Telangana High Court
K. Satyanarayana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1579 OF 2007
Between:
K.Satyanarayana
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
And
The State of A.P. rep. by the Inspector of
Police, ACB, Adilabad, Karimnagar Range
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., 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. 1579 OF 2007
% Dated 22.07.2024
# K.Satyanarayana
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by the Inspector of
Police, ACB, Adilabad, Karimnagar Range
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., 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
1
(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779
2
(1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 725
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1579 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused Officer, questioning the conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad in C.C.No.4 of 2003, vide Judgment dated 23.10.2007, for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months for the charge under Section 7 of the Act and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused officer and learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
3. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 is a resident of Adilabad Town doing Real Estate business. He and his associates setup a voluntary organization namely "Travellers Care" and got it registered in the year 2000 before the Registrar of Societies at Hyderabad. Ex.P1 is the copy of the registration certificate. PW.1 took the premises of one Gowri Shankar and Shyam of Adilabad for 4 running the said institution which is opposite to the Railway station.
4. PW.1 presented an application Ex.P2 in the office of Assistant Engineer, North Zone i.e. to the Assistant Engineer concerned (A.O.). On receiving the said application, A.O. instructed PW.1 to obtain demand drafts for Rs.2,000/- and for Rs.200/- and accordingly, on 05.04.2001, PW1 went to the office of A1 and handed over the demand drafts with covering letter dated 05.04.2001. After receiving the said demand drafts, A.O. instructed PW.1 to come after 15 days. When PW.1 went to A.O, i.e. after 15 days, appellant allegedly demanded to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- as bribe. PW.1 informed A.O. that he will not pay any such bribe. Thereafter, on 22.05.2001, PW.1 again went to the office of A.O and on that A.O. reiterated his earlier demand and asked him to bring the said amount within 2 or 3 days. Aggrieved by constant demand for bribe, on 24.05.2001, PW.1 went to the officer of DSP, ACB, Karimnagar and submitted a report (Ex.P4). The DSP asked PW1 to come to their office on 25.05.2001 at about 8.00 A.M along with one of his friend and the proposed bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-.
5. PW.5 who is the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar, registered the complaint Ex.P4 vide Cr.No.5/2001. Trap was arranged on 5 25.05.2001. PW.1 went to the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar along with his friend Suresh Kumar (PW.2). PW.5 (DSP) in the presence of PW2, PW.1 mediators and others concluded the formalities before going to the trap. All the events were drafted under Ex.P6-pre-trap proceedings. The trap party members proceeded to the house of A.O which is situated at Amid Pura, Adilabad, in a jeep and scooter and reached there at 6.30 P.M. After reaching the house of A.O., PWs.1 & 2 who went on a scooter parked their vehicle in front of the house of A.O. and that the trap party members parked their jeep at some distance from the house of A.O. After 10 minutes of PWs.1 & 2 entering into the house of A.O., PW.2 came out and relayed the pre arranged signal. On receiving the signal, PW.5 and the trap party members rushed into the house of A.O. and found PW.1 talking with A.O., standing in the 'Varanda' of the house. PW.5 asked PW.1 to wait outside the house and also disclosed his identity to A.O. and questioned him regarding bribe. Then PW.5 got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked A.O. to rinse his hand fingers separately in the said solutions. When the A.O. dipped his hand fingers, both the said solutions turned into pink color. PW.5 recovered the currency notes at the instance of A.O. from the bed room. Thereafter, all the events that transpired was reduced into writing under Ex.P7-post trap proceedings. PW5 6 handed over investigation to PW.7 who is the Inspector of Police, ACB. After collection of evidence and after receipt of Ex.P15 sanction order, PW.7 filed charge sheet against the A.O. for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. The learned Special Judge having framed charges, examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P15 on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 6 were also brought on record. The accused examined DWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.X1 to X5 in support of his defence. The learned Special Judge did not find favour with the accused's defence that work was not pending with him, accordingly recorded conviction.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly argued on the ground that there was no official work which was pending regarding the electricity connection to be given to PW1. Further, for the reason of disconnecting the illegal connection to the shop of PW1 by the accused and others, PW1 bore grudge against the appellant and involved him in a false case. The counsel submitted that the evidence of PW4 when considered with Exs.X1 to X4 would reveal that the application for electricity connection under Ex.P2 though made on 15.03.2001, the required Demand Drafts were not 7 given until 05.04.2001, for which reason, there was no possibility of providing new service connection before closure of financial year i.e. 31.03.2001.
8. Learned Counsel further submitted that in accordance with the procedure, the Divisional Engineer has to allot the work orders to PW4-Additional Divisional Engineer who in turn would assign the work to the Assistant Engineers working under him. Since the Demand Drafts were only provided on 05.04.2001, there was no possibility of processing the application. In fact, the ACB got confused that there was a work order in favour of PW1 and the accused officer had delayed release of service connection. Since there was no work order issued for execution by the appellant, the question of there being any pending work does not arise. The prosecution failed to prove that there was any demand, since no work was pending and the recovery on the date of trap is of no consequence, when demand was not proved.
9. Counsel further argued that even on the trap date though, it was stated that there was no demand and the amount was thrust into the hands of the accused, however, false recitals were made in the Post Trap Proceedings-Ex.P7 and a different version was given by the prosecution witnesses. Counsel relied on the Judgment of 8 Honourable Supreme Court in C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala 1 and Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) 2 in support of his argument that recovery of the amount divorced from the circumstances cannot form basis to convict the accused unless the substantive case of the prosecution is reliable.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that Exs.X1 to X4 were not seized during the course of investigation and they were produced during trial. The said defence of there being no pending work or that the application could not be processed for any reason, was not stated at the earliest point of time during the Post Trap Proceedings or during the investigation. Such defence was taken for the first time in trial. The fact remains that the application was made in March and Demand Drafts were filed in the month of April, and connection was not given till the date of trap which is 25.05.2001. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that recovery of the amount was at the instance of the accused from the bedroom, as such, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
1 (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779 2 (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 725 9
11. It is the case of PW1 that though application was made and the concerned fee was paid by way of Demand Drafts, the accused had dodged the issue and refused to act until the demand of bribe was fulfilled. The accused produced Exs.X1 to X4 to substantiate that no work was pending with the accused. It is further his case that the work of PW1 was not pending before him and in fact, the allotment should be made to him by superior officer for giving connection, which was not made at all.
12. Exs.X1 to X4 were summoned during the course of trial. At the earliest point of time when the accused was questioned regarding the demand of bribe, no such defence that no work was pending with accused was not stated. Admittedly, the documents were in possession of the Department until produced during the evidence of PW4 on 16.08.2007. The authenticity of the documents and entries made therein would become doubtful for the reason of the said aspects not being stated by the accused till nearly after six years of the trap. The application and the connected file of PW1 was seized from the office at the instance of the accused. If at all the work of PW1 was not entrusted to the accused and processing was not done, the question of the application and file of PW1 being in possession of the appellant does not arise. As already discussed though, the entries under Exs.X1 to X4 support the version of the 10 accused however, such version was placed before the Court after six years and entries in the documents being made subsequently cannot be ruled out. It is not suggested to PW1 that his work was not pending with accused.
13. On the trap date, the defence of the accused is that PW1 thrust the amount of bribe into the hands of accused and immediately the trap party arrived. However, the evidence is otherwise. According to PW2 and PW1, the amount was demanded and accepted from PW1 and thereafter the appellant went inside the house and placed the bribe amount in the dressing table drawer. During the course of Post Trap proceedings and according to the independent witness, when the trap party entered the house accused was found in the Verandah, when questioned regarding the amount, accused went inside the bed room and pointed out the currency notes that were in dressing table. The said recovery is contrary to the version of the accused that the amount was thrust in the hands of PW1 and immediately, the trap party entered and caught hold of the accused.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion there leaves no amount of doubt regarding the pendency of work with PW1, the demand and 11 acceptance by the accused. There are no grounds to interfere with the Judgment of Court below.
15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction recorded by the trial Court is confirmed. The trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the appellant/accused officer and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 22.07.2024 tk