Vadluri Krishna Murthy vs The State Of A.P.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2052 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

      CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1712 of 2006 AND 1007 OF 2007



COMMON JUDGMENT:-

      Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the

Special   Judge   for   SPE    &   ACB   Cases,   Vijayawada,   dated

23-11-2006 in C.C.No.4 of 2003, the appellant/Accused Officer

No.1 filed Crl.A.No.1712 of 2006; whereas questioning the

acquittal recorded against Accused Officer No.2, the State

through Inspector, ACB, Vijayawada filed Crl.A.No.1007 of 2007.

As such, both the appeals are being disposed off by this common

judgment.


2.    Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as

learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case, as enumerated in the evidence of

the prosecution witnesses, are as follows:-

Accused Officer No.1 was working as Town Planning Officer

and Accused Officer No.2 was working as Town Planning Building

Overseer in Gudiwada Municipality, Krishna District. As such,

both of them are public servants within the meaning of Section

2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short "the

Act"). Pw.1 is a resident of Pedayerukapadu of Gudiwada town

and he is eking out his livelihood by doing motor cycle mechanic.

He purchased an extent of 96 square yards in the name of his

wife in T.No.18/252 of Pedayerukapadu. With an intention to

construct a house in the said vacant site, he submitted an

application along with plan for approval in Gudiwada

Municipality. He approached Accused Officer No.1 and submitted

a plan, who in turn suggested him for payment of Rs.701/- and

Rs.1420/- under two separate challans. Accordingly, Pw.1 paid

the necessary fee by way of challans and approached Accused

Officer No.1 on 12-03-2001. Immediately, Accused Officer No.1

called Accused Officer No.2 and asked him to verify the

application along with the plan. At that stage, Accused Officer

No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards bribe for

approving the building plan of Pw.1. When Pw.1 expressed his

inability, Accused Officer No.1 reduced the bribe amount from

Rs.2000/- to Rs.1000/-. He also informed Pw.1 stating that

Accused Officer No.2 will inspect the site. Subsequently, Accused

Officer No.2 visited the site. Thereafter, on 23-03-2001 Pw.1

approached Accused Officer No.1 who reiterated his earlier

demand. The Accused Officer No.1 informed Pw.1 stating that

unless he pays bribe amount of Rs.1000/-, he will not approve

the building plan. He asked Pw.1 to pay the bribe amount to

Accused Officer No.2 and collect the approved plan. As Pw.1 was

not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached Pw.7-Deputy

Superintendent of Police, ACB, Vijayawada. On 27-03-2001 at

about 10.00 A.M Pw.7 received Ex.P-1 from Pw.1 and endorsed

the same to Pw.5 for making discreet enquiries. Pw.5, who

conducted discreet enquiries in respect of antecedents of Pw.1 as

well as Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2, made endorsement on

Ex.P-1. Having received the same, Pw.7 registered a case in

Cr.No.6/ACB-VJA/2001 under Section 7 of the Act on 28-03-

2001. Ex.P-16 is the original F.I.R. On the same day at about 12

Noon onwards, Pw.7 called the mediators-Pw.4 and another to

his office. Pw.1 was also called at the same time. Thereafter,

Pw.7 introduced Pw.1 to the mediators. Pw.1 produced cash of

Rs.1000/- intended to be paid to the accused towards bribe.

They are 100/- rupee denomination notes 10 in number.

Thereafter, Pw.7 prepared a pre-trap panchanama in the

presence of mediators-Pw.4 and another. Ex.P-9 is the mediators

report for pre-trap proceedings.

4. On the same day, at about 3 P.M, Pw.7 and the trap laying

party went to the office of the accused. Pw.7 instructed Pw.1 to

go to the office of the accused and give the tainted currency to

the accused on their further demand and thereafter relay the

signal. Accordingly, Pw.1 went inside the office and found both

the accused officers absent. Pw.1 waited for some time and at

about 3.45 P.M Accused Officer No.2 came to the office who

asked Pw.1 whether he brought the money or not, as demanded

by Accused Officer No.1. Thereafter, Pw.1 gave the tainted

currency to Accused Officer No.2 and came out. Pw.1 gave pre-

arranged signal to the trap laying party. Immediately, Pw.7

along with the mediators entered the office and found Accused

Officer No.2 alone. Pw.7 disclosed his identity and also the trap

party and ascertained the name and particulars of Accused

Officer No.2. Pw.7 conducted Phenolphthalein test on both the

hands of Accused Officer No.2, which proved positive. When

questioned by Pw.7, Accused Officer No.2 produced the bribe

amount from his right side pant pocket. The mediators verified

the serial numbers recorded in pre-trap proceedings and found

them tallied. Pw.7 seized the tainted currency-Mo.3. He also

conducted Phenolphthalein test on the right side pant pocket,

which was also proved positive. Thereafter, he prepared rough

sketch and recorded the statements of other witnesses and

seized the relevant documents. Subsequently, after obtaining

sanction orders-Ex.P-14 and 15, they filed charge sheet.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to

7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-16, besides Ex.X-1. On behalf of the

accused, Ex.D-1 - explanation of the Accused Officer No.1 was

marked.

6. After an elaborate trial, the learned Special Judge

convicted Accused Officer No.1 for the offence punishable under

Section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay a fine of

Rs.5000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three

months. The learned Special Judge acquitted Accused Officer

No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)

r/w.13(2) of the Act. Sofar as Accused Officer No.2 is concerned,

the learned Special Judge acquitted him under both the counts.

Questioning the same, Accused Officer No.1 filed Crl.A.No.1712

of 2006 and questioning the acquittal recorded against Accused

Officer No.2, the State filed Crl.A.No.1007 of 2007.

7. Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the

Appellant in Crl.A.No.1712 of 2006 strenuously contended that

the prosecution neither able to prove the demand nor

acceptance by Accused Officer No.1. Pw.1, who was examined to

speak about the alleged 'demand' did not support the

prosecution. Except the evidence of Pw.1, there is no other

evidence in support of prosecution with regard to the alleged

'demand'.

8. This Court perused the entire material on record. As seen

from Ex.P-1 made by Pw.1, his statement recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C statement (Ex.P-4) and the deposition of

Pw.1, it is crystal clear that Pw.1 gave different versions at

different stages. As such, Pw.1 is not consistent and he is not a

reliable witness. Of course, he was declared as 'hostile' by the

prosecution. Except the evidence of Pw.1, there is no other

evidence available on record incriminating Accused Officer No.1

in the circumstances of the case. Sofar as Accused Officer No.2

is concerned, even according to the prosecution, there was no

demand by him. As such, mere recovery from Accused Officer

No.2 is not sufficient in the circumstances of the case. Further,

no official favour is pending with Accused Officer No.2

9. Even according to the prosecution, on the date of trap

Accused Officer No.1 was not present and he was away from the

office. Sofar as Accused Officer No.2 is concerned, it is his

specific case that Pw.1 gave money to him voluntarily without

any demand. The said spontaneous explanation was also

recorded in Ex.P-13 post- trap proceedings. As such, question of

'demand' and 'acceptance' of bribe by Accused Officer No.2

cannot be accepted and there are no grounds to interfere with

the acquittal of Accused Officer No.2 recorded by the learned

special Judge.

10. Sofar as Accused Officer No.1 is concerned, the

prosecution neither able to prove the 'demand' nor 'acceptance'

by him. Admittedly, Accused Officer No.1 was not conspicuously

present at the time of trap. Further, Pw.1 did not support the

prosecution and he changed his versions at different stages.

Therefore, Accused Officer No.1 is also entitled for acquittal in

the considered view of this court.

11. Accordingly, the Crl.A.No.1712 of 2006 is allowed setting

aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge

for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada on 23-11-2006 in C.C.No.4 of

2003 and the appellant/Accused Officer No.1 is acquitted of the

charges leveled against him. Fine amount paid by the

appellant/Accused Officer No.1, if any, shall be refunded to him.

The bail bonds of the appellant/Accused Officer No.1 shall stand

cancelled automatically.

12. Crl.A.No.1007 of 2007 is dismissed confirming the

acquittal recorded against Accused Officer No.2.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

in consequence.

__________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 27-04-2022.

TSNR