Telangana High Court
Syed Allauddin Baber, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl. Pp Hyd., For ... on 5 July, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1234 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is questioning the judgment of the Special Court whereby the Special Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment in C.C.No.72 of 2005 dated 27.09.2010, on the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe from P.W.1. Petitioner in the I.P is the 1st respondent herein.
2. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. He retired from Air Force and working as a clerk in a Bank. On 23.12.2003 at about 11.30 p.m, when he went to the Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station (MGBS) to receive his friend, the appellant who was working as Head Constable attached to the outpost enquired as to the purpose of P.W.1 waiting in the Bus Station. Appellant allegedly stated that P.W.1 had come to the Bus Station for call girls and forcibly took P.W.1 to the outpost at MGBS. He then informed P.W.1 that he would book a case against him and demanded Rs.500/- to be paid out of which Rs.350/- will be towards compounding fee and 2 Rs.150/- for arranging a person to impersonate P.W.1 before the concerned Court. Though P.W.1 protested, appellant took his driving licence Ex.P1 and CAT Card/Ex.P2. On the next day i.e., 24.12.2003, P.W.1 went to the outpost and enquired about appellant with P.W.4, who is also a Head Constable. P.W.1 informed P.W.4 regarding appellant taking Exs.P1 and P2. P.W.1 was informed that no case was booked. Then, P.W.1 went to the house of the appellant when the location of house of appellant was given by P.W.4. When P.W.1 met and requested, appellant refused to return Exs.P1 and P2 and insisted to pay an amount of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the conduct of the appellant, P.W.1 went to the ACB office and filed written complaint Ex.P3 on 29.12.2003 with the Joint Director. The Joint Director entrusted the investigation to P.W.10. P.W.10 conducted enquiries regarding antecedents of the appellant and trap was arranged on 08.01.2004.
3. On the date of trap i.e., on 08.01.2004, the trap party gathered in ACB office which included P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/mediator, Investigating Officer/P.W.10 and others. Having concluded pre-trap proceedings in the ACB Office, Ex.P4 3 proceedings were drafted. The trap party, then proceeded to the MGBS around 1.30 p.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the outpost and found that the appellant was on duty. The appellant saw P.W.1 and asked him to get inside the room. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into the room and appellant demanded the bribe amount. P.W.1 handed over the said amount. The appellant took with his right hand and then placed it on the cot in the room. Then, Exs.P1 and P2 were returned from the wooden box and handed over to P.W.1. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 came out and conveyed the signal to the trap party regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. P.W.10 and other trap party members entered into the room and questioned about the bribe amount. The DSP asked the appellant to rinse his fingers of both hands in a separate sodium carbonate solution. The right hand solution turned positive for handling the tainted currency notes. The amount was found on the cot and seized at the instance of the appellant.
4. The relevant documents which are Order book and General Diary, Exs.P6 and P7 were seized. The photo copy of general diary of Police Station, Afzalgunj and photocopy of petty case register 4 including the long note book maintained were also collected. P.W.10 having completed investigation, filed charge sheet under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence and having framed charges for the said offences, examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P17 on behalf of the prosecution. The tainted currency MO.1 and other material objects MO2 to MO8 were marked during the course of trial.
5. Learned Special Judge found that there was demand by the appellant, pursuant to which, amount was handed over on the trap date. Learned Special Judge further found that though it was argued regarding 6 days delay in lodging complaint and further registration of the complaint after 9 days, in the facts and circumstances, it was properly explained and convicted the appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that a false case was filed by the complainant/P.W.1 since the appellant who was working in the Police Outpost had questioned P.W.1 regarding his presence in the mid night in the Bus Station 5 and insulted him by asking whether he had come there for call girls. The prosecution did not give the details of the person for whom P.W.1 was waiting in the bus station. Learned counsel further argued that P.W.1 being Ex-Service Man was insulted by the question of appellant and implicated in a false case. The version of the prosecution that the right hand only turned positive when test was conducted, improbablises the version of P.W.1 that appellant counted the notes and kept them on the cot. In fact, Exs.P1 and P2 were lost by P.w.1 and thereafter when found, the details were entered in the outpost note book. Since complaint was falsely made by P.W.1, which is apparent from the circumstances, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted.
7. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason as to why P.W.1 would file a false complaint against the police official. In fact, Exs.P1 and P2 were in possession of the appellant till the date of trap. On the date of trap, P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/independent mediator were witnesses to the demand and acceptance of bribe. In the said circumstances, the prosecution had proved the case against the appellant. 6
8. The appellant was working as the Head Constable, which is not in dispute. Further, Exs.P1 and P2 being in possession of the appellant is also not disputed.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The alleged incident happened on 23.12.2003, complaint was filed on 29.12.2003. Though there is no mention in Ex.P3 complaint, P.W.1 stated in the Court that he met the appellant on 24.12.2003. Though meeting the appellant on 24.12.2003 is not mentioned in complaint, however, the prosecution witness and the colleague of the appellant/P.W.4 had stated in the Court that P.W.1 met him and enquired about the appellant and that appellant had taken Exs.P1 and P2 and whether case was booked. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any improvement made by P.W.1. Admittedly, Ex.P10 long note register was maintained in the Outpost. In the said book, it was mentioned under Ex.P10(a) that Exs.P1 and P2 were found. If Exs.P1 and P2 were lost and found by the appellant, the question of keeping the documents with him till the date of trap would not arise though P.W.1 met him earlier to trap date. In the event of P.W.1 7 meeting the appellant and if Exs.P1 and P2 were lost, the same would have been returned by the appellant. In the circumstances narrated by P.W.1, it cannot be said that Exs.P1 and P2 were not taken forcibly by the appellant. On the date of trap, the right hand test turned positive and the left hand test remained negative. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is highly improbable that the appellant would have counted the notes with one hand, cannot be accepted. There are five notes, it is probable that a person can check the number of notes with one hand and it does not improbabilise the version of counting the amount and keeping it on the cot.
10. The version of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Exs.P1 and P2, being found in possession of the appellant, gives credibility to the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe from P.W.1. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Special Court.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, the Special Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining period 8 of sentence. The remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal fails and dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 05.07.2024 kvs