The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Sri S. Bulli Babu,
2023 Latest Caselaw 959 AP

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

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1336 OF 2007

JUDGMENT:-

      This is a Criminal Appeal filed by the State, being

represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Nellore Range, Nellore District, challenging the judgment in

C.C.No.7 of 1996, dated 17.11.2004, on the file of Special Judge

for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore (hereinafter will be referred to as

"Special Jude"), where under the learned Special Judge, found

the Accused Officers ("A.O.1 and A.O.2" for short) not guilty of

the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C. Act" for short) and

accordingly, acquitted them under Section 248(1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short).

      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

the averments in the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of

Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, against A.O.1 and

A.O.2 is as follows:
                                    2


      (i) One Bommireddy Rami Reddy (P.W.1) constructed a

semi-permanent theatre named as S.V.R. theatre in Karedu

Village, Ulavapadu Mandal, Nellore District, in the year 1994. In

order to run the Cinema theatre, P.W.1 has to get D-Form

licence. Therefore, he got prepared plan and sent the same to

the District Collector, Prakasam District in October, 1994. P.W.1

came to know that the District Collector sent the plan to R.D.O.,

Health Department, R & B Department and Asst. Electrical

Inspector (A.O.2) calling for reports and he further came to

know that except the report from A.O.2, the report from the

remaining Departments were received. A.O.1 was working as

Dy. Electrical Inspector, Nellore and A.O.2 was working as Asst.

Electrical Inspector.

      (ii) Four months prior to 19.06.1995, P.W.1 met A.O.1 and

asked him to inspect the Cinema hall, but he was evading to

inspect it. Again P.W.1 met him on 03.06.1995 at his office,

informed him that he spent lot of money on the theatre and

requested A.O.1 to inspect the theatre. On that A.O.1 demanded

Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification and said that he would send

the report only after meeting his demand. When P.W.1 pleaded

his inability to pay such huge amount, A.O.1 asked P.W.1 to go

out of the room.        A.O.1 sent for A.O.2 into his room.   After

A.O.2 entered into the room of A.O.1, P.W.1 was called into the
                                       3


room of A.O.1 and he was informed that A.O.2 would be sent for

inspection,       on   13.06.1995.    A.O.1   asked     P.W.1   to   pay

Rs.12,000/- to A.O.2 as illegal gratification. On 13.06.1995,

A.O.2 came to the theatre of P.W.1, inspected it and demanded

Rs.12,000/- as illegal gratification as promised by him earlier,

for that P.W.1 replied that he did not have money to pay and

then A.O.2 directed P.W.1 to meet the A.O.1.

        (iii)    On 17.06.1995, P.W.1 met A.O.2 at his office and

informed him that he could not secure Rs.12,000/- and

requested him to reduce the said amount. Then A.O.2 took

P.W.1 to the room of A.O.1, informed the same to A.O.1 that

P.W.1 is expressing his difficulty to pay Rs.12,000/-.          On that

A.O.1      said    that   already    Rs.3,000/-   was    reduced     from

Rs.15,000/- and that he has to give Rs.4,000/- to A.O.2 and

balance is only Rs.8,000/- for himself.           In spite of requests

made by P.W.1, A.O.1 did not agree to reduce any further

amount.         A.O.1 directed P.W.1 to keep Rs.12,000/- in a cover

and handover it to A.O.2 on 19.06.1995 in the office, otherwise

he will get defective notice.        As P.W.1 did not incline to pay

illegal gratification, he went to the office of the Dy.S.P., ACB,

Nellore on 18.06.1995 at 8-00 a.m., and gave a statement

which was reduced into writing and a case in Cr.No.3/RC-
                                   4


NLR/95 was registered under Sections 7 & 11 of P.C. Act against

the Accused Officers after verification of antecedents.

      (iv) On 19.06.1995, pre-trap proceedings were conducted

from 10-45 p.m. to 12-15 p.m. The trap party including the

mediators D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Asst. Executive Engineer,

R & B, Nellore (P.W.2) and P. Venkateswarlu, Senior Assistant,

D.E.E. Office, R & B, Nellore (L.W.3) reached Venugopalaswamy

Temple, Mulapet, Nellore at 12-45 p.m. P.W.1 and Head

Constable No.1000-S. Krishna Murthy (L.W.4) were directed by

the Dy.S.P., ACB- P. Damodar (P.W.4) to go to the office of

A.O.1 and A.O.2. At about 2-10 p.m., the pre-arranged signal

was received and the trap party accompanied by the mediators

saw two persons coming out of the premises of the office of the

A.O.1 and proceeding towards east. On seeing them, P.W.1

gave an indication that they are the Accused Officers.     Then,

P.W.4 with the assistance of Inspectors, stopped the scooter-

ATU 2934 driven by A.O.1 and A.O.2 on the pillion seat. Then,

the Accused Officers, the mediators and the trap party entered

into the office room of A.O.1. The hand fingers of A.O.2 were

subjected to Sodium Carbonate solution test and the hand

fingers of both hands of A.O.2 yielded positive result. Then, the

hand fingers of both hands of A.O.1 were subjected to chemical

test, but they proved negative.
                                 5


      (v) As both the Accused Officers denied the fact of

receiving illegal gratification, a thorough search was conducted

in the office rooms of A.O.1 and A.O.2. P.W.2, mediator, found

a paper envelope containing a wad of Rs.500/- currency notes in

the drawer of the left side table of A.O.2, which contains 24

notes. The serial numbers of the currency notes tallied with the

numbers of the notes produced by P.W.1 during the pre-trap

proceedings.

      (vi)   The   Government       of        Andhra   Pradesh    issued

G.O.Ms.No.36 and 37, dated 10.04.1996 Energy (Services-I)

Department,    accorded   sanction       to    prosecute   the   Accused

Officers under Sections 7, 11, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the charge sheet.

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

Nellore, on perusal of the material available on record, took the

case on file against A.O.1 and A.O.2 under Sections 7, 11, 13(2)

r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.            After

appearance of A.O.1 and A.O.2 and after complying Section 207

of Cr.P.C., the Court below framed charge under Section 7 of

P.C. Act against A.O.1 and A.O.2 and further charge under

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

A.O.2 and explained the same to them in Telugu, for which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
                                  6


      5)    During   the   course    of   trial,   on   behalf   of   the

prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.11 were marked. Further Accused Officers got marked

Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.12 during the course of cross examination of the

respective prosecution witnesses. Prosecution got marked M.O.1

to M.O.8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, both

A.O.1 and A.O.2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in

the evidence let in, for which they denied the same and they did

not examine any defence witnesses.

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

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

well as documentary evidence, found A.O.1 and A.O.2 not guilty

of the charges and acquitted them under Section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the same, the State, being represented

by the Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore Range, filed the present

Criminal Appeal.

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

that arise for consideration are as follows:

      (1) Whether the prosecution before the Court below

      proved that A.O.1 and A.O.2 demanded P.W.1 to pay bribe

      of Rs.15,000/- and later, reduced to Rs.12,000/- to do the

      official favour in the manner as alleged by the prosecution
                                 7


     and that in pursuance of such demand, they accepted the

     bribe of Rs.12,000/-, as alleged?

     (2) Whether the prosecution before the Court below

     proved that A.O.1 and A.O.2 obtained undue advantage by

     demanding and accepting the bribe?

     (3) Whether the prosecution before the Court below

     proved the charges framed against A.O.1 and A.O.2

     beyond reasonable doubt?

     (4) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the

     judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court?


POINT NOs.1 to 4:-

     8)    Sri S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB

and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant, would

contend that the prosecution before the Court below adduced

cogent evidence to prove the official favour pending with A.O.1

and A.O.2. For obvious reasons, P.W.1, the defacto-complainant

on certain material aspects turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution, but, the tainted amount was recovered from the

left side table drawer of A.O.2. Though the amount was

recovered from the custody of A.O.2 and though there was

cogent evidence before the Court below, the Court below erred

in extending an order of acquittal. The learned Special Judge for
                                  8


SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, having found that P.W.1 did not

support the case of the prosecution, but, erred in disbelieving

the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 i.e., the mediator and trap

laying officer respectively. P.W.2 and P.W.4 supported the case

of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB

Cases, Nellore, accepted the thrusting theory canvassed by

A.O.2 erroneously and recorded an order of acquittal. According

to the evidence of first mediator, he found the cover containing

currency notes in the left side table drawer of A.O.2 and the

second mediator compared the currency note numbers. There

was no inconsistency in this regard. The evidence of P.W.2 and

P.W.4 was totally trustworthy, but the judgment was rendered

erroneously extending an order of acquittal, as such, the

Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed.

      9)    Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel appearing

for the first respondent, would contend that the learned Special

Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, dealt with in detail as to

how the official favour in respect of the work of P.W.1 was not

pending with A.O.1 and A.O.2. In fact, the evidence on record

would discloses that A.O.1 and A.O.2 were not having any power

to do the official favour as certain things which were to be

complied by P.W.1 were not at all complied. So, when they

were not capable of doing any official favour, there would be no

question of demand as alleged by the prosecution. The amount

was not recovered from the possession of A.O.1. The

prosecution failed to prove the official favour. Even according to

P.W.1, he did not support the case of the prosecution. The

learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, dealt with

each and every issue in detail with cogent reasons and there are

no grounds at all to interfere with the judgment of the learned

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore.

10) Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for the second respondent, would contend that the

prosecution before the Court below miserably failed to prove the

pendency of official favour. So, there was no question of the

second respondent demanding any bribe from P.W.1. P.W.1 did

not support the case of the prosecution. His evidence did not

prove anything against A.O.2. The amount was not recovered

from the physical possession of A.O.2, however, if P.W.1 did not

depose anything against A.O.2 as regards the fact that he

demanded and accepted the bribe amount. Viewing from any

angle, the learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore,

rightly discussed the evidence on record with proper reasons

and rightly extended an order of acquittal in favour of A.O.2, as

such, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the

learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore.

11) Firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to

whether there was valid sanction to prosecute both A.O.1 and

A.O.2 for the charges framed. The prosecution examined P.W.3,

the Section Officer, to prove the sanction and got marked Ex.P.9

and Ex.P.10. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P.9 and

Ex.P.10 goes to reveal that the sanctioning authority having

applied its mind to the allegations of the prosecution decided to

issue sanction. The learned Special Judge gave appropriate

findings in this regard which is not under challenge in this

appeal. So, there was a valid sanction to prosecute A.O.1 and

A.O.2.

12) Further the prosecution had to prove before the

Court below that the official favour to be done in favour of P.W.1

to issue D-form licence was pending with A.O.1 and A.O.2 as on

the date of alleged demand of bribe i.e., on 03.06.1995,

13.06.1995 and 19.06.1995.

13) P.W.1 is no other that the defacto-complainant.

P.W.2 is the mediator. P.W.3 is the Section Officer, who

processed the file relating to sanction to prosecute A.O.1 and

A.O.2. P.W.4 is the Trap Laying Officer. P.W.5 is the ACB

Inspector.

14) Now, as regards the so-called official favour is

concerned, the testimony of P.W.1 is that on 01.10.1994 he

applied to the District Collector, Prakasam District, for licence to

run a cinema theatre in Karedu by name B.V.R. Theatre. The

District Collector sent the same for report of R.D.O., Kandukur,

R&B and Health Departments and Deputy Electrical Inspector,

Nellore, for their reports. He was informed by Collector Office

that the reports from other departments were received except

the report from the Deputy Electrical Inspector, Nellore. In

February, 1995, he went to the office of Deputy Electrical

Inspector, Nellore and asked one Nazeer Ahamed (A.O.2) about

the delay in issuing the licence and requested him to come and

inspect the theatre. A.O.2 stated that he was in busy and he

would visit later. Two or three months thereafter, again he went

to the office of the Deputy Electrical Inspector and met Sri S.

Bullibabu (A.O.1) and requested him to inspect his theatre. On

13.05.1995 A.O.2 was deputed to inspect the theatre. A.O.2

came to the theatre and asked him for certain certificates from

Fire Service Department. Two or three days thereafter, he came

to Nellore, enquired the theatre owners in Nellore about the Fire

Service certificates. He was informed that it is not possible to

get certificates from Fire Service Department and they advised

him to approach ACB department and that ACB people would

send a word to A.O.1 and A.O.2 to see that the certificate would

be issued.

15) It is altogether a different aspect that P.W.1 did not

support the case of the prosecution as evident from his chief

examination in the manner as mentioned in his report and also

in the manner as alleged in pre-trap and post-trap proceedings.

Now, during the course of cross examination of P.W.1 by the

defence counsel certain documents are marked i.e., Ex.X.1 to

Ex.X.12. So, it is appropriate to refer here the background of

the facts in view of past correspondence for better appreciation.

The facts which are evident from the above is that P.W.1

originally applied for grant of permission to construct a

temporary cinema theatre (touring talkies) on 17.09.1991 in

Survey No.83/1. He obtained "no objection certificate" on

03.04.1992. Later, he changed his mind and applied to grant

"no objection certificate" for construction of semi permanent

theatre on 15.06.1992. Again he addressed a letter to the

District Collector that he had no means to construct semi

permanent theatre, but he would continue the construction of

touring talkies. Again he changed his mind on 17.09.1992 and

applied for "no objection certificate" for construction of semi

permanent theatre.

16) There is no dispute that after calling for the

Executive Engineer, R&B, Ongole, Assistant Electrical Inspector,

Nellore and District Medical and Health Officer, Ongole, District

Collector, Prakasam, granted permission to construct semi

permanent theatre to P.W.1 subject to 18 conditions. Apart

from this, the then Assistant Electrical Inspector while

communicating "no objection certificate" put forth 8 conditions

vide letter, dated 06.05.1993. These are evident from Ex.X.3

file at page Nos.21, 33, 35, 37, 39 and 41. Apart from this,

there was a report from R.D.O., Kandukuru that at the time of

inspection of the proposed theatre, the entire building was

constructed without permission from the concerned authorities.

It was based upon his site inspection on 24.11.1992.

17) Leave a part of the above, now, according to the

case of the prosecution D-form lincence is to be granted to

screen the pictures and to run the theatre. As seen from Ex.P.1,

P.W.1 alleged that on 01.10.1994, he applied for the District

Collector, Prakasam, for D-form licence. So, the contention of

the prosecution is that the Deputy Electrical Inspector (A.O.1)

and Assistant Electrical Inspector, Nellore, on receipt of the

proceedings from the District Collector, did not look into the

issue properly.

18) It is to be noticed that a look at Ex.X.4 reveals that

Assistant Electrical Inspector received the proceedings from the

District Collector on 26.10.1994. On 02.12.1994 P.W.1 was

directed to comply six items to issue certificate. It was also

communicated to the District Collector. As seen from Ex.X.5, on

25.04.1995 P.W.1 forwarded a letter to the Deputy Electrical

Inspector that he complied with certain requirements, but, with

a whisper that Generator was not arranged. Then, the Deputy

Electrical Inspector sent a letter in Ex.X.6 on 01.05.1995 to

comply with two items before inspection. The copy was also

marked to the District Collector. Apart from this, on 03.06.1995

P.W.1 sent a letter to the Deputy Electrical Inspector that he is

enclosing the bill pertaining to cinema phones issued by the

Culcutta Company, dated 31.09.1995 and requested the

Inspector to inspect the theatre as per Ex.X.7.

19) There is no dispute that A.O.2 made an inspection

physically on 13.06.1995 and pointed out as many as 22

objections and furnished copy to P.W.1. As seen from the

evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5, they admitted that fire

extinguish service is a first condition to grant D-form licence. At

this juncture, it is pertinent to refer here Rule-14 and Sub-rule 6

of Rule 8 of Cinema (Regulation).

Rule 14: Certificate: (1)(o)

"The electrical inspector of the officer deputed by him shall issue an electrical and fire certificate in form-D to the effect that the enclosure, the cinematograph apparatus and plant, the electrical installation and fire extinguishing appliances and equipments are suitable and in order and fulfill the

requirements of those rules; and that the provisions of these rules relating to precautions against the outbreak and spread of fire have been complied with and also a certificate as to the life of the electrical equipment and fitting use threat."

Sub-rule 6 of Rule 8:

"A portable fire extinguisher of the chemical combination pressure type shall be tested by hydraulic pressure every 27 months, by the Electrical Inspector of by an engineering firm or mill authorized in that behalf (by the Electrical Inspector or an officer authorized by him competent to issue D-form certificate) to check whether it can withstand for one minute a pressure of 17.57 Kg/Sq.Cm. and a certificate of such test which shall be valid for 27 months shall be submitted to the Electrical Inspector."

20) So, basically, the D-form certificate can only be

issued after testing a fire extinguisher by the Electrical

Inspector.

21) As seen from Ex.X9, one Sainadh Engineering

Company was authorized to issue fire extinguisher certificate

after testing. Looking into the contents of Ex.X.9 and the letter

enclosed therewith, it was issued on 01.07.1995, as if P.W.1

produced the fire extinguisher certificate on 01.07.1995. So, all

these go to show that though the file was with A.O.1 and A.O.2,

but, in fact, for non-production of the fire extinguisher

certificate, there was no possibility or probability to A.O.1 and

A.O.2 to take steps to issue D-form certificate from their

department. The prosecution did not adduce any evidence as on

03.06.1995, 13.06.1995 and 19.06.1995, the necessary things

which were supposed to be complied by P.W.1 were complied.

22) Apart from the above, Ex.X.10 discloses certain facts

subsequent to the trap. It goes to show that the Deputy

Electrical Inspector, Nellore, inspected the theatre of P.W.1 on

23.08.1995 and pointed out 22 defects to be complied by P.W.1

and asked P.W.1 to comply the same. These 22 defects were

same as that of the defects that were pointed out by A.O.2 in

the inspection made on 13.06.1995. Apart from this, P.W.1

addressed a letter under Ex.X.11 subsequent to the trap

regarding the compliance of the defects that he attended 12

defects and made a request to extend time to comply the rest of

the defects. So, subsequent to the trap also P.W.1 did not

discharge his obligation in complying the defects.

23) From analysation of the above facts and from the

admitted correspondence, it is quietly evident that though the

issue was pending with A.O.1 and A.O.2, but, in fact, they could

not take any steps whatsoever regarding non-compliance of the

defects by P.W.1. So, virtually, there was no possibility or

probability on their part to take appropriate steps to issue D-

form licence to P.W.1. Apart from that, it was evident that

A.O.1 and A.O.2 used to make correspondence with P.W.1 from

time to time requesting for rectification of certain things. It was

quietly evident even from Ex.X.12 at page No.47. It contains the

report of R.D.O. that he inspected the premises on 23.07.1995

and there were some defects regarding sitting arrangements,

etc. To the said defects, P.W.1 gave an undertaking on

16.09.1995 that he rectified the seating arrangements etc. He

further sought for time by giving undertaking to comply the

defects and ultimately, after the trap, R.D.O., recommended for

D-form licence. It is quietly evident from the District Collector

report, dated 25.09.1995 which contains at paga No.99 of the

said file. All these go to show that absolutely, as on the date of

alleged demand for bribe and as on the date of trap, A.O.1 and

A.O.2 were not capable of recommending for issuance of D-form

licence. The prosecution, in my considered view, failed to prove

the same.

24) Now, coming to the crucial allegations that A.O.1

and A.O.2 demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- and later, reduced to

Rs.12,000/- on different dates, absolutely, P.W.1 did not

support the case of the prosecution. He did not state this

version as contained in his report. It is altogether different

aspect that the learned Special Judge by recording cogent

reasons gave finding that P.W.1 purposefully gave false

evidence and recommended for prosecution for perjury. Now,

this Court has to see as to whether there was legally admissible

evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the alleged

demands of bribe made by A.O.1 and A.O.2 on P.W.1 on

03.06.1995, 13.06.1995 and 19.06.1995.

25) Now, coming to the testimony of P.W.1, he did not

support the case of the prosecution. His evidence is such that

somebody asked him to approach ACB to get the things done.

He deposed that neither A.O.1 nor A.O.2 demanded for bribe

from him in connection with the licence in this case. On 17 th he

went to ACB office, Nellore. He explained to them that there

was a delay in issuing licence. The D.S.P., noted down his

narration and he put his signature. Contents of report were not

read over to him. Ex.P.1 is his signature. The prosecution got

declared him as hostile and during the cross examination, he

denied the case of the prosecution. So, with regard to the so-

called demands made by A.O.1 and A.O.2 prior to the date of

trap, P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution.

26) Coming to his evidence with regard to the date of

trap, he spoken to the fact that during post-trap proceedings, he

went to the office of A.O.1 and strait away went to A.O.2. By

then, A.O.2 was hurriedly verifying the files and told him that he

is busy with his office work and it is not possible for him and

while saying so, he went into the room of A.O.1. He further

deposed that he was sitting by the side of table of A.O.2. He sat

like that for one hour. Afterwards, ACB constable came to him

and asked him as to why there was a delay. Then, he (P.W.1)

kept the money in the drawer table of A.O.2. After that, he

requested A.O.2 to help him. A.O.2 asked him to come at 4-00

P.M. Then, he (P.W.1) came out and informed that he kept the

money in the drawer table of A.O.2. Then, pre-arranged signal

was given, as relayed. So, as seen from the above, according to

the evidence of P.W.1, at the instance of constable, he kept the

money in the table drawer of A.O.2.

27) Now, as evident from the evidence of P.W.2, the

mediator and P.W.4, the Trap Laying Officer, after relaying pre-

arranged signal, they proceeded towards A.O.2 office and A.O.1

and A.O.2 came out and started to proceed on Scooter and on

identification, they detained them and interrogated them. When

both hand fingers of A.O.2 were tested chemically, it yielded

positive result. When both hands fingers of A.O.1 tested

chemically, it yielded negative result.

28) Now, as evident from the version of A.O.1, he

denied that he received any bribe. There is no dispute that the

amount was recovered from the left side table drawer of A.O.2.

There was a spontaneous explanation by A.O.2 in the post-trap

proceedings when the DSP asked him as to why his both hands

yielded positive results that P.W.1 came to him and enquired

about his file and by then he was very busy and he went into

the chamber of A.O.1 and while going into chamber of A.O.1, his

left side table drawer was in open condition and later he came

out and found that the left side table drawer papers were in pell-

mell condition and he set right the same and after that P.W.1

went away. So, according to A.O.2, he set right the papers

which were in pell-mell condition in his left side table drawer.

So, the defence of A.O.2 is that as he set right the table drawer,

he might have contacted into the phenolphthalein substance.

There is no doubt about the recovery of amount from the left

side table drawer of A.O.2. A.O.2 even in the post-trap

proceedings put forth a probable version.

29) Now, coming to the version of P.W.1 during post-

trap proceedings, he was alleged to have made a statement that

he met A.O.2 to get the official favour and A.O.2 asked him

whether he brought the tainted amount and when he was about

handed over the tainted amount to A.O.2, A.O.2 asked him as to

whether the amount was kept in cover and further asked him by

opening his left side table drawer to keep the amount in the

table drawer, as such, at the instance of A.O.2, he kept the

amount in the left side table drawer. There is no dispute that

A.O.2 did not deal with the tainted amount even according to

P.W.1, but, according to him, A.O.2 asked him to keep the

amount in the left side table drawer. The version of A.O.2 is

that when he went into the chamber of A.O.1 and returned back,

he found the left side table drawer contains in pell-mell

condition, as such, he adjusted the same.

30) It is to be noticed that the very act of P.W.1 in

keeping the amount in the left side table drawer at the alleged

instance of A.O.2 is nothing but improbable without handing

over the amount to A.O.2 in post-trap proceedings. Even

otherwise, the said version was not adhered by P.W.1 during the

course of trial. According to him, in the absence of A.O.2 and

when A.O.2 went into the chamber of A.O.1 and at the instance

of ACB constable, he kept the amount in the left side table

drawer of A.O.2. So, the defence of A.O.2 has support from the

post-trap proceedings. There is no dispute that A.O.1 did not

deal with the tainted amount. The amount was not recovered

even from the physical possession of A.O.2. It is not a case

where A.O.2 physically dealt with tainted amount. So, the mere

recovery of amount from the table drawer of A.O.2 would not

mean that A.O.2 dealt with tainted amount.

31) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the

considered view that the solitary circumstance that the amount

was recovered from the table drawer of A.O.2 is not at all

sufficient to prove the allegations of demand. On the other

hand, P.W.1 destroyed the case of the prosecution totally by

deviating from Ex.P.1 and further deviating from the contents of

post-trap proceedings, for which he was ordered to be

prosecuted on the allegations of perjury.

32) In the light of the above reasons, this Court is of the

considered view that the prosecution before the Court below

miserably failed to prove that A.O.1 and A.O.2 demanded P.W.1

and accepted the bribe amount. The prosecution further failed

to prove that A.O.1 and A.O.2 obtained undue advantage.

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

Nellore, dealt with the evidence on record in proper manner and

recorded valid reasons in disbelieving the case of the

prosecution and rightly extended an order of acquittal in favour

of A.O.1 and A.O.2. Looking into the conduct of P.W.1, the

learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, directed the

prosecution of P.W.1 for perjury in the light of the peculiar facts

and circumstances.

34) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the

considered view that basing on the evidence available on record,

no other conclusions can be possible than arrived at by the

learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore, as such, I

see no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.

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

36) The Registry is directed to send the copy of the

judgment to the Court below along with original records and

further the copy of the judgment to the concerned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, where the perjury case against P.W.1

is pending, on or before 24.02.2023.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 20.02.2023.

PGR

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

CRL. APPEAL NO.1336 OF 2007

Date: 20.02.2023

PGR