State Rep By Inspector Of Police , ... vs Sri Vanipenta Mahaboob Hussain,
2022 Latest Caselaw 9595 AP

                                   1


       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.621 OF 2007

JUDGMENT:-

       This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the State, represented by

the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Kadapa, Tirupati

Range under Section 378(3) and (1) of Code of Criminal

Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), challenging the judgment, dated

31.01.2007 in C.C.No.1 of 2003, on the file of the Special Judge

for SPE & A.C.B. Cases, Nellore, where under, the learned

Special Judge acquitted the A.O. of the charges framed against

him.

       2)      The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter

be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

       3)      The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to

charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Kadapa, Tirupati Range, against the Accused Officer by

name Sri V. Mahaboob Hussain (hereinafter be referred as

"A.O."), the then Assistant Engineer (Mechanical), A.P.S.R.T.C.,

Kadapa       Depot,   under   Section   7,   13(2)   r/w   13(1)(d)   of

Prevention of Corruption Act ("P.C. Act" for short) is as follows:

       (i)     The Accused Officer (A.O) worked as Assistant

Engineer      (Mechanical),   A.P.S.R.T.C.,    Kadapa      Depot   from
                                 2


22.01.2000 to 14.03.2002, as such, he is a public servant within

the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. L.W.1-Sri Syed Abdul Kalam is working as

Mechanic in A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Depot.

     (ii) The A.O. used to check the vehicles which were

repaired by L.W.1 unnecessarily. A.O. used to submit the report

to Depot Manager, Kadapa to issue charge sheets to L.W.1 by

the Depot Manager.     A.O. checked the vehicles repaired by

L.W.1 on 01.02.2002 and 07.02.2002 and noted some defects

purposefully and noted in the counseling book.     The A.O. got

managed and got conducted counseling to L.W.1 through Depot

Manager on 11.02.2002 basing on the defects noticed by him.

After completion of it, A.O. demanded an illegal gratification of

Rs.3,000/- from L.W.1 by assuring that he would see that

charge sheets given to him are disposed in his favour and he

would not submit any further report against him. He threatened

L.W.1 that he would see the award of postponing of increments

to L.W.1. L.W.1 expressed his inability to pay much amount.

Then, A.O. reduced the bribe amount to Rs.2,000/- and asked

him to get the same on 16.02.2002 morning and to pay the

same to his at his residence. Hence, L.W.1, who has no other

go accepted to pay the bribe amount to A.O. Apart from this, on
                                  3


12.02.2002, A.O. issued a charge memo for the breakdown of

the vehicle calling for explanation.

      (iii) L.W.1, who had no intention to pay the bribe to the

A.O., approached the D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati Range and gave a

report, which was registered as a case in Crime No.3/RCT-

TCD/2002.    D.S.P., A.C.B., conducted pre-trap proceedings in

his office room along with Inspector of Police, A.C.B., Kadapa on

16.02.2002 from 8-00 A.M. to 9-30 A.M. in the presence of

mediators L.Ws.2 and 3.

      (iv) On 16.02.2002 at 9-35 A.M., the D.S.P., A.C.B.,

Tirupati along with two mediators (L.Ws.2 and 3), complainant

and his staff left the A.C.B. Office, Kadapa and reached

Ramalaym Cross Road on R.T.C. Bus Stand to Apsara Theatre

Road at 9-40 A.M. and parked the vehicle.      L.W.1 and L.W.3

proceeded to the house of A.O., as per the instructions of

D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati.     The A.O. further demanded and

accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from L.W.1 to do an

official favour. Then, L.W.1 came out of the house of the A.O.

and gave signal.     L.W.3 witnessed the above transaction by

standing by the side main door behind the window. The D.S.P.,

A.C.B., Tirupati, along with the trap party who received the

signal rushed into the residential house of A.O.     The D.S.P.,

A.C.B., Tirupati got prepared Sodium Carbonate solution in two
                                    4


glass tumblers and requested the A.O. to rinse his right hand

fingers in one of the glass tumbler.      On that the A.O. showed

the cash which was hold by him in his right hand palm. On the

request of the D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati, the A.O. kept the amount

a side on the cot. The D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati, subjected both

hand fingers of the A.O. to the Sodium Carbonate Test and the

same were proved positive results.        The amount found in the

possession of A.O. was counted and the numerical numbers of

the notes were compared with that of the numbers already

recorded in pre-trap proceedings were found tallied. The D.S.P.,

seized the said currency notes.        The entire proceedings were

reduced in writing in the form of mediators report No.2.      The

D.S.P., seized the connected records in the office room of A.O.

which were reduced by A.O. under the cover of mediators report

No.3.

        (v) The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Region,

accorded sanction to prosecute the A.O. in a competent Court of

law     vide   proceedings   No.E2/118(1)/2002-RM"C",       dated

12.12.2002.

        (vi) Under the above circumstances, the Accused Officer

committed the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w

13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

        Hence, the charge sheet.
                                 5


      4)    The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Nellore, took cognizance of the case under the above provisions

of law and after appearance of A.O. and after complying the

formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under

Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 and further charge under Section 13

(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, against the A.O. and

explained to him in Telugu.         A.O. denied the charges and

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

      5)    During the course of trial before the learned Special

Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, on behalf of the

prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15

were marked and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked. After the closure of

the evidence of the prosecution, A.O. was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating

circumstances and stated that he has defence witnesses. A.O.

got examined D.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.X.1.          Further

Ex.D.1 was also marked.

      6)    The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,

Nellore, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral and

documentary evidence, found A.O not guilty of the charges and

acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.     Aggrieved by the

same, the unsuccessful State, represented by the Inspector of
                                 6


Police, A.C.B., Kadapa District, Tirupati Range, filed the present

Criminal Appeal.

      7)    Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points for

determination are as follows:

      (1)   Whether   the   prosecution   has      proved   that   on
      11.02.2002, the A.O. demanded the defacto-complainant
      (P.W.1) to pay bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- so as to do
      official favour pending with him and reduced the bribe
      amount to Rs.2,000/- and further demanded P.W.1 on
      16.02.2002 during post-trap proceedings to do official
      favour and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- as
      alleged?


      (2) Whether the prosecution has proved further that A.O.
      obtained any peculiar advintage by corrupt or by illegal
      means accepting the illegal gratification?


      (3) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges under
      Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
      Corruption Act, 1988 against the A.O. beyond reasonable
      doubt?


Point Nos.1 to 3:-

      8)    The learned Standing Counsel, Sri S.M. Subhan,

appearing for the appellant, would contend that P.W.1, the

defacto-complainant, categorically spoken about the pendency

of official favour with the A.O. and the demand made by the

A.O. on 11.02.2002 to pay bribe of Rs.3,000/- and the reduction
                                  7


of   bribe   amount   to   Rs.2,000/-   and    further   demand   on

16.02.2002 and acceptance of bribe in the post-trap proceedings

and his evidence has corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2,

the mediator and official favour is spoken by P.Ws.3 and 4 and

there is a valid sanction to prosecute the A.O. and the

investigating officer conducted investigation on right lines.

There is no dispute that the A.O. dealt with the bribe amount

handed over by P.W.1 and the chemical test proved to be

positive.    When that is so, the findings given by the learned

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, are all erroneous

and the evidence on record proves cogently the charges framed

against the A.O., as such, appeal is liable to be allowed.

      9)      No arguments are advanced on behalf of the

respondent in spite of the opportunity given, however, it is the

duty of the Court to appreciate the evidence on record, in the

light of the defence taken by the respondent, A.O. before the

Court below.

10) To bring home the guilt of the A.O., prosecution

examined as many as 7 witnesses. P.W.1 is the defacto-

complainant, Syed Abdul Kalam. P.W.2 is the then Assistant

Executive Engineer, who participated in the pre-trap proceedings

and post-trap proceedings and he claimed to be a witness during

the things that were happened in the post-trap proceedings.

Prosecution examined P.W.3, the Junior Assistant in the office of

the Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa. P.W.4 is the then

Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Depot, further to spoke

about the charge sheet issued to the A.O. to contend that official

favour was pending with the A.O. P.W.5 is examined by the

prosecution to speak about the prosecution sanctioned order

against the A.O.. P.W.6 is the then D.S.P., A.C.B., Tirupati

Range, who laid trap against the A.O. and who conducted

investigation. P.W.7 is the then Inspector of Police, who

assisted P.W.6 during the course of investigation and who got

recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

through Judicial Magistrate of First Class and who secured some

documentary proof from the office of P.W.4, etc.

11) In the light of the charges framed against the A.O.

and the contentions advanced by the appellant, the first aspect

has to be considered is as to whether as on the alleged date of

demand of bribe on 11.02.2002, any official favour to be done

by the A.O. in respect of P.W.1 was pending with the A.O.

Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 regarding this, he deposed that

while working as Mechanic in A.P.S.R.T.C., Kadapa Division, he

was removed from the service on 04.01.2006 at the instance of

the A.O., who bore grudge against him, since he gave report

against him to ACB Department. He has been working as

Mechanic since 1999. He knows A.O., who worked as Assistant

Engineer (Mechanical). He gave complaint against the A.O.

which is Ex.P.1, on 15.02.2002 at 9-30 P.M. to ACB Department,

which is in his hand writing and it bears his signature.

12) P.W.1 further deposed that A.O. used to check the

vehicles repaired by him and used to point out defects. On

01.02.2002 and 07.02.2002, the A.O. noted some defects in the

counseling book of the vehicles checked by him. Again on

11.02.2002 the A.O. got conducted counseling to him through

Depot Manager. On 11.02.2002 after completion of counseling

by the Depot Manager, Depot Manager went out. Then, A.O.

called him and demanded for bribe of Rs.3,000/- not to take any

action on the three charge sheets filed at the instance of the

A.O. and not to send the report on the counseling conducted by

him. Then, he replied that he cannot pay such huge amount of

Rs.3,000/- and agreed to pay Rs.2,000/-. The A.O. asked him

to bring Rs.2,000/- as a bribe on 16.02.2002 morning at his

residence. So, he presented a report to D.S.P., ACB. He spoken

about the pre-trap procedure conducted in the presence of the

mediators by D.S.P. and trails relating to the chemical

examination, etc. He further spoken the fact that ACB searched

his person and nothing was there and handed over three charge

sheets to the mediators. Exs.P.2 to P.4 are the three charge

sheets. He was given instructions by ACB to give pre-arranged

signal after handed over the amount to A.O. on demand.

13) Insofar as the post-trap proceedings is concerned,

his evidence is that he proceeded to the house of A.O. After

observing him, the A.O. asked him to come inside. Mediator

was waiting at the window. A.O. demanded him whether he

brought the amount demanded by him and he answered in the

affirmative and A.O. received the money. A.O. was holding the

currency notes in his right hand after counting the same with his

both hands. He requested the A.O. not to take action on the

three charge sheets given to him and not to send a report. A.O.

agreed to help him. Then, he came out and gave pre-arranged

signal to the DSP. This is the substance of evidence of P.W.1

regarding the official favour.

14) During the course of cross examination, he denied a

suggestion that A.O. has no power to award punishments and he

is only a recommended authority. He deposed that A.O. is the

proper authority to issue charge sheets and punishments to him.

He denied that he bore grudge against the A.O. since he issued

charge memos and admonished him while he was working in

Mydukuru and Kadapa Depots. He denied that A.O. sent a

report on 08.02.2002 in respect of the defects noted by him on

01.02.2002 and 07.02.2002, as such the question of A.O.

demanding for a bribe for not sending the reports on 11.02.2002

does not arise. He admitted that the Depot Manager made

counseling and he signed in the counseling register in page

No.62. Witness admits his signature at page No.62 which is

marked as Ex.D.1. He denied that on 11.02.2002 A.O. did not

demand any money from him and he did not reduce the bribe as

alleged and that he filed a false report. Regarding the post-trap

proceedings, he denied that on 16.02.2002 at 9-30 A.M. when

A.O. was in the house, he pushed the doors, suddenly entered

into the house of A.O. and kept some cover suddenly in the

hands of A.O. saying that his son sent some money to him and

that from the said cover some currency notes fallen down on the

floor and then he and the A.O. collected the notes and that A.O.

found that it is only Rs.2,000/- as against the assurance of his

son to send Rs.10,000/- and then the A.C.B. officials entered

into the house.

15) So, the defence of the A.O. before P.W.1 is that no

official favour to be done by him further was pending before him

as on 11.02.2002.

16) Now, it is a crucial to look into the evidence of

P.Ws.3 and 4. The substance of the evidence of P.W.3 is that he

knows the A.O. By the time of trap, nine disciplinary

proceedings were pending against P.W.1. Whenever a mechanic

repaired the vehicles, Assistant Engineer would inspect the

vehicles and if he finds any defects, he will send a report to the

Depot Manager. From the Depot Manager, it will come to him

(P.W.3). Then he would open a file and put up a note before the

Depot Manager and Depot Manager will send back the file to the

Assistant Manager to issue charge sheets against the concerned.

They served the charge sheets through Assistant Manager

(Mechanical) on the concerned mechanics. During cross

examination, he deposed that it is true that as per the

instructions of the Depot Manager, he prepared charge sheet

and put up before the Depot Manager. Depot Manager has to

dispose those charge sheets. This A.O. has no authority to

dispose the charge sheets. It is true that even prior to A.O.

came to Kadapa Depot, there were number of charge sheets

pending against P.W.1. After A.O. came to the Kadapa Depot,

number of charge sheets were leveled against P.W.1.

17) Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, he also spoken to

the fact about the finding of defects whenever any vehicles were

repaired by mechanics and preparation of charge sheets against

the mechanics, if any defects are found and that Junior Assistant

will prepare the charge sheets for obtaining signatures of him,

etc. He further spoken to the fact that on 11.02.2002 he held

counseling against P.W.1 as per the report of A.O., as there

were so many defects found in the vehicles repaired by P.W.1.

Hence, he counseled the mechanic for gross negligence for the

maintenance. Ex.P.10 is the counseling register. Ex.D.1 is the

relevant entry. He and P.W.1 signed Ex.D.1. During the cross

examination, he deposed that it is true that he will dispose the

charge sheets against the mechanic. A.O. is not competent

person to dispose the charge sheets. Prior to assuming charge

by the A.O., number of charge sheets were pending against

P.W.1. After A.O. assumed charge, he written number of charge

sheets against P.W.1 and those charge sheets were pending. He

(P.W.4) has power to conduct counseling without A.O. As per

page No.61 of Ex.P.10, it is endorsed by him and A.O. that

number times they held counseling to P.W.1 with regard to

avoidable failures. As per his knowledge, three or four times

increments were deferred to P.W.1.

18) It is to be noticed that when P.Ws.3 and 4

categorically deposed in the chief examination and cross

examination that A.O. is not the competent authority to dispose

the charge sheets pending against the P.W.1, prosecution did

not seek any clarification. Absolutely, it is not the case of the

prosecution that after issuance of charge memos, A.O. has any

control over the disposal of the charge sheets. So, it is crystal

clear that according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

3 and 4, no official favour was pending with A.O. Further already

A.O. taken necessary steps for counseling to P.W.1 by P.W.4. In

my considered view, prosecution miserably failed before the

Court below to show that as on the alleged date of demand of

bribe on 11.02.2002 or as on the alleged date of 16.02.2002,

that is the date of post-trap, official favour to be done by the

A.O. in respect of P.W.1 was pending with him. The evidence on

record shows that prosecution utterly failed to prove the said

aspect before the Court below.

19) Now, turning to the so-called demand for bribe

made by A.O. on 11.02.2002 and 16.02.2002, there is evidence

of P.W.1 in this regard. The defence of the A.O. is denial.

Admittedly, as evident from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, after

A.O. assumed charge as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical),

number of charge memos were issued against P.W.1 for

dereliction of duties and it is not in dispute. Apart from this, the

tenor of evidence of P.W.1 is such that he started the evidence

with a whisper that he was removed from service on 04.01.2006

that is subsequent to the date of trial, at the instance of A.O.,

who bore grudge against him since he gave a report against him

in ACB Department. During the cross examination, he denied

that A.O. has no role to play in his removal from service on

04.01.2006. He does not know whether the Depot Manager,

Kadapa, passed orders removing from service on 29.12.2005,

but he received an order on 04.01.2006. As evident from his

cross examination he denied that he received some punishments

of specific instances, but he admitted that in some occasions he

was imposed with departmental punishments. So, there is

every reason to believe that P.W.1 bore grudge against the A.O.

for issuance of charge memos and apart from this, the evidence

of him that A.O. was responsible for his removal from service

means that he developed some sort of dissatisfaction against

the A.O. from the very beginning. In that contest, the evidence

of P.W.1 is to be scrutinized with care and caution.

20) Now, firstly, this Court would like to make it clear

that as the prosecution utterly failed to prove that official favour

to be done to P.W.1 was pending with A.O. on 11.02.2002, the

general supposition is that there is no question of demanding

any bribe by A.O. against P.W.1. However, there is evidence of

P.W.1 reiterating that A.O. demanded bribe on 11.02.2002 and

16.02.2002 during the post-trap.

21) It is to be noticed that prosecution examined P.W.2,

the so-called mediator in this regard. The substance of the

evidence of P.W.2 relating to post-trap proceedings is that they

started in a jeep at 9-35 A.M. and they reached to the house of

A.O. D.S.P. instructed him to follow P.W.1 and to observe what

has happened. P.W.1 entered into the house of A.O. through

compound wall gate. There is a window to the house. After he

(P.W.2) entered into the premises, he was waiting at the

window. A.O., who is present before the Court, asked P.W.1

whether he brought money. Again the witness says immediately

after entering into the room of A.O., P.W.1 wished the A.O. by

salute and then A.O. demanded for money. P.W.1 answered in

the affirmative and handed over the currency notes to the A.O.

The A.O. counted the currency notes and was holding in his right

hand. Then P.W.1 requested the A.O. to see that there should

not be any report against him on the charge sheets and the A.O.

accepted it. P.W.1 came out and he came out and P.W.1 gave a

signal.

22) During the course of cross examination, P.W.2

deposed that the place where he was standing is vintage

position and at the instructions of D.S.P., he was standing there.

He admitted that in Ex.P.7, rough sketch, the said vintage

position that he stood at the window is not shown. Even in

Ex.P.8 about the vintage position of him is not shown. He

denied that DSP did not instruct him to observe what would

happen between P.W.1 and the A.O from a visible place and he

did not stand at the window and as the vintage point was not

mentioned in Ex.P.7 and there was no such contingency.

23) It is to be noticed that even P.W.6, the investigating

officer, during the course of cross examination deposed the

vintage position of P.W.2 at the window is not shown in the

rough sketch. As seen from Ex.P.6, rough sketch, it is really

doubtful whether P.W.2 by standing at the vintage position could

be able to hear the conversation between the A.O. and P.W.1.

Apart from this, it is bounden duty of the investigating officer to

show the vintage position of P.W.2 while observing as to what

happened between the P.W.1 and A.O. Under the

circumstances, it is really doubtful whether P.W.2 could be able

to hear the conversation between P.W.1 and the A.O.

24) Apart from this, the defence of the A.O. is that A.O.

is plying a lorry in Muddanuru and he hired to Thermal Station

and that P.W.1 has knowledge that the son of A.O. is running a

lorry in Muddanuru and on the recommendation of brother-in-

law of P.W.1, the son of A.O. is running his lorry. It is further

defence of A.O. that P.W.1 has knowledge that son of A.O. used

to send money to A.O. for family maintenance and in that

connection, A.O. while entering into the house of P.W.1, handed

over a cover by stating that his son sent the amount and put the

cover in the hands and then some currency notes were fallen

down and then A.O. and P.W.1 counted it and then ACB officials

came there. Now, that defence is to be looked into by this

Court.

25) As seen from the pre-trap proceedings, originally,

P.W.1 produced Exs.P.2 to P.4, which were said to be handed

over to the mediators. It is not understandable as to how it is

borne out by the evidence that P.W.2 took Edx.P.2 to P.4 to the

ACB Office during pre-trap. P.W.2 admitted in cross examination

that P.W.1 picked out three charge sheets from his pocket and

contained in a cover and produced by taking out from the cover.

He again says that they were not kept in a cover and they were

picked out from his pocket and produced. But, DSP did not

seize any cover from P.W.1 during Ex.P.6-proceedings. P.W.2

deposed in cross examination that he does not know whether

there was a cover in the pocket of P.W.1, since, he did not check

P.W.1. The pre-trap proceedings or post-trap proceedings did

not disclose that the cover, in which P.W.1 picked out three

charge sheets, was seized by the D.S.P. So, in the absence of

such a wishpa, it means that P.W.1 purposefully carried out the

cover during the post-trap proceedings. Here, the defence of

the A.O. is that a cover was handed over to him by P.W.1

stating that it was sent by his son. Under the circumstances,

the possibility of P.W.1 carrying the cover to the house of A.O.

without knowledge to the ACB officials for the reasons best

known cannot be ruled out.

26) So, to conclude this extent, the evidence of P.W.2

cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of P.W.1 with

regard to the so-called conversation between A.O. and P.W.1.

Apart from this, as pointed out, prosecution utterly failed to

prove the official favour pending with A.O. in respect of P.W.1.

In such a case, even the question of demanding any bribe to do

official favour would not arise.

27) The evidence on record goes to show that A.O. also

got examined D.Ws.1 to 4 to probabalize his defence. P.W.1

undoubtedly handled with the amount but his defence is that he

handled with the amount as P.W.1 handed over cover to him by

stating that the amount was sent by son of A.O. As this Court

already pointed out that P.W.1 has no explanation to carry cover

along with him. In the absence of a seizure of the cover by the

ACB during the pre-trap proceedings, it is deemed that P.W.1

purposefully carried the cover to the house of A.O. So, A.O.

probabalized his defence theory. Apart from this, there is

evidence of D.W.1, explaining the conduct of P.W.1 either prior

to the pre-trap or post-trap. There is evidence of D.W.2 stating

that A.O. on the date of trap at request of A.O. he handed over

the registers to A.O. and by then in the said house several

persons were there. This is relating to trap date.

28) D.W.3 is the person, who deposed that he knows

A.O. and P.W.1. The trap was conducted on 16.02.2002. On

15.02.2002 he, A.O. and other Muslims went to Mosque at 1-00

P.M. and they returned at 2-00 P.M. P.W.1 told A.O. that his

brother-in-law brought some amount from the son of A.O. and

he wants to pay the same to A.O. and enquired A.O. whether he

will be on 16.02.2002. A.O. answered that he will be either at

the Depot or at his house. A.O. examined D.W.3 to prove that

P.W.1 had knowledge that his son is sending amount to him.

Further, A.O. examined D.W.4 to speak about the punishments

imposed against the P.W.1.

29) It is to be noticed that the standard of proof which

the A.O. is supposed to prove is the preponderance of

probabilities, but, not beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has

to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. In my considered

view, basing on the evidence on record, A.O. explained the

circumstances, in which he dealt with tainted amount on the

date of trap. Even otherwise, as no official favour was pending

with him, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act has no application. Even otherwise, A.O. lead

evidence explaining the probable circumstances in which he deal

with the tainted amount.

30) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Special

Judge for SPE & A.C.B. Cases, Nellore, shows that learned

Special Judge recorded sound reasons and dealt with evidence in

appropriate manner and appreciated the evidence in a rightful

manner. The learned Special Judge duly looked into the defence

of the A.O. and the conduct of P.W.1 and made categorical

findings that no official favour was pending with the A.O. in

respect of P.W.1 as on 11.02.2002 and 16.02.2002 and that the

A.O. adduced rebuttal evidence so as to rebut the presumption

under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. When the judgment of the

learned Special Judge for SPE & A.C.B. Cases, Nellore, is by

analyzation of the record in depth, I see no reasons to interfere

with the said order. Hence, I hold that prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the charges against the A.O. before the

Court below, as such, the learned Special Judge for SPE & A.C.B.

Cases, Nellore, rightly acquitted the A.O.

31) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 14.11.2022.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRL. APPEAL NO.621 OF 2007

Date: 14.11.2022

PGR