Telangana High Court
Smt Tangella Rama Devi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.150 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.02.2013 in C.C.No.44 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sridhar Chikyala, learned Standing Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and Mr. Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2004, one Smt Ravula Ramadevi/de facto complainant gave a complaint to DSP ACB stating that on 20.11.2004, she gave an application to MRO, Julapally for issuance of the Widow confirmation Certificate. Then he instructed her to obtain an endorsement from the Village Panchayat Secretary and Revenue Inspector. On 21.10.2004, she went to the MRO, Julapally and enquired about the Village Panchayat Secretary. Again she went to the house of one T. Ramadevi/accused at her native place i.e., Peddapally. 2 The de facto complainant showed the endorsement of Patwari and requested the accused to make an endorsement. On such request, it is alleged that the said T. Ramadevi asked the de facto complainant to pay Rs.1,500/- towards bribe to endorse on the material paper. On 31.10.2004, the accused again asked the de facto complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1,200/- on the date of endorsement and the rest of the amount later. As the de facto complainant was not willing to pay the said money, upon obtaining permission from the competent authority, the present complaint was registered by the DSP ACB as Crime No.9/ACB- KNR/2004 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the PC Act").
4. Basing on the material available on record and upon hearing the preliminary arguments advanced by the prosecution and the accused, charges were framed against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act on 27.11.2007, read over and explained to her. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The trial Court vide impugned judgment, sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 7 3 of the PC Act, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court without appreciating the evidence available on record in proper perspective passed the impugned judgment. To substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision passed by the composite High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in K. Giri Vs. State, ACB, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad 1 and seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the trial Court, upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record in proper perspective passed the impugned judgment and the interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the Revision.
1 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 821 (A) 4
8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 9. On behalf of the defence, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex D1 was marked. The trial Court upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record observed that PW1, in her evidence stated that she gave 12 x Rs.100/- = Rs.1,200/- denominations to the accused. But the counsel for the accused stated that as per Exs. P4 and P5, the amount handed over is 2 x Rs.500/- and 2 x Rs.100/- notes, but not as stated by PW1 and thus her evidence cannot be believed. It is pertinent to note that PW1 gave complaint on 03.11.2004 and she deposed before the trial Court on 09.02.2011 i.e, nearly after six years from the date of filing of the complaint. Merely, because PW1 failed to state about the denominations correctly, it cannot be presumed that she deposed falsely before the trial Court only to implicate the accused.
9. The currency seized from the accused and PW1 tallied with the denominations noted under Ex P4 pre trap panchanama. Therefore, relying upon the decision reported in Manik Shrirang Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharastra 2 the trial Court observed that the prosecution amply established the recovery of amount from the possession of the accused and inferred that there is a 2 1989 CRl.L.J. 2268 5 demand of bribe. Normally bribe cannot be taken openly and the offence is purported to have been committed in secrecy. Otherwise, accused might have instructed PW1 to come to the office on the next day instead of asking her to come home after half-an-hour. Once, the prosecution established that gratification in any form cash or kind had been paid or accepted by a public servant, the Court is under legal compulsion to presume that the said gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward to do any official act.
10. Moreover, PW6 stated that during his tenure, there was no adverse remark or complaint against the accused and she was sincere and honest at work. If at all the accused was so sincere, she ought to have made the endorsement on Ex P2 on the same day i.e., on 21.10.2004 itself along with the Village Panchayat Secretary or on 31.10.2004. But she failed to do so. Therefore, the trial Court found the sole evidence of accused reliable, acceptable, trustworthy and the trial Court had safely come to the conclusion that the accused demanded bribe for making an endorsement on Ex P2 and made the endorsement only after receiving the bribe. Therefore, the trial Court found the accused 6 guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
11. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order dated 19.02.2013 suspended the execution of sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant and ordered to continue her on bail on the same terms and conditions as imposed by the trial Court, pending Appeal. Thereafter, the matter underwent several adjournments.
12. In the case on hand, the trial Court held that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which finding, in my considered view, does not call for any interference.
13. Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned counsel, upon considering the fact that the appellant suffered mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before the trial Court and as eleven long years have elapsed from the date of filing this Appeal, this Court in inclined to take a lenient view insofar as the sentence is concerned and reduce the sentence imposed against her to the period of imprisonment already undergone by her.
7
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of the C.C.No.44 of 2010 on the file of the learned II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Hyderabad within one month from today.
15. If the appellant fails to comply the aforesaid order, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J Date: 26.03.2024 ESP 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL 253 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.150 OF 2013 Dated: 26.03.2024 ESP