Telangana High Court
Sri. M.Venkataiah vs The State Of A.P., Thru Acb, Hyderabad on 6 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.60 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also fine of Rs.1000/- under each count, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month vide judgment in C.C.No.1 of 2005 dated 22.01.2009 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The appellant died during pendency of the appeal and an application filed by the legal representatives to prosecute the case, was allowed. Accordingly, appeal is heard.
3. The appellant, who was working as Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy was entrapped by the ACB on 03.03.2004 in his chamber in the Court premises on the ground that he demanded and accepted amount of Rs.1500/- from P.W.1 for 2 the purpose of showing favour in the Sessions Case in which P.W.1 and 8 others were accused.
4. P.W.1 lodged a complaint on 01.03.2004 with the DSP, ACB, Hyderabad stating that he is accused in SC No.170 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy. The appellant was Additional Public Prosecutor and at the time of final arguments in the case, he called and demanded Rs.3,000/- for not arguing the case effectively. On 26.02.2004, the appellant insisted that the bribe amount should be paid, however, when pleaded the bribe was settled at Rs.1500/-. On 01.03.2004 when P.W.1 and others went to the Court, the appellant insisted to make payment on 05.03.2004 on which date, the case was posted.
5. On the basis of the said complaint, trap was laid on 03.03.2004. P.W.2, the accompanying witness is a friend of P.W.1 and both went to the ACB office around 8.00 a.m. In the presence of independent mediators, DSP and others, pre-trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P3. Thereafter, the trap party proceeded to the District Court Complex at Ranga Reddy 3 District. P.Ws.1 and 2 went into the chamber of the appellant and enquired about the case. The appellant informed that nothing would happen and they would be acquitted. Thereafter, when demanded, P.W.1 handed over tainted currency amount to the appellant, who accepted the amount and kept in the table drawer. P.W.2 went outside and conveyed signal that the amount was received. Accordingly, the trap party members entered into the chamber of the appellant and questioned about the bribe amount. Phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the hands of the appellant. The resultant solution on the right hand of the accused turned positive. However, the test on the left hand remained negative. The amount was seized from the table drawn at the instance of appellant and thereafter post trap proceedings were conducted which is Ex.P5. Appellant was arrested. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by ACB.
6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked by the prosecution. In defence, 4 Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. Learned Special Judge was convinced that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other circumstances proved the case against the appellant and accordingly convicted the appellant.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy appearing for the appellant would submit that the reason given for demand of bribe is highly improbable and unbelievable. Even according to P.W.1, all the witnesses in the Sessions Case in which he is accused, turned hostile to the prosecution case. In the said circumstances, the question of the appellant as a Additional Public Prosecutor demanding amount not to effectively argue the case, cannot be believed. In fact, the case was posted on 26.02.2004 when the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and arguments were heard and posted for judgment on 01.03.2004. On 01.03.2004, all the accused were present, however, since the Presiding Officer was on leave, the case was posted on 05.03.2004 'for judgment'. When the case was already posted for judgment on 05.03.2004, the question of the Public 5 Prosecutor/appellant again arguing the case does not arise. Learned Special Judge found that there would be possibility of the Public Prosecutor/appellant reopening the case, for which reason, the amount must have been demanded and paid, cannot be made basis to record conviction. It is nobody's case that any such application either to reopen or recall ay witness was made. Accordingly, the finding of the Special Court is incorrect and basis being assumption, the conviction has to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2, who are witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and specifically stated regarding acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The corroborating evidence is the recovery of the amount from the table drawer and the right hand test being tested positive for handling the bribe amount. The case was pending before the Court in which the appellant was the Public Prosecutor and judgment was not delivered till the date of trap. In the said circumstances, the evidence of demand of bribe is convincing 6 and also the official favour is apparent from the record. There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Special Court and accordingly, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. As seen from the admission of P.W.1, he was a rowdy sheeter and involved in several cases. Specifically, it is stated that he was involved in five house burning cases. Further, it is to his knowledge that all the witnesses have turned hostile and even according to him, in the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.1 mentioned that there is no evidence and the case is very weak. In the said criminal back ground of P.W.1, it has to be assessed as to whether the demand of bribe is probable, on the basis of the evidence available on record.
10. It is admitted that all the witnesses in the Sessions Case have turned hostile and even according to P.W.1, there is no evidence in the case to convict them. On 26.02.2004, Section 313 examination of P.W.1 and the other accused in the case was complete and arguments of both the sides were over. The case was reserved for judgment on 26.02.2004 and posted to 01.03.2004 for delivering judgment. Even according to the 7 record and to the knowledge of P.W.1, the arguments of Public Prosecutor/appellant were already heard and the Court has reserved the case for judgment to be pronounced on 01.03.2004.
11. On 01.03.2004, the Presiding Officer was on leave. It is not the case that any attempt was even made by the Public Prosecutor to either reopen the case or recall any witness or any such application was filed on 01.03.2004. P.W.1 was having several criminal cases registered against him and a rowdy sheeter. An Advocate was representing him in the Lower Court, even according to his evidence. Having previous knowledge about criminal cases and assistance of an Advocate, the possibility of the Public Prosecutor/appellant intervening or making an impact on the Court for recording conviction in a case in which all the witnesses turned hostile, is not probable, as such, the reason for demand given by P.W.1 appears to have been made up. Ultimately, on 05.03.2004, judgment was pronounced and all the accused were found not guilty and acquitted.
8
12. The version of P.W.1 raises any amount of doubt regarding the demand being correct. P.W.1 being a rowdy sheeter involved in several cases, having knowledge that there is no case that was made out against him in the main case, agreeing to part with bribe of Rs.1500/- is not belilevable. Further, the money was recovered from the table drawer. The independent witness/P.W.4, who was also Public Prosecutor in III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, was sitting in the room when the ACB official entered into the room. Though he was present in the room, he did not state anything about P.Ws.1 and 2 entering into the room and that there was any exchange of money. The witness P.W.4 was not declared hostile to the prosecution case. The defence of the appellant is that he never demanded any bribe and prior to his arrival, the tainted currency notes must have been kept in the table drawer. Further in SC No.170 of 1999, it is the case in which PW.1 was accused and the appellant was requested to give up witness namely Mallesham. However, the appellant/Public Prosecutor refused to do so unless the Investigating Officer 9 gives up the witness. For the said reason, PW.1 bore grudge and filed false case against him.
13. In the present circumstances of the case, keeping in view the back ground of P.W.1 and total hostility in the Sessions case in which P.W.1 is accused and also that the amount was recovered from the table drawer, there arises any amount of doubt regarding the prosecution case being correct. More particularly, when P.W.4 was present in the chamber room when the ACB officials arrived and he did not state about P.Ws.1 and 2 entering into the room and meeting appellant. For the said reasons, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside impugned judgment of learned Special Judge in CC No.1 of 2005 dated 22.01.2009.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 06.03.2024 kvs