap proceedings were concluded in the ofhce of the ACB at Sangareddy. The trap party proceeded to the BC Service corporation Society offrce. p.w. 1 went inside the office and found that the appellant was not available in the office. P.w. 1 then came out and, on the instructions of the Inspector, ACB, called the appella,t on his phone. The appellant informed that he would be coming to the office within hve minutes. The appellant came to the office around 1.2O p.m. The appellant then demanded the bribe, and the tainted bribe amount was handed over to him. The appellant kept ttre amount in his right-side back pocket of his trousers and informed p.W. 1 that his cheque would be forwarded to the MPDO office. p.W. 1 came out and signaled to the trap party. P.w.S and others entered the ofhce and questioned the appellant about the amount. The sodium carbonate solution test was prepared, a,d when tested, the right-hand wash gave a positive result, and the lefLhand wash tested negative. The I 4 -.! arnount was produced from the back pocket of the appellant. The appellant was convicted on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1 and the recovery of the tainted amount from him.

7. Sri Nageshwar Rao Pappu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the appellant had nothing to do with the cheques and could not have handover the cheques either to P.W. 1 or to any of the beneficiaries. The entire process of identifying the benehciaries and the preparation of the cheques had already been completed by the date of laying the trap. In fact, P.W.3 admitted that on O3.O2.2OO4, i.e., one day prior to the trap, the cheques pertaining to P.W. 1 and others had been handed over by the appellant to her. However, she did not dispatch the cheques for walt of postal stamps. Again, on the date of the trap, i.e., O4.O2.2OO4 at about 11.00 a.m, tl.e appellant gave her tJ e cheques of P.W. 1 and others for dispatch. The fact that the appellant was not involved in the process of identifying the beneficiaries and that the cheques were not to be handed over by the appellant to the beneficiaries was also accepted 5 by the investigating ofhcer. In the said circumstances' the question of a demand for bribe does not anse'

8.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedSpecialPublicProsecutor appearing for the ACB would submit that there is no reason why P.W. 1 would falselv implicate the appellant' The complaint was filed on 31.O1.2OO4, and the trap was arranged on O4'O2'2OO4' P'W'1' being a beneficiary, is not disputed, and also his cheque being ready with the appellant. In fact, the appellant was in possession of the cheques, and he had handed them over to P'W'3 for the prJrpose of dispatch. P.W-l approached ttre appellant, and when asked for the cheque, the appellant demanded a bribe' The prosecution had proved both the demand and the acceptance of t].e bribe by the aPPellant. g. It is not in dispute that the entire process of identifying the beneficiaries and their appiications being received for the purpose of providing subsidized loans was undertaken even prior to the date of trap. It is also not disputed that the cehque in question was ready by O3.O2.2OO4, a day prior to the trap' I I 6

10. P.W. 1 was running a Barber shop, whose family income was around Rs.9,OOO/-. He applied for a 1oan, and the loan was sanctioned. He wan ted to get the land loan amount and met the appellant in the process. Neither the appellalt, nor P'W.3, or anyone in the office had informed P.W. 1 that the cheques would be dispatched by post_ to the address mentioned in the application. P.W. 1 denied knowledge about the dispatch of cheques to the individuals.

11. The defence of the appellant is that P.W.t held a grudge against the appellant for the delay in receiving a cheque, and for the said reason, he had forcibly thrust the amount into the right side pant pocket of the appeltant and involved him in a false case.

12. Admittedly, P.W. 1 was not aware of the cheques being dispatched from tlee office to the beneficiaries. The appellant would receive the cheques, and he, in turn, handed them over to P.W.3/concerned clerk for dispatch of the cheques. According to P.W. 1, the appellant threatened that his cheque would be forwarded to the MPDO ofhce only if the bribe was paid. The factum of the appellant being the person to get the cheques dispatched is not in 7 dispute. P.W.1, having met the appellant in the offrce, was aggrieved by the fact that the appellant demanded Rs.SOO/- for forwarding the cheque.

13. The defence of the appellant that he was falsely implicated on q-. account of the delay in dispatching cheques, cannot be accepted. P.W. 1 belonged to a low-income group, and he was in need of the loan. There is absolutely no reason why P.W. 1 would lodge a false complaint against the appellant when the process of identifying the beneficiaries, taking applications, and sanctioning the loan is dependent on several officials in the ofhce.

14. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial Court. Since the appellant is on bail, the trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison, to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remald period, if any, shrill be given set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

15. Accordinglv Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/.M.MANJULA JOINT REGISTRAR ) SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records)

2. The lnspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad.

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at HyderabadlOUTl

4. One CC to Sri Bondempally Ramulu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:16104t2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.11 of 2011 I l.l ./ 1i: -\ s $ clJ E ., t e lJ, J ( t'' O J ggllr\ --q DISMISSING THE CRL.A. f ,