The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The appellant was convicted for the.offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Cormption Act, 1988 (for short 'the, Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.35 of 2OO7 dated 10.70.2012, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant- PWl, had applied for awhite ration card at DPL Centre No. 115 two months before filing the complaint and was allotted D.F. No. 299228, vide Regd. No. 3071. Revenue officials visited P.W. 1's residence about a month before the complaint to ve;:ifo eligibility. Since then, PW1 had been in contact with the In-Charge of DPL Centre. Accordirrg to PWl, on 14.5.2006, when he approached the appellant, who was the Senior Inspector in the office, requesting the issuance of a white ration card, appellant allegedly demanded Rs. 1,000/-, which was later reduced to Rs. 8OO/-. Since P.W. 1 was unwilling to pay the bribe, he, along with pW2, 4 'l approached the D.S.P, A-C.B, on 15'5'2006, at 4:00 PM' and lodged a written complaint (ExP2), sigrred by P'W'2' L) ,)

Upon receiving the complaint, P.W'S/Dy' Superintendent of Police, ACB, after due verification, registered a case in Crime. No. 16/ACB-CR 12006 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Cornrption Act on 17.5-2006 at 10:45 AM and took up the investigation. During the investigation, PW8 secured the presence of med.iators P.W.5 and L.W.8 and laid a trap against appellant on L7.5.2OO6, following all legal formalities' The 'pre-trap proceedings were recorded in Ex'P7 (First Mediator's Report)'

4. During the trap operation, when PW1 was approaching DPL Centre, he met the appellant in front of the centre' and both walked together towards Paigah Palace, where appellant allegedly demanded the .bribe amount of Rs. s00/- and accepted the tainted white cover containing the currency notes as illegal gratification for issuing the white ration card' A Phenolphthalein test was coriducted on appellant's hands, and the left'hand hngers tested positive. The tainted' currency of Rs' 80O/- in the white cover was recovered from appellant's left-side pant pocket' The inner flap of appellant's left-side pant pocket' which had 5 come into contiact with the tainted cover, was a_trso tested and yielded a positive result.

5. Further, the following items were seized: a) Cream-colored trousers of the appellant; b) Copy of the Declaration form-cum-household information sheet (Hyderabad Dist. No:16-10-299228 of pW1); c) Enquiry report dated 19.4.20O6 of pW3, along with a copy of the list of ration cardholders to be issued: d) Proceeding No. ,{5/i0SOO/20O5, dated 13.12.2005 ofthe Collector, Hyderabad District, appointing AO as the In_ Charge of DPL Centre; and e) Attendance Register of the stalf.

6. The post-trap proceedings were recorded in Ex.p1O/Second Mediator's Report, and a rough sketch of the crime scene was drawn, marked as ExP9.

7. The prosecution's case is that on the day of the trap, they reached appellant's office at 1:0O pM on 17.5.2006. While p.W.l was entering the oflice of the appellant, he saw appellant coming out of the office and asked the appellant about his work. The appellant informed him that the work was under progress and 6 took PW1 along with him while walking, with the trap party following them. PWl and appellant then reached Paigah function hall, where PWl paid the currency notes along with the cover. Appellant took the cover with the currency notes in his left hand and placed it in his left-side pant pocket. Thereafter, PW1 relayed the signal to the trap party members. Upon receiving the signal, they rushed to the tree, and one of the inspectors held appellant's hands above the wrist. The DSP then conducted tests, and the solution in which appellant's left-hand fingers were dipped turned pink. Upon questioning by the DSP, appellant retrieved a cover from his left-side pant pocket and produced it. Thereafter, they proceeded to DPL Centre.

8. As seen from PW1's testimony before the Court, he admitted that there is no mention in the complaint and Section 164 Cr.P.C statement that appellant demanded PWl to bring Rs. 800/- in a cover. The same has been admitted by PWs. 2, 5, and 8 Moreover, though PWl denied that there is no mention in Ex.P2 regarding the date, time, and place at which appellant asked PW1 to bring the demanded amount, PWs. 2, 5, and 8 admitted that the complaint does not speciflz when, where, or at what time PW1 7 was to bring the amount. Thus, the Paigah function hall was not a pre-determined location for demand and acceptance.

9. Further, the evidence suggests that the appellant was coming out of DPL Centre to go for lunch when PW1 chanced upon meeting him and followed him. Though PW1, in his Section 161 statement, stated that when he met appellant, appellant took him to a nearby function ha-11, where appellant asked him to pay the amount and he did so, PW8 stated before the court that PW1 followed appellant lrom behind while taiking to him as appellant proceeded for lunch. Thus, it is not the case that appellant took PWI along with him to the Paigah Function hall.

10. PW5 stateo that AO and PW1 stopped near Paigah Function hall, and PW1 gave the pre-arranged signal. Upon receiving the signal, they rushed to the tree, and one of the inspectors held appellant's hands above the wrist. The DSP then conducted tests, and the solution in which appellant's left-hand fingers were dipped turned pink. Upon questioning by the DSP, appellant retrieved a cover from his left-side pant pocket and produced it. Thereafter, they proceeded to DPL Centre. 8 1 1. However, there is a discrepancy regarding the locations of demand, acceptance, and recovery. According to PW8, he \ conducted the test on the spot under the tree opposite Paigah function hall, however, In ExP9 (rough sketch), Paigah function hall is shown next to the tree, and not opposite. Further, although PW8 stated that he conducted the test on the spot under the tree opposite Paigah F\rnction Hall, MR-II does not mention that the SC test was conducted on the spot, which PW8 also admitted. Though the evidence indicates that the test on appellant's hands was conducted at the spot, PW1, in his cross- examination, stated that the ACB conducted the test on appellant's hands at appellant's office in DPL Centre.

12. Further, PWs 5 and 8 admitted that in ExP10 (MR-II), it is mentioned that on enquiry, appellant stated, *PW7 neuer met AO, and AO neuer demanded ang amount for issuance of a white ratton card." Ex.P10 records that appellant, on enquiry, stated that he never met PW1, never demanded any alnount, and that on 17.5.2006, while he was proceeding to the MRO's offrce at 1:00 PM, PW1 met him and, stating that his name was on the list of white card holders, voluntarily offered Rs. 8OO/-. 9

13. Moreover, PW1 stated that the distance between DPL Centre and Paigah function hall is half a kilometer and that he was talking to AO rvhile walking there. PW5 admitted that the road from AO's office to Paigah function hall is-curved and confirmed that, as per MR-ll, the trap party followed PW1 and AO. He also stated that the distance between AO's office and Paigah function hall is approximately one furlong. Both PWs 5 and 8 confirmed that they followed PWl and AO along this route. Given this short distience and the fact that the trap party was trailing them, it is questionable why they only testified about seeing PW1's signal and not about the actual exchange of the bribe. If they had a clear line of sight, they should have seen PW1 handing the cover to AO. L4. PW6 deposed that for issuing ration cards, the declaration form-cum-household information sheet is supplied to applicants through Bill Coliectors of MCH at their doorsteps. Applicants must fill out the form, attach required documents i.e, residential proof, electriciq. bill, telephone bill, previous ratirrn card, etc., and submit it to the concerned DPL Centre In-charge. An acknowledgment is issued for white ration card applications, followed by an enquiry by the designated officer to veri$r 10 eligibility. Based on the enquiry ofhcer's report, the DPL Centre In-charge issues the white ration card. The list of eligible \ candidates is displayed at the DPL Centre. PW6 admitted that white ration cards are issued seria1ly, prcpared by DPL Centre computer operators who take photographs and fill in details.

15. PW3, the then Urban Divisional Inspector in the office of MRO, deposed that at the time, she was deputed as an Enquiry Officer at DPL Centre No. 115. She testified that she conducted the enquiry, prepared the enquiry report, and submitte{ it to the In-charge of the DPL Centre. Ex.P3 is the enquiry report, which bears her signature. She handed over Ex.P3 to appellant on

79.4.2006. Based on her enquiry and Ex.P3, she recommended the issuance of a white ration card to PW1.

16. From the evidence on record, it is clear that PW1 submitted Ex.P1 application for a white ration card to the In-charge, i.e., appellant. PW3, after her enquiry, submitted the enquiry report (Ex.P3) to appellant on 19.4.2006, recommending the issuance of a white ration card to PW1. As per the procedure explained by PW6, after the enquiry is completed, the list of eligible candidates for white ration cards is placed on the notice board at the DPL Centre. The notice of eligible candidates is preparecl by the DPL 1,1, Centre. L7. According to appellant, ExD 1 is the list of eligible candidates for white ration cards, which was displayed orr the notice board of the DPL Centre on 13.5.2006. PW1's name appears in Ex.D1, where his serial number is 95, and his application number is 3071 as per ExPl. Appellant further contended that computer operators went on strike from

13.5.2006.

18. Firstly, PW6 deposed that he does not know if the list of eligible candidates was displayed on the notice board on

13.5.2006. He added that the list is prepared by the DPL Centre for issuing white ration cards to eligible candidates, similar to Ex.D1. However, in his re-examination, PW6 stated that he cannot vouch for the correctness of ExD1. ExDl is a xerox copy, does not bear his signature, and its first page is blank.

19. PW5, the mediator, deposed that Ex.Dl is ur xerox copy without his signature or that of other mediators and ACB officials. He stated that he could not confirm whether Ex.Dl was alfixed to the notice board on the date of the trap and that he did L2 l not notice Ex.D1 on tlee notice board. However, PW5 stated that I , appellant mentioned before them that a list of white ration card issuances was placed in the office on 13.5.2006. Appellant did not submit Ex.D1 on the date of the tJap. PW5 further stated that he and PW8 did not ask appellant to produce the list of eligible candidates, which is Ex.Dl. They also did not investigate the signatures on Ex.Dl or veriff who had signed below the list of eligible candidates.

20. Ex.D1 is a xerox copy. Though PW6 stated that he could not vouch for its correctness, he admitted that the list of eligible candidates is prepared by the DPL Centre for issuing white ration cards, similar to Ex.D1. The existence of Ex.Dl is not an afterthought by appellant. This is evident from appellant's initial explanation in Ex.P10, MR-II, where his spontaneous response to PW8's enquiry was that PWl had submitted his application for a white ration card on 26.2-2006. Upon receiving the application, PW3 conducted an enquiry and submitted her report on

19.4.2006, recommending the issuance of a white ration card.

21. The fact that the eligible candidates' list was prepared by the DPL Centre and displayed on the notice board on 13.05.2006 13 ,../' is admitted by PW8, PW9, and PW5. Moreover, PW8 (DSP, ACB) admitted that the list of eligible candidates for white ration cards was placed on the notice board at the DPL Centre on i3.5.2006. PWl's serial number was 95, and his application number was 3O7I, as per ExP1. Even PWS admitted tha.t the eligible candidates' list for white ration cards, displayed on the office notice board, is marked as Ex.Dl.

22. Though PW8 stated that he seLed Ex.P1 (deciaration form), ExP3 (enquiry report), Ex.PS, and Ex.P8 (attenclance' register) from appellant, he admitted that he did not attempt to collect the list of eligible candidates displayed on the notice board on

13.5.2006. PW9, who later took up the investigation, also admitted that he did not make any effort to coller:t the eligible candidates'list displayed on 13.5.2006 in appellant's office. He further admitterd that he did not investigate the person responsible for preparing the list of eligible candidates on

13.5.2006 at the DPL Centre. Neither PW8 nor PW9 explained why they did not investigate the existence of Ex.Dl on the trap date or thereafterr, despite AO's initial plea that Ex.D1 was ready and displayed on the notice board on 13.5.2006. 14

23. PW6 deposed that he does not remember whether he went to the DPL Centre on 17.5.2006 and stated that "magbe the ! computer operators might haue been on stike." He added that he does not remember whether the compuler operators were on strike on 17.5.2006. PW3 also stated that she does not know if the in-charge computer operators were on strike from 13.5.2005 onwards.

24. It is not the prosecution's case, nor has the prosecution established, that the white ration card was already prepared by the computer operators before the trap on 17.5.2006. Otherwise, the same would have been seized on the date of the trap from appellant along with other documents. It has not been established that appellant was in possession of the white ration card and intentionally withheld its issuance to PW1.

25. Moreover, from the evidence of PW6 and PW4, it is clear that the Civil SS Ofhcer supplies all the materials for issuing ration cards at the DPL Centre and that the Assistant Civil SS Officer is responsible for supervising whether the office in charge and staff at the DPL Centre are issuing white ration cards as per the serial numbers recorded in the register maintained at the DPL Centre. 15 It is the duty of the Assistant Civil SS Ofhcer to collect a. daily report on the issuance of white and pink ration cards from the DPL Centre-

26. It is unknown why the Assistant Civil SS Officer, the immediate superior of appellant, was not examined to determine whether, from 13.5.2006 (date of ExDl) to lT.5.20O6 (trap date), any white ration cards were issued or whether the computer operators were on strike. He would have been the most appropriate person to explain whether the issuance .of white ration cards was halted due to the strike, as it was his duty to collect daily reports on their issuance.

27. However, PW8 deposed that he does not know who the immediate superior of appeltant is or to whom appellant reports regarding the day-to-day progress of white ration card issuance. He admitted that he had not examined the Assistant Civil SS Oflicer, who is the immediate superior of appellant. He also stated that he does not know that the MRO is the superuising authoritSr for law and order. Further, he does not know whether appellant is the sole signatory authority for issuing white ration 16 cards. Similarly, PW9 also expressed ignorance regarding the identity of the Assistant Civil SS Officer.

28. Moreover, PW8 deposed that he seized the attendance register from the DPL Centre. As seen from ExP8, twelve office staff .members were present at the office on the date of the trap. However, he did not make aly efforts to inquire with other staff members of the DPL Centre who were present that day regarding the stage of PWl's file, the procedure for issuing white ration cards, the list of eligible candidates, and the role of appellant in the issuance process, including how many cards are issued per day.

29. Further, PW8 admitted that he did not inquire with the staff or the general public regarding whether appellant had issued white ration cards out of turn to anyone. However, according to PW9, during his investigation, no one informed him or revea-led that appellant had issued white ration cards to any individual outside the approved list.

30. Lastly, PW9 admitted that after taking up the investigation, he issued a notice to appellant dated 16.6.2OO6. He a-lso admitted that appellant gave an explanation to the said notice, which was 77 marked as ExDz[. PW9 further admitted that he received ExD4 on 8.8.2006, and it bears his signature. PW10, the officer who received the CD file from PW9, took up the investigation and filed the charge sheet. ExD4, which is the reply by appellant to pW9, mentions details regarding the list and other relevant aspects. However, it is unclear why no investigation was taken up based on the contents of Ex.D4. Collectively, the facts clearly reflect that no ofhcia-l fa.vour was pending.

31. The defence put forth by appellant that the cbmplaint against him was falsely lodged due to pW2's alleged motive of holding a grudge, stemming from. appellant's prior complaint against PW2 and others to MRO/PW6, has to be looked into.

32. According to PW6, he was the then Supervising Authoritlr responsible for maintaining law and order in DpL Centres. pW6 admitted that appellant had submitted a complaint on 1.5.2OO6 to him, stating that certain individuals, including pW2 (Shamshudin); were causing law and order issues regarding the issuance of ration cards. The complaint alleged that they were creating difficulties, misleading the people who had come to collect their ration cards, and causing various problems. This 18 complaint was marked as ExD2. PW6 further admitted that ExD3 contains his signature and that he had forwarded a complaint to - the Station House Officer, Begumpet, requesting immediate action against those responsible for the law and order issue and urging necessary steps to maintain order at the DPL Centre' He also confirmed that Ex.D2 was referenced in ExD3 and that he had signed on Ex.D3- After submitting the complaint to the concerned police station, the police might have taken action against the individuals named in Ex'D2' However' he was unaware of whether, due to the intervention of a local MLA' PW2 andotherswerereleasedfromthepolicestationafterbeing warnednottocreatefurtherdisturbancesattheDPLCentre.

33. PW2 deposed that he had applied for a pink ration card in the year 2006.He stated that he does not know who had hled a complaint against him. He further mentioned that, based on the complaint given by the MRO, the police called him to the police station and advised him not to go to the DPL Centre due to the large gathering there.

34. ExD2 is the letter written by appellant to PW6/MRO' informing him about the obstruction created by PW2 and others 79 in the issuance of ration cards and requesting PW6 to take action to prevent law and order issues. Ex.D2 explicitly nrentions PW2's name and is dated 1.5.2006. In response, PW6 wrote a letter to the SHO, Begumpet, which is marked as'ExD3, requesting the SHO to take imrnediate action against those responsible. ExD3 is a-Iso dated 1.5.2006.

35. The proximity between appellant's complaint against PW2 and others (dated 1.5.2006) and PW1's complaint against appellant (date<i 15.5.2006) ralses concerns This sudpicion is further reinforced by the background of PW1's admission that PW2 was the scribe of the complaint/ExP2 and that PW1 had signed Ex.P2 on PW2's instructions. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that PWl initialed the case against appellant on behalf of PW2. PW2 himself admitted that he was called by the police station following PW6's complaint and that he is a local leader. Given this background, the possibility of PW2 harbouring a grudge against appellant, cannot be ruled out.

36. Furthermore, while PW2 denied that he and PW1 were friends, PW1 admitted that he had known PW2 since childhood. 20 He a-lso acknowledged that PW2 is a local leader and that they share a cordial relationship and often interact.

37. Neither PW8 nor PW9 investigated into the lindings 1n between P.W. 1 and P.W.2. There is a complete lack of awareness in PW8's evidence regarding appellant's complaint against PW2, which is marked as ExD2. The same investigative lapse is evident 1n PW9's testimony, as he completely denied having any knowledge of Ex.D2 or trx.D3.

38. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of A.P1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that mere acceptance of any alnount dehors proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the conviction was reversed.

39. In B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of the amount cannot form basis to constitute the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Cormption Act. '120151 10 Srp.eme court Cases 152 '120141 13 Sup.eme Court Cases 55 l I I I i I i t, 2t

40. The correctness of the complaint a-lleging demand of bribe becomes doubtful, when viewed in the background of the involvement of P'W'2 in assisting P'W'1 in lodging the complaint against the appellant' The Complaint was filed by P'W'1 15 days after the appellant complained against P'W'2' Further' as alre'ady discussed, the narrle of P'W' 1 was already shortlisted for issuance of ration card and placed on the notice board' In view of the same, the allegation of demand becomes doubtful as well as the recovery of amount' as discussed in the earlier paragraphs' Further, there is no official favour pending' Accordingly' benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant' 41. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C'C'No'35 of 2OO7 dated ]Oj.o2O12 is set aside' and the appellant is the appellant is on bail' his bail bonds shall acquitted- Since stand discharged'

42. AccordinglY , Criminal APPeal is allowed' Ir //TRUE COPY// one Fair "'ol#,.|li=1?);3h,?':11ilB:rcE{'suREND SDI.K.S RINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR FICER =$;;-::'--; To, Uua"rufaO (with records' if anY)

1. The Principal Special Judge' for SPE & AC ' , ?'1;'i;;Jto' ot Police' Anti corruption . T'ff#;io the Public Prosecutor' High Court Hvderabad. at HYderabad IOLJTl B Cases, CitY Civil Court Bureau, City Range-ll' for the State of Telangana 4 5 6 . One CC to Sri Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] . 'l '1 LR Copies The Under Secretary, Union of India Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi 7. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of 8. Two CD Copies !y-- Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad. kam/PSL \ HIGH COURI' DATED:1910312025 t I JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1048 ot 2012 , I ( ? !-J rJ 1 t\ E STA re 2 S AFB 7rl75 OFSPr,.Cgt- :' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL @ vlalas'