Telangana High Court
Sri A. Rajeswar Reddy, Secunderabad. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Spl.P.P., ... on 2 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1765 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant, who worked as Bailiff in the City Civil Court Complex, Hyderabad, was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.56 of 2004 dated 30.11.2009, passed by the Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.2,000/- for effecting the attachment orders of the Civil Court. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who was working as an Advocate, lodged an English written complaint on 01.12.2003 to the DSP, ACB, Hyderabad. In the complaint, he narrated that a suit filed by him was decreed on 30.06.2001. The 2 Decree Holder, Smt.Anitha (not examined), filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.No.6 of 2002 in O.S.No.373 of 1997 for the recovery of the decretal amount of Rs.3,24,139/-. Notices were served on the respondents, who are from the R & B Department. Accordingly, the First Additional Senior Civil Judge directed the attachment of movables of the respondents since they failed to comply with the notices.
4. The respondents' office was located in the City jurisdiction, as such, the warrants were entrusted to the appellant, who was working as a Bailiff in the City Civil Court Complex, Hyderabad, for effecting the attachment, However, the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.2,000/- on 25.11.2003, as such, a complaint was filed on 01.12.2003.
5. The trap was arranged on 03.12.2003, and the amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the appellant.
6. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that on the date of the trap when the amount was handed over to the appellant, the appellant, in turn, informed that he had already executed the 3 attachment warrants on the respondents. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination as follows:
"I did not enquire from the JDrs office whether the warrants were executed by the date of trap. I never met the A.O., until the date of trap personally. It is true that the AO did not demand any bribe amount from me directly or personally at any time from the date of trap. I did not mention in Ex.P1 complaint that the AO demanded bribe amount on cell phone. I did not meet the accused any time prior to this case. I have mentioned in Ex.P1 that for effecting the attachment, AO has demanded for sum of Rs.2,000/-."
7. P.W.1 further admitted in his cross-examination as follows:
"It is true that by the time of trap the warrants were executed by the A.O. I did not call the accused on his cell phone at any time. It is true I have not mentioned in the complaint that for giving information with regard the execution warrants the AO demand Rs.2,000/- for me. I have not mentioned in Ex.P1 that I assured the accused that I will pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- for effecting attachment."
8. Admittedly, there was no direct demand made by the appellant. The clients of P.W.1, who informed P.W.1 about the demand for a bribe by the appellant, were also not examined. P.W.1 had seen the appellant for the first time on the date of the trap. The complaint was lodged on the premise that there was a demand for bribe, however, P.W.1 did not have any personal knowledge about 4 the bribe being demanded, nor did P.W.1 meet the appellant or talk to him on phone prior to the trap date.
9. It is specifically mentioned in Ex.P1 that on 25.11.2003, a demand of Rs.2,000/- was made from P.W.1 for effecting attachments. However, the said version in Ex.P1 was contradicted by P.W.1 himself, who stated that he never met P.W.1. Further, by the time of trap, all the three warrants were executed, which falsifies the version in the complaint that Rs.2,000/- was demanded for execution of warrants.
10. The defence of the appellant is that the bribe amount was thrust into his pocket in the Nazarath Section of City Civil Court. D.W.1, who was working as the Process Server in the Central Nazarath Section, City Civil Court, stated that on the date of the trap, P.W.1 enquired with the appellant about the execution of the warrants, and it was informed that two warrants were executed earlier and the third warrant was executed in the morning of the date of the trap.
11. In the present facts of the case, the complaint is filed on the basis of hearsay evidence that a bribe was demanded for the 5 execution of warrants, and by the time of the trap, the warrants had already been executed by the appellant without any amount being passed on. The clients of P.W.1, who were allegedly asked to part with the bribe amount by the appellant, were not examined.
12. In the said circumstances, the very genesis of the prosecution case becomes doubtful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another1, held that mere acceptance of the amount de horse the proof of demand, will not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra 2 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the explanation given by the accused is probable, the same can be looked into, and if it is reasonable and plausible, such a defence can be accepted.
13. In view of the facts of the present case and relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above, the conviction 1 (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152 2 (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371 6 of the appellant is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside.
14. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.56 of 2004 dated 30.11.2009 is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.04.2025 kvs 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1765 of 2009 Date: 02.04.2025 kvs