HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.942 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
Questioning the judgment of acquittal, dated 01-02-2007
passed by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada,
in C.C.No.15 of 2004, the State through the Inspector of Police,
ACB, Vijayawada filed the present Criminal Appeal.
2. Heard Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for
ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant and
Sri A.Hariprasad Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent-
Accused Officer.
3. The case of the prosecution, as enumerated in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is as follows:-
The respondent-Accused Officer was working as an
in-charge Executive Engineer in A.P. State Police Housing
Corporation Limited, Vijayawada, Krishna district from 03-11-
1999 to 07-03-2003 and as such, he is the public servant within
the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988 (for short "the Act"). Pw.1, who is a resident of Guntur,
was doing civil contract works and electrical works for A.P. Police
Housing Corporation. About six(6) months prior to the giving of
Ex.P-1 report, he has completed two police station building
complexes of Phirangipuram and Medikonduru Police Stations
respectively, since he has been awarded the contract for
construction of the above said two buildings. As his Earnest 2
Money Deposit(EMD) amount to a tune of Rs.42,500- pertaining
to Medikonduru Police Station Building and Rs.44,145/-
pertaining to Phirangipuram Police Station Building, was not yet
released, he applied for refund of said E.M.D to the concerned
D.E.E, who in turn recommended to the respondent-Accused
Officer. On 03-03-2003 at about 4.00 P.M Pw.1 approached the
respondent-Accused Officer in his office and enquired about the
cheques relating to the refund of E.M.D. At that stage, the
respondent-Accused Officer demanded an amount of Rs.15,000/-
towards bribe for refund of E.M.D by issuing two cheques. When
Pw.1 expressed his inability and requested to show mercy, the
respondent-Accused Officer has stated that unless the bribe
amount is paid, he is not going to issue the cheques. Then the
respondent-Accused Officer informed Pw.1 that initially he will
issue one cheque and after encashing the said cheque, pay the
bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- on 05-03-2003 and thereafter he
will issue another cheque. Accordingly, on 04-03-2003 Pw.1
encashed the first cheque for an amount of Rs.44,145/- . As
Pw.1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the
ACB Officials.
4. On 04-03-2003 at about 1.00 P.M Pw.9-Deputy
Superintendent of Police received Ex.P-4 from Pw.1. He
forwarded the same to Pw.7 for causing discreet enquiries about
the antecedents of respondent-Accused Officer as well as Pw.1.
Pw.7 received Ex.P-4 and caused discreet enquiries and made
an endorsement on Ex.P-4 and submitted the same to Pw.9 on
05-03-2003 at abut 12.10 Noon. Then, Pw.9 registered a case in 3
Cr.No.6/ACB-RCT-VJA/2003 under Section 7 of the Act. Ex.P-22
is the original F.I.R. Pw.9 made arrangement for laying trap
against the respondent-Accused Officer. As per his instructions,
Pw.1 attended his Office at noon time on 05-03-2003. On
instructions of Pw.9, the mediators i.e., Pw.6 and another
attended his office. Pw.9 introduced the mediators to Pw.1 and
to each other. On his instructions, Pw.1 produced an amount of
Rs.15,000/- towards payment of bribe amount to the Accused
Officer. All the currency notes are Rs.500/- denominations. The
mediators verified and noted down the serial numbers. Pw.9
prepared a pre-trap panchanama under Ex.P-18. Thereafter,
Pw.9 along with trap laying party and Pw.1 left the office at
about 4.30 P.M and proceeded to the office of the respondent-
Accused Officer. Pw.9 instructed Pw.1 to proceed to the office of
the Accused Officer and pay the bribe amount on his further
demand. Accordingly, Pw.1 went to the office of the respondent-
Accused Officer and paid the bribe amount and came back. On
observing the pre-arranged signal, Pw.9 along with trap laying
party went to the office room of the respondent-Accused Officer
and introduced himself and mediators to the respondent-Accused
Officer. Thereafter, a phenolphthalein test was conducted on
both the hands of the respondent-Accused Officer. The test
conducted on right hand finger proved positive and left hand
proved negative. Upon questioning by Pw.9, the respondent-
Accused Officer produced the tainted currency kept in page No.6
of file relating to "urgent repairs to the police staff quarters in
A.R.R.Lines of Eluru, West Godavari". He verified the serial 4
numbers of the currency notes with the numbers mentioned in
Ex.P-18 and found them tallied. Pw.9 seized the tainted currency
notes under post trap proceedings. Pw.9 questioned the
respondent-Accused Officer about receipt of tainted currency.
The respondent-Accused Officer has stated that Pw.1 entered his
room and tried to offer wad of currency notes, for which he
refused and sent him away. After some time, again Pw.1 entered
into his room and kept the wad of currency notes forcibly on his
table, for which he pushed the tainted currency and thereafter
Pw.1 without listening him went out of the room. The said
explanation offered by the respondent-Accused Officer was also
recorded in Ex.P-20 post-trap proceedings. Thereafter, further
investigation was conducted by Pw.9. After completion of
investigation and after obtaining Ex.P-21 sanction proceedings,
Pw.7 filed the charge sheet.
5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to
9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-22. The respondent-Accused Officer
examined one Attender, who was working under him, as DW.1 to
show that he yelled at Pw.1 for keeping the money on the table
forcibly. When the respondent-Accused Officer was examined
under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating evidence
against him.
6. As Pw.1 did not support the prosecution and as he was
declared as hostile by the prosecution, the Special Judge
acquitted the accused by way of the impugned judgment.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is filed by the State. 5
7. Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-
cum-Special Public Prosecutor, strenuously contended that
though Pw.1 did not support the prosecution, the
phenolphthalein test conducted on respondent-Accused Officer
proved positive and as such the Special Judge ought to have
convicted the respondent-Accused Officer of the charges leveled
against him.
8. On the other hand, Sri A.Hariprasad Reddy, learned
counsel for the respondent-Accused Officer vehemently argued
that there is no evidence for the 'demand' on the part of the
respondent-Accused Officer. Further, Pw.1 in his statement
recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C
statement, which is marked as Ex.P-5, did not attribute anything
against the respondent-Accused Officer. Pw.1 has not even
stated about the 'demand' as well as 'acceptance' in his 164
Cr.P.C. statement. Of course, even in his evidence in Chief-
examination also, Pw.1 has not whispered anything about either
the 'demand' or 'acceptance' on the part of the respondent-
Accused Officer. Further, he contended that it is the specific case
of the respondent-Accused Officer that Pw.1 forcibly kept the
tainted currency on the table of the respondent-Accused Officer
inspite of the respondent-Accused Officer shouted at him. The
said spontaneous explanation was also recorded in Ex.P-20 post-
trap proceedings. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for
the respondent-Accused Officer submits that the view taken by
the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable and 6
as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal
recorded by the trial judge.
9. This court perused Ex.P-1 report given by Pw.1 and Ex.P-5
164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the learned Magistrate.
Though, there is a mention in Ex.P-1 about the 'demand', but in
his 164 Cr.P.C. statement, Pw.1 did not whisper anything about
the demand made by the respondent-Accused Officer. Ex.P-5 is
also silent with regard to further demand on the date of trap.
Sofar as the evidence of Pw.1 is concerned, he did not support
the prosecution and he was declared as hostile. Pw.1 did not
whisper anything either the 'demand' or 'acceptance' by the
respondent-Accused Officer. Further, the defence of the
respondent-Accused Officer was that Pw.1 forcibly kept the
tainted currency on the table despite resistance by the
respondent-Accused Officer. The said fact was also recorded in
Ex.P-20 post trap proceedings. Taking into consideration of the
above facts and circumstances, the learned Special Judge for
SPE and ACB cases rightly came to the conclusion that the
prosecution failed to prove charges against the respondent-
Accused Officer and acquitted the respondent-Accused Officer of
the charges leveled against him.
10. Viewed from any angle, this court is of the considered
opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the acquittal
recorded by the learned Special Judge and Criminal Appeal is
liable to be dismissed.
7
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming
the acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge for SPE &
ACB Cases, Vijayawada, on 01-02-2007 in C.C.No.15 of 2004.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed
in consequence.
_________________ K.SURESH REDDY,J 02-05-2022.
TSNR
