Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of A.P., Thru Inspector Of ... vs Sri P.Ch.Ranga Reddy Another on 13 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.270 OF 2008
Between:
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Prakasam District, Ongole.
(Through the Standing Counsel-cum-Spl. Public
Prosecutor for ACB Cases).
.... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1) Sri P.Ch. Ranga Reddy, S/o A. Mallareddy,
Aged 59 years, Retired Sub-Inspector of Police,
Komarole Police Station, Prakasam District.
2) Konda Narisireddy, S/o Nandi Reddy, aged 59 years,
Retired Police Constable No.238, Komarole Police Station,
Prakasam District.
... Respondents/Accused Officers.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 13.12.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
Fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
___________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.270/2008
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.270 OF 2008
% 13.12.2023
# Between:
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Prakasam District, Ongole.
(Through the Standing Counsel-cum-Spl. Public
Prosecutor for ACB Cases).
.... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1) Sri P.Ch. Ranga Reddy, S/o A. Mallareddy,
Aged 59 years, Retired Sub-Inspector of Police,
Komarole Police Station, Prakasam District.
2) Konda Narisireddy, S/o Nandi Reddy, aged 59 years,
Retired Police Constable No.238, Komarole Police Station,
Prakasam District.
... Respondents/Accused Officers.
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S.M. Subhani.
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati
for Respondent No.1 and
Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy
Kalava, for Respondent No.2.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
This Court made the following:
3
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.270/2008
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.270 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of
acquittal, dated 04.08.2007, in Calendar Case No.34 of 2002, on
the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases,
Nellore (for short, „the learned Special Judge‟), whereunder the
learned Special Judge acquitted the Accused Officer No.1 for the
charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC
Act and acquitted the Accused Officer No.2 for the charges under
Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be
referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of
convenience.
3. The State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti
Corruption Bureau, Prakasam District, Ongole filed charge sheet
in Crime No.11/ACB-NPK/2000 of ACB, Nellore Range alleging the
offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, „the PC Act‟)
against the Accused Officers. The case of the prosecution, in brief,
according to the charge sheet averments, is as follows:
AVRB,J
(i) Potireddy China Ranga Reddy, Accused Officer-1 (AO-1),
worked as Sub-Inspector of Police in Komarole Police Station,
Prakasam District from 10.07.1999 to 18.10.2000 and Konda
Narsireddy, Accused Officer-2 (AO-2), worked as Constable in the
same Station from 12.06.2000 to 18.10.2000 and they are „public
servants‟ within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
(ii) Sallagolusula Nageswara Rao (LW.1) is a worker in the
wine shop named M/s. Venkata Raghavendra Company,
Komarole, Prakasam District belongs to one Sare Sesha
Narasimhanaidu (LW.2). Prior to 15.10.2000, AO-1 visited the
wine shop of LW.2 and demanded LW.1 to pay monthly mamools
so as to run their business without any obstruction. On
15.10.2000, he again visited the shop and demanded the de-facto
complainant (LW.1) to pay Rs.3,300/- towards monthly mamools
for running liquor business for which LW.1 questioned him as to
why he has to pay the demanded amount. AO-1 threatened him
that he will be in trouble. Complainant intimated the incident to
LW.2, owner of the shop, who instructed him to report the matter
to the ACB officials. Basing on the report of the complainant,
LW.11 - the DSP, ACB registered the same as a case in Crime
No.11/ACB-NPK/2000 of ACB, Nellore Range. The DSP, ACB
conducted pre-trap proceedings. During the post-trap proceedings
AVRB,J
on 18.10.2000, when the complainant went to Komarole Police
Station and approached AO-1, he asked the complainant whether
he brought the demanded bribe amount and when the
complainant replied in positive, he instructed him to handover the
amount to AO-2 - Police Constable. Then, complainant
approached AO-2 and AO-2 received Rs.3,300/- from LW.1,
counted the same with his both hands and kept in his pant right
side pocket. LW.1 intimated to AO-1 that he paid the demanded
amount to AO-2. Then, complainant came out from the Police
Station and relayed pre-arranged signal. Immediately, the DSP,
ACB along with other raid party members rushed into Komarole
Police Station. LW.1 informed the DSP, ACB as to what happened.
The tainted amount of Rs.3,300/- was recovered from the ground
under the Writer‟s table as AO-2 has thrown out the same on
seeing the ACB raid party. The particulars of the currency notes
were tallied with the currency notes mentioned in the pre-trap
proceedings and chemical test was conducted to both hand fingers
of AO-2, which gave positive result. Further, the inner linings of
right side pant pocket of AO-2 also yielded positive result. AO-1
was present in his office room adjacent to the room of AO-2 and
the test conducted to both hand fingers of AO-1 yielded negative
result.
AVRB,J
(iii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded sanction
to prosecute the AO-1 and A-2 in a competent Court of law vide
G.O.Ms.No.236-Home (SC.A Dept.) dated 08.08.2002 and
G.O.Ms.No.348-Home (SC.A Dept.) dated 11.11.2002. Hence the
charge sheet.
4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under
the above provisions of law. After appearance of the accused
officers and on complying Section 207 Cr.P.C, the learned Special
Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section
13(2) of the PC Act against AO-1 and framed charges under
Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act
against AO-2 and explained the same to them in Telugu for which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to establish the guilt against the accused officers,
the prosecution, during the course of trial, examined PWs.1 to
PW.9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and MOs.1 to MO.8. Ex.D-1
was marked on behalf of the defence.
6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, AO-1 and
AO-2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to
the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in
AVRB,J
by the prosecution for which they denied the same. However, AO-1
filed his written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C along with
the certified copies and xerox copies of FIRs and charge sheets.
7. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,
exonerated both the Accused Officers of the charges framed and
accordingly acquitted them under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful State,
represented by Inspector of Police, ACB, Prakasam District, Ongole
filed the present Appeal.
9. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise
for consideration are as follows:
1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court
proved that AO-1 and AO-2 are „public servants‟ within
the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and whether
the prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute
them under Section 19 of the PC Act?
2) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court
proved that AO-1 demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe
amount of Rs.3,300/- and on the date of trap, accepted
AVRB,J
the same through AO-2 and further committed
misconduct within the meaning of Section 13(1)(d)
R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act?
3) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court
proved that AO-2 facilitated the commission of offence
in collusion with AO-1 and whether he committed the
offences under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) R/w.
Section 13(2) of the PC Act?
4) Whether the prosecution proved the charges framed
against the AO-1 and AO-2 beyond reasonable doubt
and whether there are any grounds to interfere with
the impugned judgment of the learned Special Judge?
POINT No.1:
10. Insofar as this point is concerned, the evidence of PW.7
coupled with Exs.P-15 and P-16 sanction orders goes to prove that
the sanctioning authority on due application of mind accorded
sanction to prosecute the AO-1 and AO-2. The positive findings
made by the learned Special Judge in this regard are not under
challenge by learned counsel for the respondents/accused officers
during the course of hearing. However, a careful perusal of the
evidence of PW.7, coupled with Exs.P-15 and P-16 proves that
AVRB,J
both the AO-1 and AO-2 are public servants and the prosecution
obtained a valid sanction to prosecute them.
POINT Nos.2 to 4:
11. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-
Special Public Prosecutor, would contend that PW.1 supported the
case of prosecution. He spoke about the demand made by AO-1
prior to the trap and on the date of trap for monthly mamools.
PW.2 and PW.3 - Police Constables, who were present at the time
of post-trap, did not support the case of prosecution. PW.5, who
was a clerk in the wine shop of PW.4 also did not support the case
of prosecution. Unfortunately, even PW.4, the owner of the wine
shop, also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. However,
PW.1 in this regard spoke of the demand made by AO-1 prior to
the trap and on the date of trap and that he accepted the bribe
amount through AO-2. Both hand fingers of AO-2 when they were
subjected to chemical test yielded positive result. Even the inner
linings of his trouser also yielded positive result. The learned
Special Judge, on erroneous appreciation of the evidence on
record, extended an order of acquittal. Merely because there were
some criminal cases registered by AO-1 against PW.1, PW.4 and
his associates, it does not mean that the evidence of PW.1 is to be
AVRB,J
disbelieved. He would further submit that the prosecution
adduced sufficient evidence so as to prove the guilt as such the
judgment is liable to be interfered with.
12. Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 (AO-1), would contend that by virtue of Ex.D-1,
the representation made by AO-1 to the Vigilance Commissioner,
Hyderabad after the trap and by virtue of the Para wise remarks
obtained by the Director General, ACB from PW.9 under Ex.P.18
and Ex.P.19, it is clear that many cases were filed by AO-1 against
PW.1, PW.4 and his associates for violation of law. So, there was
every possibility for PW.1 and PW.4 to take course against AO-1 to
implicate him in a false case. Ultimately, PW.4 realized about his
mistake and did not support the case of prosecution. The evidence
of PW.1 was held to be not believable by the learned Special
Judge. Prosecution did not establish the nexus between the AO-1
and AO-2. AO-1 had nothing to do with the allegations raised
against AO-2. The learned Special Judge on thorough appreciation
of the evidence on record, exonerated AO-1 of the charges framed
against him as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 (AO-2), would contend that AO-2 had nothing to
AVRB,J
do with the allegations raised against AO-1. In fact, on the date of
trap, when PW.1 happened to visit the Police Station, AO-2 served
summons on PW.1 in connection with a criminal case and
obtained his signatures and this fact was not disclosed by PW.1
during the post-trap and he admitted the same in his cross-
examination. The tainted amount was not recovered from the
possession of AO-2 and it was alleged to have been recovered on
ground underneath a table. Purposefully, PW.1 kept the amount
on ground after putting his signature on the served summons and
as PW.1 had conducted to phenolphthalein powder on the tainted
amount, possibility of the phenolphthalein substance on his
hands coming into contact with the hands of AO-2 while serving
summons cannot be ruled out. Learned Special Judge made
findings that the Investigating Officer did not test the
surface/ground where the tainted amount was found lying. The
learned Special Judge with proper reasons extended an order of
acquittal, which is not liable to be interfered with. The findings of
the learned Special Judge were supported with proper reasons.
Hence, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
14. As seen from Ex.P-1, the allegations were that prior to
15.10.2000 and 15.10.2000 the AO-1 visited the wine shop of
AVRB,J
PW.4 in which PW.1 was working as a clerk, demanded him to pay
the monthly mamools of Rs.3,300/- for which he refused and he
intimated the same to his owner and the owner instructed him to
lodge a report with the ACB officials. This is the substance of the
allegation.
15. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, he spoke of the facts about
the manner in which AO-1 was alleged to have demanded bribe
and his lodging Ex.P-1 report. His evidence relating to the post-
trap proceedings is that when he approached AO-1 during the
post-trap, AO-1 was doing something in his room. He asked him
whether he brought the money demanded by him. He replied in
positive. AO-1 directed him to pay the amount to AO-2 - Police
Constable. Then, he went to AO-2 and informed to him that he has
to receive the amount as directed by AO-1. Firstly, AO-2 told him
that he can pay the amount to AO-1 and ultimately he received the
amount. He came back and informed AO-1 that he paid the
amount to AO-2. While he was coming out, AO-2 called him and
handed over the summons by obtaining his signature. Then, he
came out and relayed a pre-arranged signal. So, admittedly, PW.1
supported the case of prosecution.
AVRB,J
16. Now, coming to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 - Police
Constables, who were said to be present in the Police Station,
turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Though, they testified
arrival of PW.1 to the Police Station but they claimed that they do
not know as to what happened. Apart from this, PW.4, owner of
the wine shop, totally turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
According to him, PW.1 never complained against AO-1 and AO-2
and he is not at all concerned with the wine shop because PW.5 -
Palakurthi Srinivasa Rao and Ramayanapu Chanti took the wine
shop from him on lease and were running the same. Admittedly,
the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of PW.2
to PW.5.
17. Now, the Court has to consider as to whether the un-
corroborated evidence of PW.1 in the facts and circumstances can
be a basis to sustain the conviction. During the course of evidence
of PW.9 - Trap Laying Officer, admitted about Ex.D-1 -
representation made by AO-1 to the Commissioner, Vigilance,
Hyderabad, expressing his grievance that PW.1 and PW.4 colluded
with ACB officials and implicated him falsely. The Director General
of Police, ACB called for para wise remarks from the Trap Laying
Officer and the said remarks were marked under Exs.P-18 and P-
AVRB,J
19. The contents of Exs.P-18 and P-19 about the factum of
registration of several cases by AO-1 against PW.1 or PW.4 or their
close associates, as the case may be, are not in dispute. In Ex.P.18
P.W.9 at para No.3 stated as follows:
"It is a fact that Sri P.Ch. Rangareddy, S.I. (A.O.1) registered
number of cases against S.S. Narasimha Naidu, Owner of
Venkata Raghavendra Wines, Komarole and against friends
and relatives of Sri S. Nageswara Rao (Complainant) prior to
trap. AO.1 arrested Sri S.S. Narasimha Naidu, owner of the
wine shop on 28.4.2000 in Cr.No.19/2000, U/s 324 & 379
IPC and A.O.1 also laid charge sheet in the court in the said
case during July, 2k. Further Sri S.S.Narasimha Naidu,
owner of the wine shop also figured as accused in
Cr.No.47/2000, U/s 447, 427, r/w 34 IPC of Komarole P.S.
dated 23.9.2000 registered by A.O.2. Further, there were
number of cases pending against the friends and relatives of
S. Nageswara Rao (complainant) vide Cr.Nos.9/2000,
24/2000, 31/2000, 34/2000 and 41/2000 by the time of
trap. In those cases A.O.1 effected arrests by serving notices
on complainant being the relative of arrested persons in
token of arrest effected by him and the complainant
personally signed the notices. As such, there is ample scope
to A.O.1 to claim that it was a motivated case."
In Ex.P.19, PW.9 gave the particulars of the
cases registered against PW.4 and the relatives of PW.1
as follows:-
AVRB,J
"Particulars of cases against Sare Sesha Narasimha Naidu
(Wine shop Owner):
1) Cr.No.19/2000 U/s 324, 379 R/w.34 IPC: This case
was registered on 16.4.2000 by SHO, Komarole PS on the
statement given by Nagi China Bala Raju of Chinthalapalli
village, Komarole Mandal against Sare Sesha Narasimha
Naidu (Wine shop owner) and 7 others. The A.O. being the
SI, Komarole arrested 7 accused persons including S.S.
Narasimha Naidu (Wine shop owner) on 28.4.2000 and sent
them for remand. The AO charged the case on 29.4.2000
and it is in PT stage vide CC No.803/2000 in the Court of
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur.
2) Cr.No.47/2000 U/s 447, 427 R/w.34 IPC: This case
was registered by the accused officer being the SI, Komarole
P.S. on 23.9.2000 on the report given by K. Subbamma of
Gonepalli, Komarole Mandal. According to FIR Gone Pandu
and 5 others were shown as accused and during first
investigation Sri P.Ch. Ranga Reddy, SI, Komarole added Sri
S.S. Narasimha Naidu (Wine shop owner, Komarole) as 7 th
accused. Subsequently the case was charged on 13.4.2002
and it is in PT stage."
"Particulars of cases against friends and relatives of
Sallagolusula Nageswara Rao, S/o Peda Guravaiah,
(complainant in ACB Case) investigated by accused officer :
Prior to Trap incident:
1. Cr.No.9/2000 U/s 431, 447 IPC: This case was
registered on 25.2.2000 by the A.O on the report given by
MRO, Komarole. Jangala Peddi Raju and Jangala Bala Raju
of Muttupalli (V), Komarole (M) are the friends of Sri S.
AVRB,J
Nageswara Rao (Complainant). The A.O. arrested both the
accused on 23.3.2000 and a notice was served on the
complainant (S. Nageswara Rao) at the time of arrest being
known persons to the accused. The A.O. charged the case
on 27.3.2000 and the same was in PT stage vide CC
No.66/2000 in the court of JFCM, Giddalur.
2. Cr.No.24/2000 U/s 324 R/w 34 IPC: It was
registered by SHO., Komarole PS on 30.5.2000 on a
statement given by Sk. Khadar vali of Dwarakacherla (V),
Komarole (M) against accused Batthula Ranga Swamy and 3
others of same village. The A.O. arrested the all the accused
on 5.6.2000 and sent them for remand. As per case diary
Sri S. Nageswara Rao (Complainant) was issued notice by
AO while effecting arrests of the accused being the known
person to the accused. The case was in PT stage vide CC
No.802/2000 (charged on 11.7.2000).
3. Cr.No.31/2000 U/s 324 R/w 34 IPC: It was
registered by SHO, Komarole PS on 31.3.2000 on the
statement given by Sk. Khasim bee of Dwarakacherla (V)
against the accused Tandra Subbarayudu, Tandra Srinu,
Tandra Venkateswarlu of the same village. The AO arrested
the above accused on 13.7.2000 and sent them for remand.
Out of the accused Tandra Srinu is the cousin of S.
Nageswara Rao (complainant). Though the AO filed charge
sheet in the said case on 31.7.2000 the same was not yet
taken on file by the Court due to some technical remarks.
4. Cr.No.41/2000 U/s 147, 148, 324, 307 R/w 149 IPC:
It was registered by AO on 11.8.2000 on the statement given
by Sk. Khadar Vali of Dwarakacherla (V), against the
AVRB,J
accused Tandra Peda Subbarayudu and 21 others of same
village. The A.O. arrested 22 accused persons on 22.8.2000
and sent them for remand. Out of arrested accused brother-
in-law of complainant Sri Bontha Subbarayudu, nephew of
complainant Bontha Subba Rao and cousins of complainant
Tandra China Venkateswarlu and Sallagolusula China
Guravaiah were involved. The AO served a notice to the
complainant informing about the arrests of 22 accused
persons on 22.8.2000 being the relative/known person to
the accused.
5. Cr.No.35/2000 U/s 107 Cr.P.C: It was a bind over
case filed by the A.O., against Battula Ranga Swamy and 7
others of Dwarakacherla village who are the
relatives/friends of the complainant S. Nageswara Rao."
18. So, it is a case where the AO-1 registered several cases
against PW.1 or PW.4 or their kith and kin and their close
associates. So, naturally PW.1 and PW.4 had every reason to
develop grouse against AO-1. It is altogether a different aspect that
PW.4 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. As evident from the
cross-examination part of PW.1, though he had to admit
registration of certain FIRs but he pretended ignorance as if he
does not know. So, the evidence on record warrants the Court to
scrutinize the evidence of PW.1 with great and care and caution.
When Ex.P-1 speaks of that, AO-1 allegedly directed PW.1 to pay
the bribe either to him or to the station writer, it is not known how
AVRB,J
PW.1 ventured to pay the amount to Police Constable, merely
because he was directed to do so. Absolutely, there is no
corroboration to the testimony of PW.1.
19. Now this Court has to look into the genuineness or
otherwise of the trap. On the date of trap, the case of the
prosecution is that PW.1 paid the amount to AO-2 and he dealt
with the same with his both hands and kept it in his right trouser
pocket.
20. It is to be noted that the tainted amount was alleged to be
recovered from the ground underneath a table. The amount was
not recovered from AO-2 physically. The evidence of PW.6 -
mediator to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and the
evidence of PW.9 - Trap Laying Officer means that AO-2 has
thrown out the tainted amount on seeing the trap party. It is to be
noted that on receipt of the pre-arranged signal, the ACB trap
party was in hurry to rush into the Police Station. Till they entered
into the room of AO-2, they had no occasion to look into as to
what AO-2 was doing in the room. Their evidence that AO-2 has
thrown away the amount on the ground and that they witnessed
the same cannot stand to any reason. Their evidence as if they
witnessed AO-2 throwing the amount to ground is nothing but
AVRB,J
improbable. It is to be noted that the post-trap proceedings did not
disclose that after paying the alleged tainted amount to AO-2,
AO-2 served summons on PW.1 in connection with a criminal case
and obtained his signatures but it is during chief-examination, he
disclosed the same. In cross-examination, on behalf of AO-2, PW.1
deposed that when he went into the room of AO-2 along with
tainted currency notes, AO-2 served summons in C.C. No.100 of
1999 on the file of the JMFC, Giddalur, wherein he was cited as a
witness and obtained his signature on the back of the summons.
He obtained his signature on the office copy of the summons after
serving summons to him. He may file it before the Court.
Immediately after serving summons, he obtained his signatures
and kept the office copy of the summons in the right side pocket of
his pant. This is the categorical admission made by PW.1 during
his cross-examination. He further made an admission that,
according to him, he gave tainted amount to AO-2 after he served
summons to him. It is to be noted that the evidence let in by the
prosecution that the mediator and trap laying officer witnessed
AO-2 throwing the amount to ground can be ruled out. Now, AO-2
has to probabalize as to why his both hands and right side trouser
pocket yielded positive result. When it was the categorical evidence
of PW.1 in cross examination that he signed on the office copy of
AVRB,J
the summons and AO-2 took the same and kept it in his right side
trouser pocket, there was every probability that the hands of PW.1
might touch the paper on which he signed thereby there was a
scope for contacting of phenolphthalein powder from the hands of
PW.1 into the office copy of summons. So, when AO-2 kept the
served summons into the right side trouser pocket, there is every
possibility that the inner linings of the pant of AO-2 may yield
positive result. So, virtually as the evidence was lacking that
amount was recovered from the physical possession of AO-2,
various circumstances referred to above probabilize a theory that
AO-2 might have contacted with phenolphthalein powder to his
hands and to his right side trouser pocket during the course of
service of summons to PW.1.
21. It is to be noted that, according to the case of prosecution,
strict instructions were given to PW.1 by the trap party to act
strictly in accordance with the instructions without any
deviations. PW.1 had every knowledge that his hands contacted
with phenolphthalein substance prior to the so-called payment of
tainted amount to AO-2 or after payment of tainted amount. When
that is the situation, he was not supposed to put his signatures on
the papers, when requested by AO-2. The theory of signing
AVRB,J
summons was not introduced during the course of post-trap
proceedings. In anticipation of the defence by AO-2 as the amount
was not recovered from his physical possession, this theory was
pressed into service, during the course of chief-examination
because service of summons by AO-2 on PW.1 was born out by the
record. So the manner in which the amount was recovered from
AO-2 is not believable. Apart from this, crucial link is missing in
the evidence to prove the nexus between AO-1 and AO-2. Evidence
is lacking that AO-2 was aware of the alleged demands made by
AO-1 to PW.1 to pay the monthly mamools. The learned Special
Judge rightly appreciated the entire evidence on record with great
care and caution and made findings that the case of prosecution is
not believable. The findings made by the learned Special Judge
were supported with tenable and proper reasons. The findings
were not at all un-reasonable.
22. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that,
absolutely, the judgment of the learned Special Judge is on
thorough appreciation of the evidence on record and it is not liable
to be interfered with. Prosecution failed to prove the charges
framed against the AO-1 and AO-2 beyond reasonable doubt. The
AVRB,J
learned Special Judge rightly exonerated AO-1 and AO-2 of the
charges.
23. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 13.12.2023
DSH
