Telangana High Court
Dr. M. Suresh Kumar, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl Pp Hyd., For ... on 22 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 543 OF 2007
Between:
Dr. M.Suresh Kumar
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
And
State rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Warangal Range, Warangal, Through
Spl.P.P.for ACB cases, High Court,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.07.2024
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. 543 OF 2007
% Dated 22.07.2024
# Dr.M.Suresh Kumar
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
And
$ State rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Warangal Range, Warangal, Through
Spl.P.P.for ACB cases, High Court,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.543 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the defacto complainant-PW1.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant worked as staff nurse at Government Civil Hospital, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District from 1997-2000. At request, she was transferred to Ursu Karimabad Maternity Hospital and her transfer proceedings were issued on 30.08.2000 vide Ex.P1. PW.1 was relieved on 07.09.2000 and she requested the appellant/accused who was working as Medical officer at Jammikunta to provide Last Pay Certificate and Service Register. Inspite of several reminders, the appellant did not hand over the service register of the accused to the Ursu Karimabad Maternity Hospital nor issue Last Pay Certificate.
3. She had complained to the office bearers of the Union. Further, she went and met the appellant in May, 2001 and requested to send the Last Pay Certificate and Service Register. The 4 appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- to do so. On 17.06.2001, PW1 again went to the appellant's house and requested to send the Last Pay Certificate and Service Register for which the appellant asked to pay the bribe amount on 19.06.2001. Unwilling to pay the bribe amount, Ex.P2-written complaint was lodged by PW1 with the DSP, ACB on 17.062001. The DSP-PW.9 arranged for the trap on 19.06.2001. On the trap day PW1-complainant, DSP, Independent Mediator-PW2 and others formed the trap party. The trap party underwent the procedure before proceeding to the trap. What all transpired in the ACB office was reduced into writing which is Ex.P19. Having concluded the pre trap proceedings, around 7.30 a.m., the trap party went near the house of the appellant. PW1 got down from the car and went to Accused officer's house while other trap party members stayed at distance. PW1 opened the door and asked PW1 regarding the bribe amount. When PW1 stated that she has amount with her, the appellant asked her to place the amount in the table drawer. PW1 kept the amount on the papers which were in the table drawer and then PW1 requested the appellant to send Last Pay Certificate and Service Register. The appellant said that he was on leave and would resume charge on 27.06.2001 and then he would do the needful. PW1 came out and relayed the signal to the trap party to indicate demand and acceptance of bribe by the 5 appellant. DSP along with other members entered into the house and introduced himself. Accused Officer was asked to rinse both his hand fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution to verify whether he had handled the bribe amount, since the bribe amount was smeared with phenolphthalein powder. If one handles the amount, phenolphthalein would be transferred on to the fingers of the person handling the amount. If the hands are rinsed in Sodium Carbonate solution, the solution would turn pink, indicating handling of bribe amount. Both the hand fingers of the accused turned positive. At the instance of the appellant, amount was seized from the Almirah in the bed room.
4. The appellant was questioned regarding the bribe amount. The appellant explained that PW1 met her and requested to issue Last Pay Certificate and appellant informed that she can come on 27.06.2001 after he resumes charge and then collect Last Pay Certificate. PW1 offered currency of Rs.10,000/- and requested to issue Last Pay Certificate, but the appellant refused to receive the amount. PW1 then pulled out the right side drawer of the table situated in the drawing room and kept the amount, inspite of his refusal and left hurriedly. The accused secured the amount in the Almirah to return the said amount to PW1.
6
5. The test resultant solutions were sealed. Statement of the appellant and the complainant were recorded in the Post Trap Proceedings. Having concluded all the formalities during Post Trap Proceedings, the same was reduced into writing which is Ex.P21.
6. The investigation was then handed over to PW.10-Inspector who obtained sanction from the competent authority and filed charge sheet. The prosecution produced PWs.1 to 11 on their behalf and also marked Exs.P1 to P24 during trial. The appellant examined DWs.1 to 6 witnesses and marked Ex.D1-copy of explanation of the Accused.
7. The learned Special Judge, having considered the evidence on record, found that the appellant had in fact demanded and accepted the bribe amount from PW1 and accordingly convicted the appellant.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that PW1 did not hand over the charge after she was transferred. For the said reason, the question of issuing Last Pay Certificate or sending Service Register does not arise. The reason for false implication is that the appellant had issued several memos which are Exs.P4, P5, P9 and P11 and in response to the said Memos, PW1 had given explanation under Exs.P3, P6, P7, P8 and P10. All 7 the said documents are on record. Further, PW1 admitted that she did not handover the charge of stocks to anyone. In the absence of handing over the charge, the question of issuing Last Pay Certificate does not arise.
9. Learned Counsel further argued that even on the date of trap, the spontaneous explanation given by the appellant was that though appellant refused, the complainant-PW1 had kept the amount in the table drawer and left hurriedly. He secured the said amount to return and placed it in Almirah in bed room. In the background of the issues that were in between PW1 and the appellant and coupled with the trap day events, it clearly goes to show that the appellant was falsely implicated.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that though PW1 was transferred in the month of August, 2000, however, till the date of trap which is in June, 2001, neither the Last Pay Certificate was issued nor the Service Register was sent. That itself would indicate that the appellant had demanded the bribe and refused to give certificate unless bribe was paid. PW1 had specifically stated regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe and the amount was also seized from the Almirah in the bed room. If at all the amount was placed in the table drawer, without 8 demand, the question of appellant handling the amount and keeping it inside the bed room does not arise. The said circumstance clearly indicates that there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
11. PW1 admitted that the hospital at Jammikunta was emergency hospital and round the clock she had to attend duty and unless permission is given, she cannot leave the head quarters. PW1 further admitted that appellant had given several memos for the reason of PW1 not residing in the head quarters. In fact four memos under Exs.P4, P5, P9 and P11 were issued to PW1 and she had explained stating that her children were residing in Warangal for which reason she could not be in head quarters. The explanations were also marked as Exs.P3, P6, P7, P8 and P10. Further, she also admitted that she did not handover the charge of the stores till the date of trap. In the said background of the appellant issuing memos for not discharging her duties and also not handing over charge, whether there was demand for bribe for providing Last Pay Certificate and sending Service Register has to be considered.
12. PW.4 and PW.8 are the prosecution witnesses to whom PW1 complained for not issuing Last Pay Certificate. PW8 and PW4 who 9 are union members met the appellant asking him as to why the Last Pay Certificate and Service Register was not sent. It is the version of PW8 and PW4 that the appellant informed that PW1 had not handed over the charge and once the charge is handed over, the certificate would be issued. Though, both PW4 and PW8 were treated hostile, their evidence regarding PW1 not handing over charge is not disputed by the prosecution. Admittedly, charge was never handed over by PW1 till the date of trap, even according to the prosecution. When it is the case of prosecution that charge was not handed over, the question of issuing Last Pay Certificate and demanding bribe for issuing Last Pay Certificate does not arise. The version of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated is probable when assessed with the background of the appellant issuing memos previously and further PW1 not handing over charge. The appellant on the date of trap, when DSP entered into the house of the appellant and questioned him, appellant stated that PW1 met him and requested to issue Last Pay Certificate. He informed PW1 that once she hands over charge, she can collect Last Pay Certificate on 27.06.2001, since he was on leave. Appellant further stated that when he refused to receive any amount, PW1 forcibly pulled out the drawer and kept the amount in the room and 10 left hurriedly. The appellant had secured the amount with an intention to return the amount to PW1.
13. All the circumstances as projected by the prosecution and on the basis of defence which is backed by documentary evidence are viewed collectively the version given by the appellant is more probable. The explanation offered by the appellant, immediately during Post Trap Proceedings, is proof enough to draw the conclusion of false implication.
14. PWs.4 and 8 who are the prosecution witnesses have spoken about confronting the appellant regarding the Last Pay Certificate and PW1 undertaking to hand over charge whereafter Last Pay Certificate would be given. Strained relation between PW1 and appellant cannot be lost sight of. Court cannot be selective while adjudicating and rely only on the demand and acceptance, while ignoring the other circumstances and background of the case. As already discussed, the charge was not handed over by PW1 and the circumstances of the case when considered as a whole, the accused had discharged his burden of proving his case convincingly.
15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases in CC.No.14/2003, dated 02.05.2007, and the 11 appellant/accused is acquitted. Since the appellant/accused in on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.07.2024 tk