Telangana High Court
S.Ravinder vs State, Rep.By Inspector Of Police.,Acb ... on 6 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.963 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.3,000/- from the defacto complainant/PW.1.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and the legal heirs filed application to prosecute the appeal. The said permission was granted.
3. Heard Sri T.L.Nayan Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
4. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant-PW1 is that he was running a tailor shop at Vanasthalipuram. For taking benefit of loan in pursuance of 'Rajiv Yuva Shakthi' scheme launched by the Government, application was made by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3. Their request was accepted by the Branch manager, Canara Bank, Vanasthalipuram-PW5. The said applications were given in the camp conducted by the bank at Vanasthalipuram. On 15.11.2005, the sanction of release of subsidy to beneficiaries i.e. PWs.1 to 3 was accorded and letter-Ex.P20 was sent to KSTEP (Keesara 2 Society for Training and Employment Promotion), R.R.District. The said applications were forwarded from L.B.Nagar Municipality to the District Collector, R.R.District for sanction of loan.
5. The appellant was attending in the section of KSTEP. PWs.1 to 3 requested the appellant to process the applications, however, he did not process the file. PW.1 met the appellant on 30.01.2006 at the Collector's office and a demand for Rs.1,000/- was made for three applications of PWs.1 to 3. PW.1 informed the appellant that he would discuss with PWs.2 and 3 and get back to him. On 31.01.2006, the appellant telephoned PW.1 and asked him to come to Canara Bank with demanded amount of Rs.3,000/-. However, since they could not secure the amount, the appellant informed PW.1 to come with the amount on 02.02.2006 to Canara Bank, Vanasthalipuram, where the appellant promised that he would handover the processing letters.
6. On 02.02.2006 also PW.1 informed that they could not gather the amount. However, on account of the constant demand made by the appellant, Ex.P1-complaint was lodged with the DSP- PW.9 by PW.1. The trap was arranged on 04.02.2006 by the DSP, after receiving the complaint.
3
7. On 04.02.2006, the trap party members gathered at the DSP office. The formalities before proceeding to trap were all undertaken in the office and the same was reduced into writing vide Ex.P.10. According to PW.1, the appellant asked him to meet at Rythu Bazar, Kothapet. The trap party reached Rythu bazaar area around 5.30 p.m.. The appellant called PW.1 and enquired him about his exact location. Around 6.30 p.m. the appellant went to Rythu Bazar and having contacted PW.1 asked him to pay the bribe amount. Then the appellant took out the proceedings from his scooter dicky and gave it to PW.1. Having taken the amount, the appellant put it in the left side pant pocket. Signal was conveyed to the trap party members by PW.1 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by appellant.
8. The trap party apprehended the appellant and took him to RamiReddy Chicken Centre. Post Trap Proceedings were conducted and concluded in the chicken centre. During the post trap proceedings, test was conducted on both hand fingers of the appellant to ascertain whether he handled the bribe amount. Test proved positive. Post trap proceedings were drafted which is Ex.P12. The proceedings of PWs.1 to 3 i.e. Ex.P3, P6 to P8 were all seized from the possession of appellant. Investigation was handed 4 over to PW.10-Inspector, who thereafter transferred the investigation to PW.11. PW.11-Inspector filed the charge sheet.
9. Learned Special Judge having framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P25 on behalf of prosecution. The appellant examined DWs.1 to 3 and marked Ex.X1 during the course of trial. M.Os.1 to 8 were also brought on record by the prosecution during the course of trial.
10. Learned Special Judge on the basis of the evidence adduced during trial, concluded that there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant and accordingly convicted him.
11. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was no official favour which was pending with the accused. In fact, the original proceedings under Ex.P3 of PWs.1 to 3 were received by Bank Manager-PW.5 on 03.02.2006, itself, which is one day prior to the trap. In the said circumstances, when the job of appellant was already done, the question of demanding bribe does not arise. In fact, the appellant examined DW.2 who was the owner of the chicken centre. He stated that the bribe amount was thrust into the left side pant pocket of the 5 appellant by PW.1 and he ran away. Immediately, several persons who are from ACB caught hold of the appellant. The motive as stated by DW1 who is the watchman of the flats where the appellant was staying and also DW.3 who was working along with appellant. PWs.1 to 3 went to appellant's house and quarrelled with the appellant in the last week of October, 2005 according to DW.1. Further, DW.3 also stated that PWs.1 to 3 quarrelled with the appellant when they met him in the office and while PWs.1 to 3 were trying to meddle with the office files, appellant admonished them. The false implication is apparent from the evidence of DWs.1 and 3. On the date of trap, the amount was thrust into the pocket of appellant according to Dw.2. In the said circumstances, the conviction by Court below has to be set aside.
12. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.735 of 2006 and argued that when the prosecution failed to prove that official work was pending with the accused therein, acquittal was recorded. He also relied on the Judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.1289 of 2008 and batch and argued that the defence of the accused can be established by preponderance of probability.
6
13. Learned Counsel also relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Punjabrao vs. State of Maharashtra 1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that the explanation offered during 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings if found to be reasonable, the same can be relied on.
14. Lastly, the counsel relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala 2 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that mere recovery of amount will not suffice to prove the case against the accused in the absence of demand of bribe.
15. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the applications of PWs.1 to 3 were pending with the appellant. In fact, the said version that no work was pending is incorrect. The demand was made and pursuant to which the bribe was accepted on the date of trap. In the said circumstances, presumption arises and the burden shifts on to the appellant to explain the recovery. Since the appellant failed to prove his case, the conviction recorded by the Special Judge is in accordance with law.
1 (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371 2 (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779 7
16. It is not in dispute that the applications for loan were made during November, 2005 and PW.5 who is the Branch Manager had sanctioned release of subsidy to beneficiaries including PWs.1 to
3. Only for the reason of PW.5 stating that the original proceedings under Ex.P3 were received by him on 03.02.2006 will not in any manner cast any doubt regarding the demand that was made by the appellant. In fact, PWs.1 to 3 met the appellant several times. Even according to the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 met him in his office and proof of meeting the appellant is stated by the appellant's witness DW.1 and DW.3.
17. As on the date of trap it was the appellant who called PW.1 to Rythu Bazar area. There was no necessity for the appellant to call him to Rythu Bazar to handover the sanctioned copies. Only when there was demand by the appellant on the date of trap in Rythu Bazar area, the amount was passed on by PW.1. The said passing of amount was witnessed by PW.4-independent witness, PW.9- the DSP and other trap party members. It is also mentioned in Ex.P12-post trap proceedings that the entire trap party saw the amount being accepted by the appellant who held the amount in his hands for some time and thereafter placed it in his pant pocket. There is no reason as to why the independent mediator- PW.4 and DSP would speak false against the appellant. The said 8 taking of bribe, holding in his hands for some time and placing it in his pocket was visible to the entire trap party. In fact, PWs.2 and 3 also stated about the demand made by the appellant regarding bribe. As already discussed, PWs.1 to 3 meeting the appellant is not disputed.
18. The version that there was no pending work has to be assessed and whether it was to the knowledge of PWs.1 to 3. The District Collector had sanctioned the proceedings on 29.01.2006 itself in favour of PWs.1 to 3 and 43 others. The said information was not known to PW.1 to PW.3. Except making a suggestion that PW.1 knew about the sanction proceedings, nothing was brought on record or elicited from the witnesses of the KSTEP employees or the District Collector's office or the bank officials for the Court to conclude that PWs.1 to 3 had any knowledge about the proceedings being sanctioned. PWs.1 to 3 were in fact going around the appellant for his help. Even on the trap date, the copy of proceedings was with the appellant who handed them over to PW.1 and accepted the bribe amount. If at all, there was no demand by the appellant, the question of appellant asking PW.1 to come to Rythu Bazar for handing over the proceedings and thereafter accepting bribe does not arise.
9
19. For the aforesaid reasons discussed, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Court below.
20. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 06.08.2024 tk