Telangana High Court
Kandukuri Anand Rao vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Spl. Pp For ... on 5 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1456 OF 2011
Between:
Kandukuri Ananda Rao ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P. rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Karimnagar Range ... Respondent/
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.07.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No. 1456 OF 2011
% Dated 05.07.2024
# Kandukuri Ananda Rao ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Karimnagar Range ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Special Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2014 Crl.L.J 2433
2
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1456 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.1,000/- from P.W.1/defacto complainant, vide judgment in C.C.No.91 of 2010 dated 16.12.2011 passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
2. According to the prosecution case, the amount of Rs.1,000/- was demanded for processing the application of P.W.1 for the purpose of licence to run a fertilizer shop. According to P.W.1, he was having a valid licence to run the shop till 2006. Later, when he approached the appellant for renewal of the licence, the appellant demanded Rs.5,000/-. Though, challans were paid for running the shop, the licence was not renewed. On 20.09.2006, the appellant went to the shop and locked the shop on the ground that he was not holding a valid licence, though P.W.1 showed challans that were paid by him.
3. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.3,000/- bribe for handing back the keys. Two days thereafter, P.W.1 went to the 4 office of the appellant and requested the appellant to return the keys of his shop and promised to pay the bribe amount. Appellant stated that P.W.1 should pay the challan and also pay the bribe amount. Further, the filled in application should be given. On the assurance of P.W.1 that bribe would be paid, keys were returned to P.W.1. On 03.10.2006, P.W.1 paid the challans and approached the appellant on 06.10.2006 with application. The appellant demanded Rs.3,000/-. However, P.W.1 informed that he was ready to pay Rs.1,000/- and handed over the application form and challan.
4. Thereafter, P.W.1 approached ACB on 01.11.2006 and filed Ex.P1 complaint regarding demand of bribe by the appellant. The trap was arranged on the next day i.e., 02.11.2006. On the said date, the trap party gathered in the office of DSP, ACB. Pre-trap formalities were conducted in the presence of P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/independent mediator, DSP/P.W.5 and others. From there, the trap party started to the office of the appellant.
5. The trap-party reached the office around 9.30 a.m, P.W.1 went inside and found that the appellant was absent. He was informed that the appellant would come back at 3.00 p.m. The 5 trap party went away and again came back around 3.00 p.m to the office. P.W.1 entered into the office and he found that there were farmers who were talking to the appellant. After the farmers left, the appellant demanded bribe amount when P.W.1 met him. Since there were attenders and farmers, P.W.1 took the appellant outside and handed over the amount. After taking the bribe amount, the appellant promised that the work of P.W.1 would be complete. P.W.1 gave the signal to the trap party, then the DSP and others entered into the office. According to P.W.2 and P.W.5, the appellant on seeing the trap party took out the amount from his pant pocket and threw on the floor. The fingers of both hands were tested. Test of both hands proved positive. When questioned regarding the bribe amount by the DSP, it was informed by the appellant that an incomplete application was given by P.W.1 and he did not demand any bribe. The amount was recovered which was on the floor.
6. Post-trap proceedings were conducted and during the said proceedings application form and challan of P.W.1 and other documents were seized. Having recorded the version given by P.W.1, the appellant and the details of the documents noted, post-trap proceedings Ex.P12 was drafted.
6
7. Investigation was then handed over to P.W.6/Inspector, who completed investigation and filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act. Having considered the evidence on both sides, appellant was convicted by Special Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that no official favour was pending with the appellant as on the date of trap. It is for the Assistant Director of Agriculture, who is competent to issue licence to P.W.1. In Ex.P2 application, there are no details given regarding earlier licence nor the prosecution has come up with any such proof of an expired licence. Nothing was collected during the course of investigation to corroborate the version of P.W.1. The appellant was acting as in-charge of the area where P.W.1's shop was locked from 22.09.2006, as such, the question of the appellant locking the shop on 20.09.2006 does not arise. The main reason for false implication is the threat of P.W.1 by the appellant not to sell spurious seeds. Learned counsel further argued that even on the date of trap, the appellant explained that P.W.1 had paid challan for fertilizers and seeds and submitted incomplete application. Further, he denied having received any amount from P.W.1. The prosecution case 7 that the amount was found on the floor would only substantiate the defence of the appellant that he had pushed away P.W.1 when he tried to thrust the amount in the pant pocket. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1, wherein it is held that when there was no other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove demand, the recovery of amount from the accused cannot form basis to convict the accused. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery or acceptance of the amount dehors the proof of demand, would not be sufficient to convict an accused under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that false implication theory was developed later. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 was running fertilizer shop. Further, it is not in dispute that he had no licence. In the said circumstances, Ex.P2 application was handed over and accordingly appellant demanded and accepted bribe amount for processing the 1 2014 Crl.L.J 2433 2 AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549 8 application. Further, the presumption arises in the present case since it was proved by the prosecution that there was demand and acceptance by the appellant. However, the burden was not discharged by the appellant, as such, appeal has to be dismissed.
10. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 was running fertilizer shop. The grievance of P.W.1 is that the appellant had forcibly locked the shop and took away his keys. Only two days thereafter, the keys were returned when P.W.1 promised to pay the bribe amount. The defence of the appellant that he was in charge from 22.09.2006, as such, locking the shop of P.W.1 on 20.09.2006 runs contrary to his own defence that on account of the appellant threatening P.W.1 not to sell spurious seeds, complaint was filed. If at all the appellant did not have jurisdiction over the area in which P.W.1 was running his shop, the question of threatening also does not arise.
11. The complainant/P.W.1 stated that his shop was locked and only two days thereafter, when he promised to pay the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/-,keys were returned to him. The said aspect of locking the premises, giving back the keys and reducing the bribe amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/- was mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1 dated 01.11.2006 and also stated during the 9 course of examination before the Court. As on the date of trap, application of P.W.1 was seized from the possession of the appellant. If at all the application was not filled up properly, the same would have been returned by the appellant either on the date of taking it or on the trap date. However, the application was accepted by the appellant. Further, P.W.2 and also the DSP, P.W.8 stated that when they entered into the office on seeing the trap party, the appellant had thrown the amount on the floor. The test on the hands of the appellant proved positive and also the pant pocket when subjected to sodium carbonate solution test. It is clear corroboration to the version of P.W.1 that the amount was initially demanded and accepted by the appellant and thereafter, when the appellant saw the trap party, the amount was thrown on the floor.
12. The appellant had examined D.W.1, who was working as Agriculture Extension Officer. He stated that he was present on the date of the trap and stated that one person thrust the amount into the pant pocket of the appellant and ran away. Immediately, appellant took out the amount and threw it on the ground. D.W.1's presence is not suggested during cross- examination of P.W.1 or any other witness, for the first time, his 10 version is stated during defence evidence. In fact, in the explanation given by the appellant during post trap proceedings, he did not state that the amount was forcibly thrust into his pant pocket.
13. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Assistant Director of Agriculture was the person who can grant licence. However, the appellant had accepted the application for licence and retained with him till the date of trap. In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, DSP and accordingly there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Court below.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, Special Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. [[[[[[[[ __________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 05.07.2024 kvs 11 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1456 of 2011 Date: 05.07.2024 kvs