Telangana High Court
M.Janardhan Reddy vs State Of A.P., on 8 November, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.408 OF 2011
*****
Between:
M.Janardhan Reddy ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P,
Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
ACB ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 08.11.2024
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
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.408 OF 2011
% Dated 08.11.2024
# M.Janardhan Reddy ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P,
Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
ACB ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.B.Thimma Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala,
Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
1
(2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 401
2
AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2022
3
AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1200
4
AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3570
5
AIR 2001 Supreme Court 147
6
AIR 2001 Supreme Court 318
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.408 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant/accused was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.4 of 2010, dated 31.03.2011 passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died. By order dated 04.04.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2023, this Court permitted the legal heirs of the appellant to come on record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is a contractor with the R&B department, who completed four works during 2002-03 and submitted bills for the works. (1.) SR for Gajwel to Dhoulthabad road 21/2 to 22/5 km; (2.) SR for Vargal to Gajwel road 1/10 to 13/4 km; (3.) SR for Gajwel to Chegunta Road 19/0 to 21/0 km; and (4.) SR for SNT GJ Road 74/0 to 75/5 km, during 2002- 2003, to the Executive Engineer at R&B Siddipet (AO) for 4 forwarding them to the Assistant Pay Accounts Officer (APAO) in Medak.
4. Upon receiving the bills, the appellant demanded 2% bribe on each bill for forwarding them to the APAO. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the full 2% immediately and requested that he would pay 1% per bill after receiving payment. However, the said request was refused by the appellant and insisted to pay the full 2% on each bill.
5. After P.W.1 assured payment of the bribe, the appellant forwarded the bills and M Books to the APAO but threatened that if PW1 did not pay the bribe upon receiving the cheque, future bills, particularly for the Vargal-Gajwel BT Road work, would not be entertained.
6. On February 27, 2003, PW1 received a total of ₹46 lakhs through two cheques i.e., one for ₹18,42,928 dated February 22, 2003, and another for ₹27,77,651 dated 27.02. 2003. P.W.1 claimed that on March 4, 2003, the appellant demanded bribe of ₹92,000 (2% of ₹46 lakhs) and threatened to harass him if he failed to pay. On March 11, 2003, P.W.1 contacted the appellant stating that he 5 would initially pay ₹30,000 due to shortage of funds and the rest of the amount would be paid after receiving payment for the Vargal- Gajwel BT Road work. Unwilling to pay the bribe, P.W.1 lodged complaint with the DSP of ACB on the same day.
7. Trap was arranged on 12.03.2003 by P.W.8/DSP, having received the complaint on 11.03.2003. P.W.1 was asked to come on the next day along with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.30,000/-.
8. The trap party gathered in Vijaya lodge. Before proceeding to trap, all the formalities to be followed prior to proceeding to the trap were undertaken. What all transpired before proceeding to trap was reduced into writing which is Ex.P3/pre-trap proceedings.
9. The trap party then proceeded to the office of the appellant. P.W.2 who is also contractor and relative of P.W.1 was asked to accompany P.W.1 and observe what transpires in between P.W.1 and the appellant. Further, he was instructed to relay signal after the appellant accepts bribe amount from P.W.1. After both P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into the office, they waited for some time, since some others were present in the chambers of the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.1 entered into appellant's chamber and having discussed about 6 the ongoing works, P.W.1 handed over the amount to the appellant, who received it with his right hand and kept in his pant pocket. P.W.2 went outside and gave the signal to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe amount from P.W.1.
10. The trap party entered into the chamber of the appellant and conducted sodium carbonate solution test on the hands of the appellant to ascertain whether the bribe amount which was smeared with phenolphthalein powder during pre-trap proceedings was handled by the appellant. The test on both the hands turned positive. The DSP/P.W.8 questioned regarding the bribe amount and the appellant explained that the said amount was towards repayment of the loan which he had provided to P.W.1 one and half month prior. The said version was recorded in the post-trap proceedings Ex.P6. The relevant documents were seized and what all transpired during post-trap proceedings were drafted.
11. The investigation was then handed over to P.W.9, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet after obtaining sanction orders from the competent authority. 7
12. During trial, the defence of the appellant is that on January 16, 2003, while at a work site, the appellant witnessed an altercation between DW1 (Jagga Reddy) and some labourers who prevented DW1 from leaving due to a payment dispute. The appellant tried to mediate, explaining that the labourers would be paid once the contractor receives the funds and requested them to allow DW1 to leave. The labourers, however, requested partial payment. Consequently, the appellant persuaded DW3 (Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy), a contractor and neighbour, to lend DW1 ₹30,000 on the spot. DW1 assured DW3 that he would repay the loan soon, either directly or through the appellant, and requested DW3 to collect the money from the appellant. Two days before the trap, DW1 informed the appellant that he was sending the repayment amount through PW1, his partner in the company, as DW1 was unable to contact DW3.
13. It is further the case of the appellant that on the trap day, PW1, accompanied by V. Srinivas Reddy/ PW2, met the appellant and stated that P.W.1 was handing over the amount of ₹30,000 on DW1's behalf to repay it to DW3, as DW1 couldn't reach DW3 8 personally. PW1 gave the amount to appellant who put it in his pocket and then the ACB officials arrived. The appellant asserted that he explained the situation to the ACB, stating he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe and PW1 implicated him out of resentment for enforcing strict standards when approving bills and for penalizing PW1's firm.
14. According to appellant, PW7 (S. Reddy) who was also present and witnessed the transaction between the appellant and PW1. Though P.W.7 informed ACB, the officials ignored and deliberately disregarded his explanation. The appellant also claimed that on the trap day, the ACB reviewed all relevant bills of PW1's company, Tirumala Earth Movers, which confirmed that the appellant had not delayed any payments. However, the ACB allegedly omitted this fact and refrained from seizing the Tirumala Earth Movers records.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly argued on the basis of the defence of the appellant as narrated above. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of T.Subramanian v. State of T.N 1 wherein the Hon'ble 1 (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 401 9 Supreme Court held that if the accused proves his defence by preponderance of probability that would suffice and when two views are reasonably possible, it cannot be said that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. In C.M.Girish Babu v. C.B.I, Cochin, High Court of Kerala 2 similar view was taken as in T.Subramanian's case supra.
16. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the ACB would submit that if loan was arranged by the appellant, there is no reason why P.W.1 would falsely implicate the appellant. Since the appellant had stated that the loan was given, presumption arises under Section 20 of the Act and the burden is on the appellant to prove his case. However, except interested witnesses' evidence i.e., D.Ws.1 to 3, there is nothing placed on record to show that in fact Rs.30,000/- was arranged by the appellant. He relied on the following judgments: i) State of A.P v. S.Janardhana Rao 3 ; ii)State of M.P v. Dayal Sahu 4 ; iii) 2 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2022 3 AIR 2005 Supreme Court 1200 4 AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3570 10 Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra 5; and iv) N.Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh 6.
16. It is not in dispute that P.W.1/defacto complainant is 15% shareholder and another 15% share was held by his wife in the company-Tirumala Earth Movers Limited, wherein D.W.1 was 70% shareholder. If at all there was any grievance regarding payment or demand for percentage in the bills that were paid by the department, D.W.1 would have been the person to lodge complaint who holds 70% stake in the company. It is not the case of P.W.1 that D.W.1 was informed regarding the demand or about the complaint being made to the ACB. In fact, in the complaint, Ex.P1, there is no mention about D.W.1, who was the Managing Partner in the company that was executing the department works.
17. Undisputed facts are that for all the four works that were completed by the company, the entire amounts were paid. P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that it is true as on the date of 25.01.2003 till lodging of the complaint, no bills were pending with 5 AIR 2001 Supreme Court 147 6 AIR 2001 Supreme Court 318 11 the appellant including Vargal-Gajwel BT road work. The said admission of P.W.1 is extracted hereunder:
"It is true as on the date of 25.1.2003 till lodging of my complaint no bills were pending with AO."
18. The reason for lodging complaint appears to be notices that were issued to P.W.1 by the appellant. In his cross-examination P.W.1 stated as follows:
"It is true since I could not execute the work in time AO issued notices to me. I sought for extension of time. AO extended three months by imposing the fine for Rs.10,000/- and forwarded my application to SC."
19. There arises any amount of doubt regarding the bribe of Rs.30,000/- being paid when according to P.W.1 there was total demand of Rs.92,000/-.Further, no works were pending execution by the company/P.W.1 or any new works were floated and given in favour of the company/P.W.1. In the said circumstances, giving bribe of Rs.30,000/- to the appellant becomes doubtful. P.W.4-independent mediator admitted as follows:
"By the time we entered into the chamber of AO one V.Srinivas Reddy was also present. AO informed that he did not demand and accept the amount as bribe and that Pw-1 came and repaid the loan he had taken earlier. AO informed he advanced loan to Tirumala Earth Movers Firm which belongs to Pw-1."12
20. At the earliest point of time, the appellant explained that Rs.30,000/- that was paid was towards loan that was arranged at an earlier point of time. Once the appellant admitted receiving the amount, presumption arises under Section 20 of the Act and the burden shifts on to the appellant to prove his case by preponderance of probability. D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined in the Court regarding the loan of Rs.30,000/- being arranged by the appellant. D.W.1 is 70% partner in Tirumala Earth Movers, when P.W.1 is 15% partner. D.W.1 specifically stated that he asked P.W.1 to repay the loan of Rs.30,000/-, which was taken from P.W.3 at the instance of Appellant. Since D.W.3 was not available, D.W.1 asked P.W.1 to hand over the amount to appellant. P.W.4, who is the independent mediator spoke about P.W.7's presence when amount was handed over by P.W.1 to the appellant. P.W.7 stated that on the date of trap, P.W.1 came into office and handed over the amount of Rs.30,000/- to appellant. Though P.W.7 was declared hostile, his presence was stated by P.W.4 and statement of P.W.7 is consistent with the defence of loan as asserted by the appellant during post-trap proceedings.
21. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the counsel for the appellant referred to above, the defence of the appellant was proved convincingly by producing defence witnesses. The 13 evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be disbelieved only for the reason of their appearing before the Court in support of the appellant and P.W.7/prosecution witness also states the version of the loan repayment by P.W.1. The Court has to give the same treatment to both defence and prosecution witnesses. Though P.W.7 was treated hostile, his evidence which is believable and in tune with the statement made by appellant at the earliest point of time, cannot be brushed aside and can be treated as corroboration to the defence of the appellant. The appellant has successfully proved his defence from the evidence of defence and prosecution witness. Accordingly, appeal deserves to be allowed.
22. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.4 of 2010 dated 31.03.2011 is hereby set aside. Since the appellant was granted bail and subsequently died, his bail bonds stand discharged.
23. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 08.11.2024 kvs