Narra Subba Rao, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 2412 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1652 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the Special

Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (for short, 'the trial Court'),

in C.C.No.17 of 2003, dated 13.11.2006, the appellant/Accused-

Officer (for short, 'A.O.') preferred the present appeal.

2. The appellant/A.O., was tried by the trial Court under

Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). After completion of trial,

the trial Court convicted the appellant/A.O., and sentenced him to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and also

to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for three (03) months, under two counts. Both the

substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts enumerated from the evidence of prosecution

witnesses is as follows :

(i) The appellant/A.O, was working as Junior Assistant

B.Tech Section, Controller of Examinations, Nagarjuna University,

Nambur, Guntur District, and he is a public servant within the

meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Act.

KSR, J.

Crl.A.No.1652_2006

(ii) P.W.7 is a Bachelor of Engineering Graduate from

Bapatla Engineering College, Bapatla, Guntur District, during the

period from 1994 to 2000. On 18.10.2001 he approached the

appellant/A.O., and requested him to include sessional marks of

1998. Then, the appellant/A.O., demanded an amount of Rs.200/-

for issuing marks list and Rs.200/- for issuing Provisional Certificate

as bribe. On 03.11.2001, once again P.W.7 approached the

appellant/A.O., and reiterated his request and the appellant

repeated his demand of bribe of Rs.400/- and directed him to bring

the said bribe amount on the morning of 5.11.2001 to his office.

P.W.7 reluctantly agreed to pay the bribe of Rs.400/- and as he is

not willing to pay the same, he approached Anti-Corruption Bureau

officials.

(iii) On 03.11.2001 at about 11.00 am., P.W.9-Dy.S.P.,

ACB, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada, received Ex.P12 written report

from P.W.7 and entrusted the same to Range-Inspector-I, ACB,

Vijayawada, for causing discreet enquiries. Thereafter, Range-

Inspector-I caused enquiries against A.O., as well as P.W.7 and

made an endorsement on Ex.P12.

(iv) On receipt of Ex.P12 from Range-Inspector-I, P.W.9

registered a case in Cr.No.19/ACB-VJA/01 under Section 7 of the

Act. Ex.P13 is the original FIR. On the same day, P.W.9 called KSR, J.

Crl.A.No.1652_2006

P.W.7 and mediators i.e., P.W.6 and another to his office,

introduced P.W.7 to the mediators. On further instructions, P.W.7

produced 4 Rs.100/- denomination notes, which is proposed to be

paid towards bribe to A.O. The mediators noted down the serial

numbers of currency notes in Ex.P4-Pre-trap proceedings. At that

time, P.W.9 called L.W.2-Anil Kumar, brother of P.W.7 and

introduced him to the mediators. After complying the formalities,

Ex.P4-Pre-trap proceedings have been concluded.

(v) At about 11.30 am., P.W.9 along with trap laying

party and P.W.7 & L.W.2 proceeded in two cars to Nagarjuna

University, Guntur and reached their at about 12.00 noon. The

vehicles were stopped at a distance of 100 meters from the office of

A.O.,. P.W.9 instructed P.W.7 to go to the office of A.O., and on

further demand only, pay the tainted currency. After paying the

same, P.W.7 was instructed to relay the signal. P.W.9 asked L.W.2

also to accompany P.W.7. Thereafter, P.W.7 along with L.W.2

entered into the office of the appellant/A.O., and found him

attending his duties at his seat. On noticing P.W.7, the

appellant/A.O., enquired him whether he has brought the demanded

bribe amount and he gave affirmative reply and paid the tainted

currency to the appellant/A.O., Then, the appellant asked to get KSR, J.

Crl.A.No.1652_2006

Xerox copy of challan and no dues certificate. Immediately, P.W.7

and L.W.2 came out of the office and relayed pre-arranged signal.

(vi) Immediately, P.W.9 along with trap laying party

went into the office of the appellant/A.O., and disclosed their

identity. P.W.9 conducted Phenolphthalein test on both the hands

of the appellant/A.O., which proved 'Positive'. When P.W.9

questioned the appellant/A.O., the latter produced tainted currency

by picking out from his left side shirt pocket. The trap laying party

verified the serial numbers of the tainted currency mentioned in

Ex.P4-Pre-trap proceedings. Thereafter, the inner linings of shirt

pocket of the appellant were also subjected to Chemical test, which

proved 'Positive'. P.W.9 seized the tainted currency under the cover

of Ex.P10-Post trap proceedings. When P.W.9 questioned about the

tainted currency, he stated that P.W.7 forcibly thrusted the tainted

currency into his shirt pocket and went away. The said explanation

was recorded in Ex.P10-Post trap proceedings. Thereafter, P.W.9

prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P9 and recorded the statements of

other witnesses. After completion of investigation and after

obtaining sanction orders Ex.P1, P.W.4-Range-Inspector-II, ACB,

Vijayawada, filed charge sheet.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1

to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 8.

KSR, J.

Crl.A.No.1652_2006

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the

appellant/A.O was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining

the incriminating evidence against him. Appellant/AO denied the

incriminating evidence. No oral and documentary evidence adduced

on behalf of the defence.

6. Learned Special Judge having considered the entire

evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/A.O, as

stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/A.O, filed the

present appeal.

7. Heard Sri C.Mastan Naidu, learned senior counsel for the

appellant/A.O, and Smt. A.Gayatri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel

for A.C.B-cum-Special Public Prosecutor.

8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/A.O, strenuously

contended that P.W.7 has not submitted the application through

proper channel and it was directly given to the appellant/A.O., and

there was no initial of the appellant/A.O on the said application. He

further contends that as P.W.7 did not submit any application,

question of demanding of bribe does not arise. He also argued that

the prosecution deliberately withhold the accompanying witness i.e.,

L.W.2-Anil Kumar, for the best reasons known to them. Finally, he KSR, J.

Crl.A.No.1652_2006

contended that the defence of the appellant/A.O., is that P.W.7

forcibly thrusted the tainted currency into the shirt pocket of the

appellant and left the office. The said explanation was also recorded

in Ex.P10-Post-trap Proceedings. Therefore, he prays to set aside the

conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor

submitted that P.W.7 submitted his application directly to the

appellant/A.O., on 18.10.2001, which was elicited by the defence in

the cross-examination and it is only for that reason, the

appellant/A.O., demanded bribe of Rs.400/-. She further contends

that the application Ex.P5 was recovered from the appellant/A.O., by

the Investigating Agency. She further contended that the

prosecution is able to prove the initial demand and further demand

on the date of trap. Further, she contended that the chemical test

conducted on both the hands of the appellant/A.O., proved 'Positive'.

So far as theory of thrusting is concerned, there was no hue and cry

by the appellant and further he did not threw the tainted currency

and non-examination of L.W.2 is not fatal to the case of prosecution

as P.W.7 supported the case of prosecution.

10. This Court perused the entire evidence on record. P.W.7

in his Chief-examination has specifically stated about the demand KSR, J.

Crl.A.No.1652_2006

made by the appellant/A.O., on 18.10.2001 and also on 02.11.2001

and on the date of trap i.e., on 05.11.2001. P.W.7 specifically stated

in his evidence that on the date of trap, he filled the application and

submitted challan along with his application to the appellant/A.O., On

the date of trap, on seeing P.W.7, the appellant enquired P.W.7

whether he brought the demanded bribe amount. In the above

circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the

conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove the factum of

demand and further demand by the appellant/A.O.,

11. Coming to the recovery of money from the appellant, it is

the specific case of P.W.9 & P.W.6 that Chemical test conducted on

both the hands of the appellant/A.O., proved 'Positive'. But, the

appellant/A.O., pleaded the theory of thrusting. As seen from the

evidence, chemical test conducted on both the hands of the

appellant/A.O., proved 'Positive'. If really, it is a case of thrusting,

test conducted on both the hands of the appellant/A.O., may not be

proved 'Positive'. Further, the conduct of the appellant/A.O., has also

to be looked into. If really, P.W.7 thrusted the tainted currency into

the shirt pocket of the appellant, he should have made hue and cry

and threw the tainted currency, but that was not done in the present

case on hand. Further, the appellant/A.O., has not adduced any

rebuttal evidence for presumption under Section 20 of the Act.

KSR, J.

Crl.A.No.1652_2006

12. In view of the above evidence on record, the prosecution

is able to prove the demand and acceptance on the part of the

appellant/A.O. Further, minor omissions and contradictions in the

evidence of P.W.7 will not affect the substratum of the prosecution

case. In such circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with

the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge

and the same is dismissed as devoid of merit.

13. IN THE RESULT, the criminal appeal is dismissed as

devoid of any merit and the conviction and sentence recorded by the

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C.No.17 of

2003, dated 13.11.2006, is hereby confirmed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in

consequence.

___________________ K.SURESH REDDY, J.

6th day of May,2022.

RPD KSR, J.

Crl.A.No.1652_2006

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1652 of 2006

DATE: 06.05.2022

RPD