Guntaka Showry, vs The State Of A.P., Rpe By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 1806 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1571 ND 1716 OF 2006

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

Since Criminal Appeal No.1716 of 2006 was filed through a

Legal Aid Counsel and Criminal Appeal No.1571 of 2006 was filed

by engaging a private counsel, against the very same judgment

of conviction and sentence, both these Criminal Appeals are

being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada on 30-08-2006

in C.C.No.20 of 2003, the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 filed

the above Criminal Appeals before this Court.

3. The appellant/Accused Officer No.2 along with Accused

Officer No.1 was charge-sheeted in the above Calendar Case.

During pendency of trial, Accused Officer No.1 died on 28-02-

2005 and the case against him was abated. As such, Accused

Officer No.2 alone faced trial.

4. The appellant/Accused Officer No.2 was tried and

convicted by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada

under Sections. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act,1988 ( for short "the Act") read with 34 IPC and

was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of

one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer

simple imprisonment for three months under two counts. Both

the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

5. Heard Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel

representing Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/Accused Officer No.2 and Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy,

learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor.

6. The case of the prosecution as seen from the evidence of

the prosecution witnesses is as follows:-

7. Accused Officer No.1 worked as a Lineman and the

appellant/Accused Officer No.2 worked as Assistant Lineman in

the office of the A.P. Southern Power distribution Company

Limited, Kanchikacherla, Krishna District and as such the

appellant is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c)

of the Act. Pw.1 is a resident of Vasantha colony,

Kanchakacherla. He constructed a house with the funds of a

Government sanctioned under MLA Scheme. In order to get the

electricity supply connection to his newly constructed house, he

obtained certificate from Serpanch and took demand draft for an

amount of Rs.25/- along with connected papers including his

application to the Electricity Office, Kanchakacherla. He gave all

papers along with application to Accused Officer No.1 who

ensured that he will take care of his service connection. Pw.1

also done wiring to his newly constructed house and furnished

certificate to that effect. After few days, both the accused

inspected the house of Pw.1 and verified the electricity wiring.

After verification of wiring, Accused Officer No.1 demanded an

amount of Rs.500/- for processing his application and to forward

the same to the higher officers. Pw.1 expressed his inability.

After one week Pw.1 met Assistant Engineer at his office and

enquired about his application. On that, Assistant Engineer

informed him that his application has not reached his office.

Then again Pw.1 met Accused Officer No.1 in the bazaar and

enquired about the stage of the application. Then, he reiterated

his earlier demanded bribe of Rs.500/-. As there is no alternative

and as Pw.1 was reluctant to pay the demanded bribe amount,

he approached the Inspector of Police ACB, Vijayawada. On 26-

04-2002 at about 10.00 A.M Pw.4-Inspector of Police received a

written report-Ex.P-1 from Pw.1 and caused discreet enquiries

against Pw.1 as well as both the accused officers and made

endorsement to that effect. He registered Ex.P-1 as a case in

Cr.No.8/ACB/VZA/2002 under Section 7 of the Act. Ex.P-8 is the

original F.I.R. He instructed Pw.1 to come to his Office with

intended bribe amount of Rs.500/- on 27-04-2002 during

afternoon. He has taken steps to secure the presence of the

mediators. On 27-04-2002 Pw.1 went to the office of Pw.6 along

with the bribe amount. Pw.4 introduced mediators i.e., Pw.3 and

another to Pw.1. Pw.4 gave copy of F.I.R to the mediators. Pw.1

gave Rs.500/- i.e., five(5) Rs.100/- denomination notes. Pw.4

prepared pre-trap proceedings-Ex.P-5 in the presence of Pw.3

and another. Pw.4 gave instructions to the mediators as well as

Pw.1. At about 3.40 P.M trap laying party along with Pw.1

proceeded in a Car and reached Kanchikacherla at about 4.30

P.M. They came to know that both the accused are not available

in the office and they were attending to a complaint at Pedda

Bazar. Then the trap laying party along with Pw.1 went to Pedda

Bazar and stopped the vehicle at a distance. On instructions of

Pw.4, Pw.1 proceeded to the spot where both the accused were

attending to a repair work. Pw.1 approached both the accused

and enquired about his application. On that both the accused

demanded Pw.1 as to whether he has brought the demanded

bribe amount or not, for which he gave an affirmative reply.

When Pw.1 offered the tainted amount to Accused Officer No.1,

he instructed Pw.1 to give the said amount to the

appellant/Accused Officer No.2, since he was attending to a

repair work. Immediately, Pw.1 gave the money to the

appellant/Accused Officer No.2, who in turn received it with his

right hand and kept the same in the left side shirt pocket. Pw.1

came and relayed pre-arranged signal. Immediately, Pw.4 along

with trap laying party rushed to the said place and found both

the accused working near an electricity pole. After disclosing his

identity to the Accused Officers, he introduced the other

members also to both the accused. He conducted

phenolphthalein test to Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2.

Phenolphthalein test conducted on Accused Officer No.1 proved

negative and Accused Officer No.2 proved positive. On

questioning, Accused Officer No.2 produced the tainted currency

notes-Mo.3 from his shirt pocket. Pw.4 got verified the currency

notes. Pw.4 conducted post-trap proceedings-Ex.P-7 in the

presence of Pw.3 and another. Pw.2 is the owner of the house,

at whose place the repairing work was going on.

8. During the course of post trap proceedings, Pw.4 enquired

Accused Officer No.2 about the tainted currency for which

appellant/Accused Officer No.2 replied stating that on

instructions of Accused Officer No.1 he received the tainted

currency and he has nothing to do with the same. The said fact

was incorporated in post-trap proceedings. Pw.4 questioned

Accused Officer No.1 about the tainted currency for which

Accused Officer No.1 replied stating that Pw.1 offered bribe

amount of Rs.500/- to him as he was busy in repairing work, he

asked Pw.1 to give the said bribe amount to the Accused Officer

No.2. The said fact was also recorded in post trap proceedings.

Pw.4 completed the investigation and after obtaining sanction,

he filed the charge sheet.

9. Sri Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel, representing

Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/Accused Officer No.2 strenuously contended that sofar

as the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 is concerned, Pw.1 has not

stated anywhere about the demand. In Ex.P-1, it is specifically

mentioned by Pw.1 that it is the Accused Officer No.1 who

demanded Rs.500/- towards bribe for processing his application

and forwarding the same to higher authorities for electricity

meter connection to his newly constructed house. Sofar as the

appellant/Accused Officer No.2 is concerned, he is only an

Assistant Lineman and he is not the competent authority to

process the application of Pw.1. It is the duty of Accused Officer

No.1 to process the new electricity connection application and

submitting the same to higher authorities for granting new meter

connection.

10. As seen from Ex.P-1, Pw.1 has not stated the demand

made by Accused Officer No.2. It is specifically mentioned in

Ex.P-1 that it is the Accused Officer No.1 who demanded bribe of

Rs.500/-, as such, there is no demand made by the

appellant/Accused Officer No.2. Further, there is no official

favour pending with appellant/Accused Officer No.2.

11. Coming to the acceptance by appellant/Accused Officer

No.2, it is the specific case of appellant/Accused Officer No.2

that he received the bribe amount on the instructions of Accused

Officer No.1. The said fact was also incorporated by Pw.4-

Investigation Officer in post-trap proceedings-Ex.P-7. The

explanation of Accused Officer No.1 also recorded in Ex.P-7 post-

trap proceedings, which clinchingly show that Accused Officer

No.1 stated that as he was busy in attending repair works, he

asked Pw.1 to give the bribe amount to the appellant/Accused

Officer No.2. The said fact was also recorded by Pw.4 in Ex.P-7

post-trap proceedings. In such an event, the prosecution, in the

considered opinion of this Court, is not able to establish either

demand or acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant/Accused

Officer No.2 in the circumstances of the case. In that view of the

matter, viewed from any angle, the conviction and sentence

recorded by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed setting aside

the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge for

SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada on 30-08-2006 in C.C.No.20 of

2003 and the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 is acquitted of the

charges leveled against him. Fine amount paid by the

appellant/Accused Officer No.2, if any, shall be refunded to him.

The bail bonds of the appellant/Accused Officer No.2 shall stand

cancelled automatically.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 18-04-2022.

TSNR