Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri. Panchakarla Satyanarayana vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By ... on 21 March, 2023
Bench: A V Babu
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.36 OF 2007
Between:
Panchakarla Satyanarayana,
S/o.Veera Raghavaiah,
Aged 56 years, Addl. Asst. Engineer,
(Operations), A.P. Transco,
APEPDCL, Sub-Station 33/11 KV,
T. Narsapuram, W.G. District. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of AP,
Re. by the Inspector of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Eluru Range, Eluru. .... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 21.03.2023
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
2. 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.36/2007
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.36 OF 2007
% 21.03.2023
# Between:
Panchakarla Satyanarayana,
S/o.Veera Raghavaiah,
Aged 56 years, Addl. Asst. Engineer,
(Operations), A.P. Transco,
APEPDCL, Sub-Station 33/11 KV,
T. Narsapuram, W.G. District. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of AP,
Re. by the Inspector of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau,
Eluru Range, Eluru. .... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N.V. Sumanth
Learned Counsel.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy,
Learned Standing Counsel-
cum-Special Public Prosecutor
for ACB.
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2022) 4 SCC 574
2. (2017) 8 SCC 136
3. (2015) 10 SCC 152
4. (2009) 6 SCC 587
5. 1996 (2) APLJ 349 (HC)
6. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724
This Court made the following:
3
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.36 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(5) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‗the Cr.P.C'), is filed by the
appellant, who was the Accused Officer (AO) in Calendar Case
No.9 of 2001, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and
ACB Cases, Vijayawada (for short, ‗the learned Special Judge'),
challenging the judgment, dated 19.12.2006, where under the
learned Special Judge found the AO guilty of the charges under
Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‗the PC Act'), accordingly
convicted him under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning
him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three
months for the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and further
sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 13(2)
R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act and that both the substantive
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
sentences shall run concurrently. MO.3 cash of Rs.4,000/- shall
be returned to PW.1 and MOs.1, 2, 4 and 5 shall be destroyed
after appeal time is over.
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, ACB, Eluru
Range, Eluru, West Godavari District filed charge sheet pertaining
to Crime No.16/ACB-RCT-EWG/99 of ACB, Eluru Range, Eluru
alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section
13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per
the charge sheet is as follows:
Sri P. Satyanarayana, S/o. Veera Raghavaiah, AO, worked
as Additional Assistant Engineer (Operations), A.P. TRANSCO,
Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited
(APEPDCL), Sub-Station 33/11 KV, T. Narsapuram, West Godavari
District. He is a ‗Public Servant' within the meaning of Section 2(c)
of the PC Act.
Sri Thota Peddi Raju (LW.1), S/o. Venkanna, resident of
Tedlam Village, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District is
working as Head Master in M.P. Elementary School, Kethavaram,
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
West Godavari District. Son of LW.1 is having agricultural lands at
Sriramavaram, H/o. Tedlam village and he dug a bore well in the
lands and paid Rs.50,620/- during 1996 through Andhra Bank
Demand Draft, as per the estimation made by AO for electrical
service connection to the bore well dug in the fields of his son.
LW.1 roamed around the office of AO for the above electrical
service connection. He was informed that it would be given on
priority basis. Subsequently, LW.1, on coming to know that
agricultural service connection was sanctioned to his son, on
priority basis, met the AO at his residence in the morning on
20.10.1999 and asked the AO about the service connection. AO
informed him that electrical service connection was sanctioned to
his son on priority basis and that the connected material has to be
drawn and demanded Rs.5,000/- to give service connection to the
bore well of his son. When LW.1 pleaded his inability to pay the
demanded bribe amount, the AO reduced it to Rs.4,000/-. When
LW.1 intimated to AO that he had no money and informed his
financial constraints, AO asked him to pay the same after
receiving his (PW.1's) salary. Therefore, LW.1 reluctantly agreed to
pay the bribe to AO. He went to the office of Deputy
Superintendent of Police (DSP), ACB on 30.10.1999 and presented
a report to the DSP with a request to take action. The ACB officials
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
registered his report as a case in the aforesaid Crime and took up
investigation.
On 02.11.1999 at 06:15 a.m. AO was trapped by LW.8, DSP,
ACB, when he further demanded and accepted the bribe of
Rs.4,000/- at his residence from LW.1 for doing official favour in
giving service connection to the bore well of his son. On seeing the
trap party, AO tried to run away from his house with the tainted
amount. Trap party caught him and recovered the tainted amount
from his right hand. Serial numbers of the tainted amount were
found tallied with the serial numbers of the currency notes
produced by LW.1 during the pre trap. The chemical test
conducted to the right hand fingers of AO yielded positive result
and there was no change relating to the left hand fingers of AO.
The DSP, ACB seized the tainted amount and relevant records
from the office of AO. He arrested the AO and released him on bail
on self surety. The act of the AO would attract the offences
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act.
The A.P. TRANSCO being the competent authority to remove
the AO, after examination of the material sent by the ACB and on
application of mind, accorded sanction to prosecute the AO for the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act. Hence, the charge sheet.
4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under
the above provisions of law and issued process against the AO.
After appearance of AO before the Court below, copies of
documents were furnished to him. Later, the learned Special
Judge, by following the procedure relating to warrant cases triable
by the Magistrate, framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2)
R/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the AO, read over and
explained the same to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the guilt of the AO, the prosecution before the
Court below, examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-14
and further MOs.1 to 5 were marked.
6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, AO was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by
the prosecution, for which he denied the same and got filed a
written statement and the substance of the case of AO in terms of
his defence is as follows:
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
7. AO found an illegal service connection drawn by the son of
PW.1 directly from the pole without any valid service connection.
Hence, he made the son of PW.1 to pay penalty of Rs.5,000/- on
29.10.1996 along with other charges as such the said service
connection was regularized. Accordingly, SC No.210 was allotted.
Hence, PW.1 and his son bore grudge against him and implicated
in the false case. Before his joining at Narsapuram on 01.07.1995,
PW.2 applied for service connection of 7.5 HP in the year 1992. It
was in seriatim by the time he took charge as Additional Assistant
Engineer at T.Narsapuram. He prepared the estimation on
08.02.1996 and after its sanction, PW.2 paid service connection
charges by way of DD. Subsequently, ban was imposed by the
Government. After lifting of the ban, he has drawn the material
regarding service connection of PW.2 and deputed his Assistant
Lineman - J.V.Ramana Murthy to verify physically as to where the
material has to be transported and in turn he reported that
already PW.2 was granted SC No.210 for the bore well already
existing. Hence, he directed J.V.Ramana Murthy to call PW.1 and
his son. They came on 05.07.1999. He asked them whether they
are ready to take service connection or surrender the material
which was already drawn for which they requested him to allot
service connection and material sanctioned to the well of wife of
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
PW.1, which is at a distance of half K.M. away from the land of
PW.2. Then, he informed them that it is not possible as it is
against the Rules. They picked up quarrel and made a galata in
his office and left the office angrily. PW.2 was having only one bore
well for which SC No.210 was in existence. He did not have any
other bore well for taking fresh connection. That is why his request
was refused by AO. On the date of trap, while he was in his house,
PW.1 called him and when he questioned about his visit, PW.1
requested him to give electrical service connection in the name of
his son in the land of his wife and suddenly picked up a bundle of
currency notes and forcibly kept it in his right hand and ran away
in spite of his calling. Then, he chased him up to the gate then he
was intercepted by 7 or 8 officials to whom he spontaneously
represented that he never demanded or accepted any bribe. Then,
the DSP dictated some proceedings to one of the officials.
8. In furtherance of the defence, AO examined DWs.1 to 5. The
documentary evidence that was let in by the AO before the Court
below was Exs.X-1 to X.10.
9. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
the AO guilty of the charges and accordingly convicted and
sentenced him as above.
10. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful AO in C.C. No.9
of 2001, filed the present Criminal Appeal.
11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise
for consideration are as follows:
1) Whether the prosecution before the Court below has
proved that AO is a public servant within the meaning
of Section 2(c) of the PC Act and whether the
prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute him
for the charges framed?
2) Whether the prosecution before the Court below has
proved that the process relating to electrical service
connection to the lands of PW.2 was pending with AO
on 20.10.1999 i.e., the alleged date of demand of bribe
and on the date of trap i.e., on 02.11.1999?
3) Whether the prosecution before the Court below has
proved that AO demanded PW.1 for bribe of Rs.5,000/-
and later reduced it to Rs.4,000/- and in pursuance of
the said demand on 20.10.1999 and 02.11.1999
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
accepted the bribe amount from PW.1 to do official
favour?
4) Whether the prosecution has proved before the
Court below charges framed against the AO beyond
reasonable doubt and whether there are any grounds
to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special
Judge?
12. Sri N.V. Sumanth, learned counsel for the appellant, would
contend first, briefly, narrating the case of the prosecution to the
effect that the prosecution alleged that the son of PW.1 in the year
1992 made an application with Additional Assistant Engineer, AP
TRANSCO, seeking to give electricity service connection to the bore
well and paid necessary charges to a tune of Rs.50,620/- in 1996
and as there was a ban during the relevant period, electricity
service connection to the bore well sanction order was made in the
year 1999 and that according to the case of PW.1, when he met
the AO on 20.10.1999 he demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- and later
reduced it to Rs.4,000/- and asked him to pay the demanded
bribe immediately after receipt of the salary and that on
02.11.1999 trap was laid and that trap was said to be successful.
He would strenuously contend that as on 20.10.1999 and on
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
02.11.1999 there was no possibility for the AO to give electricity
service connection, as sought for by PW.1 in the lands of PW.2, for
the reason that already PW.2 was having unauthorized service
connection to the well which was later regularized with SC No.210.
So, when there was only one bore well located in the fields of
PW.2, where was the question of giving electricity connection,
though the sanction order was made. He further contended that
AO got these facts verified and in July, 1999 summoned PWs.1
and 2 and asked to show the bore well for giving electricity service
connection for which they told AO that the wife of PW.1 has lands
far away from the land of PW.2 and they insisted AO to provide
service connection in the lands of wife of PW.1, for which AO
informed them that it is not permissible as such they picked up
galata at the office of AO and went away. So, they developed
grudge against AO and falsely implicated him. He would further
submit that it was elicited from the mouth of PWs.1 and 2 that
already there was a bore well with SC No.210 in the lands of PW.2
which was on account of regularization of the said electricity
connection when PW.2 unauthorizedly tapped the electricity from
the overhead lines, AO was responsible for imposition of penalty of
Rs.5,000/- way back in the year 1996. So, that was another
reason for PWs.1 and 2 to bore grudge against AO.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
13. He would contend that to probabilize the defence theory, AO
examined DWs.1 to 5 and, in support of his contentions, got
marked Exs.X-1 to X-10. AO filed a detailed written statement
before the Court below and let in evidence to probabilize his
contentions but the learned Special Judge erroneously held that
official favour in respect of the work of PW.2 was pending with AO
as on the date of trap. In support of his contentions, he relied
upon Ex.X-6 and annexures thereof. The voluminous oral and
documentary evidence on record produced by the AO is in tune
with his defence that as already PW.2 had service connection, AO
was not able to comply his request contrary to the Rules.
14. He would further contend that in respect of the alleged
demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- and subsequent reduction of the
same on 20.10.1999 the evidence of PW.1 remained
uncorroborated. To prove that PW.1 was of such a litigant
character, necessary cross-examination was done of PW.1 and he
admitted certain lapses in discharge of his official duties and
denied something and ultimately AO was able to prove before the
Court below that PW.1 was also facing enquiry with regard to
some serious administrative lapses. The ACB officials before laying
the trap did not conduct preliminary enquiry properly. If they have
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
conducted preliminary enquiry properly, they would not have laid
the trap against AO. So, they did not ascertain the antecedents of
PW.1 properly. AO, in fact, was carrying good reputation in the
eyes of public, as admitted by PWs.1 and 2 during the course of
cross-examination. After trap hundreds of villagers came to the
rescue of AO stating that PW.1 falsely implicated AO with
deliberate motive. As PW.1 was of a litigant character and
developed grudge against AO, it is un-safe to believe the evidence
of PW.1 with regard to the allegations that AO demanded him on
20.10.1999 to pay the bribe of Rs.5,000/- and later reduced it to
Rs.4,000/-. Even PW.3 - mediator was a stock witness to ACB,
who admitted in half dozen cases he acted as mediator in the trap
cases as such his evidence also does not carry any weight.
15. With regard to the allegations that on 02.11.1999, during
the post trap proceedings, AO demanded PW.1 to pay the bribe
amount and accepted the same, he would contend that, as
admitted by PW.1 in cross-examination, during the post trap
proceedings, when the DSP confronted with him as to what
happened during the post trap, when he went into the house of
AO, PW.1 replied that he called the AO and then AO came out and
he (PW.1) asked about his electricity service connection and
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
handed over an amount of Rs.4,000/- to AO and then AO took the
amount with his right hand. In the post trap, PW.1 did not
disclose that on further demand, he paid the amount of
Rs.4,000/- to AO. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the appellant invited the attention of this Court to Ex.P-7, copy of
the post trap proceedings available in the paper book at Page
No.72, and further invited the attention of this Court to the
relevant version of AO at Page No.75 of the paper book. So, it goes
to show that PW.1 called AO outside and requested for service
connection and gave Rs.4,000/- as bribe to AO without any
further demand. The case of the prosecution is specific that the
Trap Laying Officer during the pre trap proceedings instructed
PW.1 to pay the proposed bribe of Rs.4,000/- to AO only on
further demand. So, when PW.1 acted contrary to the instructions,
Trap Laying Officer did not bother to question PW.1 as to why he
could pay the bribe of Rs.4,000/- to AO without any demand. The
defence theory is that PW.1 called the AO to verandah, asked
about his service connection and kept the wade of currency notes
in the right hand of AO and went out and within no time, the ACB
officials came there. The defence theory is also that the true
version of AO was not recorded in Ex.P-7. So, even according to
the evidence of PW.1 in the post trap, there was no demand on
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
02.11.1999. However, without any basis from the record, PW.1
deposed as if during the post trap on 02.11.1999, AO demanded
him to pay bribe of Rs.4,000/-. So, it is an omission which is not
born out by Ex.P-7 post trap proceedings. So, when Ex.P-7 did not
disclose the demand, which is a sine-quo-non to establish the guilt
under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the
evidence of PW.1 without any basis is liable to be disbelieved. If
the Court disbelieves the evidence of PW.1 in this regard, the
defence theory is quite probable. It is un-safe to believe the
evidence of PW.1 with regard to the demand, dated 20.10.1999 on
account of the fact that he and PW.2 developed grudge against AO.
PW.3, the mediator, was not a witness to the conversation between
PW.1 and AO. So, AO had to probabilize the defence theory by
utilizing the opportunity for cross-examination and he was
successful in probabilizing his contentions. Learned Special Judge
erroneously believed the case of the prosecution. The prosecution
miserably failed to establish the essential ingredients of Sections 7
and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The AO was able to
probabilize his defence theory by cross-examining the prosecution
witnesses and by letting evidence. The evidence on record entitles
the AO to claim benefit of doubt as such Appeal is liable to be
allowed exonerating the AO of the charges.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
16. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his
contentions relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana1, Mukhtiar Singh v.
State of Punjab2, P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District
Inspector of Police, State of A.P. and another3 and A. Subair
v. State of Kerala4.
17. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-
Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State,
would canvass the contentions in accordance with the allegations
of the prosecution. She would strenuously contend that there is no
dispute about the application made by PW.2 under the cover of
Ex.P-2 way back in the year 1992 seeking 7.5 HP single phase
service connection to the bore well. He also addressed Ex.P-3
letter. The prosecution did not dispute that on account of the ban
imposed in the years 1997-98, the Electricity Department could
not process the request of PW.2. There is no dispute that in the
year 1999, the electricity service connection was sanctioned to
PW.2. There is also no dispute that in furtherance of the request of
the officials of AP TRANSCO, PW.2 made payment of more than
1 (2022) 4 SCC 574
2 (2017) 8 SCC 136
3 (2015) 10 SCC 152
4 (2009) 6 SCC 587
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
Rs.50,000/- towards charges under different counts. In fact, the
prosecution is not disputing the fact that subsequent to 1996,
after payment of necessary charges, PW.2 was alleged to have got
service connection to the bore well in his lands unauthorizedly for
which he was imposed with fine of Rs.5,000/- by the Electricity
officials and further service connection, which he got
unauthorizedly, was regularized with SC No.210. However, PW.2
sought for 7.5 HP service connection with single phase. In fact,
lump sum amount was collected from PW.2 towards the material
involved in the issue. When the electricity service connection was
regularized, as regards the un-authorized thing done by PW.2,
only Rs.5,000/- was collected towards above and nothing was
collected towards purchase of the material etc. The trial Court
disbelieved the defence theory that PWs.1 and 2 insisted AO to
provide the new service connection to the lands of the wife of
PW.1, which is far away from the lands of PW.2. The trial Court
with cogent reasons disbelieved the evidence let in by the AO. She
would further submit that when PW.2 was sanctioned service
connection in and around July, 1999 and when PW.2 had already
service connection, AO was not supposed to keep quiet. In fact,
there was no problem for the AO to provide service connection to
PW.2 as requested i.e., 7.5 HP service connection with single
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
phase. If he was not capable of doing that thing, he ought to have
addressed a letter to his superiors seeking instructions. Some how
or the other the work relating to PW.2 was rightly held to be
pending with AO as held by the trial Court with cogent reasons.
She invited the attention of this Court to the documents under
Ex.P-11 relating to estimates and work order relating to PW.2 and
further Ex.P-14 to contend that to grant service connection to
PW.2 in pursuance of request made in Exs.P-2 and P-3 and
subsequent payments, certain things were to be complied
regarding erection of poles etc. So, the AO did not attend all these
things. So, the contention of AO that no official work was pending
cannot stand to any reason.
18. She would further argue that when the AO failed to
probabilize his defence theory that PWs.1 and 2 developed grudge
against him, the Court below rightly believed the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the fact that AO failed to prove the ill-
motive against PWs.1 and 2. Merely because PW.1 indulged in
certain lapses, AO cannot seek an order of acquittal of prosecuting
PW.1 as a litigant person. The Court below rightly upheld the
contentions raised by the AO with appropriate reasons. PW.1
categorically deposed about the demand made in the post trap.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
The mediator and the Investigating Officer were not cross-
examined with regard to the so called improvements made by
PW.1 during the course of chief-examination. She would further
submit that the Court may look into the original post trap
proceedings to arrive at a just conclusion of the case, as she had
only translated re-typed version. She would further contend that
the contention of the AO that PW.1 thrust the amount into his
right hand and went out cannot stand to any reason. The defence
of the AO suffers with improbabilities. The learned Special Judge
rightly disbelieved the case of the AO as such the Criminal Appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of
reply, would contend that PW.1 did not disclose in Ex.P-1 the fact
that previously PW.2 obtained electricity to his bore well
unauthorizedly, imposed with fine of Rs.5,000/- and later it was
regularized. If these things were disclosed in Ex.P-1, the Trap
Laying Officer would have been hesitant to lay the trap against AO.
When none were present in the house of AO at the time of trap, AO
had to probabilize his defence theory basing on the preponderance
of probabilities only. When Ex.P-7 did not disclose that he paid the
amount on further demand and when there was a version from AO
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
in the post trap that PW.1 kept wade of currency notes in his right
hand without any demand, the defence theory is quite probable as
such the contentions raised by learned Special Public Prosecutor
deserves no merits as such the Appeal is liable to be allowed.
20. POINT No.1: The prosecution alleged that as on the date of
trap and prior to the trap, AO was working as Additional Assistant
Engineer (Operations), AP TRANSCO, APEPDCL, Sub-Station
33/11 KV, T. Narsapuram. The above said fact was never in
dispute. With regard to the sanction under Section 19 of the PC
Act, the case of the prosecution is that the ACB officials obtained
Ex.P-9 - sanction order issued by the Managing Director,
APEPDCL, to prosecute the AO. In support of the said contention,
prosecution examined PW.4.
21. Coming to the evidence of PW.4, as on the date of evidence,
he was working as Personal Officer, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam.
He was directed by his office to give evidence. Ex.X-1 is the
attested copy of authorization letter of Chief General Manager,
HRD. He knows Y. Gopala Krishna Murthy, Managing Director,
under whom he worked during the year 2000-2001. He knows his
hand writing. Their office received a file relating to prosecution
sanction order against AO from AP TRANSCO and after
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
considering the material, the then Personal Officer put up office
note, dated 17.03.2001. File was moved to Assistant Secretary,
Deputy Secretary, Chief Engineer, HRD and MD, APEPDCL, the
authority after considering the material i.e., FIR, Mediators report,
statements of the witnesses and on application of mind issued
prosecution sanction order against AO. Y. Gopala Krishna Murthy,
Managing Director, APEPDCL, issued the prosecution sanction
order. Ex.P-9 is the proceedings of the Managing Director. During
cross-examination, he deposed that their office received specimen
sanction order along with the covering letter. He denied that
without application of mind, in a casual manner, Ex.P-9 was
issued.
22. The learned Special Judge regarding this point gave finding
that PW.4 was conversant with the hand writing and signature of
Y. Gopala Krishna Murthy, under whom he worked during the
relevant period. Learned Special Judge relying upon the decision
of this Court in CBI/SPE, Hyderabad v. P. Muthuraman5, upheld
the contention of the prosecution. Though a contention is raised in
the grounds of Appeal herein that there was mechanical issuance
of sanction order but, during the course of hearing of the Appeal,
5 1996 (2) APLJ 349 (HC)
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
this aspect is not at all agitated. However, in view of sanction
under Section 19 of the PC Act and as the trial Court upheld the
contention of the prosecution and as the Appeal is under
challenge, it is for this appellate Court to look into the said aspect.
As seen from Ex.P-9, it shows that the Managing Director,
EPCPDCL, Visakhapatnam looked into the allegations against the
AO right from the report of PW.1 and on application of mind
decided to issue sanction. Para No.6 of Ex.P-9 quietly shows that
the sanctioning authority examined FIR, Mediators report,
statements of the witnesses and applied its mind and issued the
sanction order. Merely because there was a draft sanction order
forwarded to the authority, it does not mean that without
application of mind Ex.P-9 was issued. Having regard to the over
all facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that the AO was a public servant within the meaning of Section
2(c) of the PC Act as on the date of trap and there was a valid
sanction under Ex.P-9 issued by the sanctioning authority to
prosecute the AO for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.
13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
23. POINT Nos.2 to 4: The case of the prosecution is that on
20.10.1999 and 02.11.1999 AO demanded bribe from PW.1
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
regarding the electricity service connection to be given to the son
of PW.2 in his lands i.e., to do official favour and accordingly
accepted the bribe amount.
24. Firstly, I proceed to deal with the case of the prosecution as
regards the pendency of the official favour as alleged by the
prosecution as on 20.10.1999 i.e., the first date of demand of bribe
and 02.11.1999, the date of trap. Firstly, I would like to refer here
the substance of the evidence available on record adduced by the
prosecution to prove this aspect.
25. PW.1 deposed that his son has agricultural lands at
Sreeramavaram, H/o.Tedlam Village and he dug a bore well in his
lands. In the year 1992, his son submitted an application to
Additional Assistant Engineer, AP TRANSCO, T.Narsapuram for
electrical service connection to the bore well. As per the estimation
of TRANSCO, his son paid Rs.50,620/- in March, 1996 by way of
demand draft. He and his son used to roam around the office of
Assistant Electrical Engineer, T. Narsapuram for allotment of
service connection. On one occasion, the AEE i.e., the AO told him
that electrical service connection will be given to his son on
priority basis. In October, 1999 he came to know that the
agricultural service connection was sanctioned to his son on
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
priority. On 20.10.1999 during morning he went to the residence
of AO and asked about their agricultural service connection. AO
intimated to him that it was sanctioned and he demanded a sum
of Rs.5,000/- bribe in order to draw the connected material. He
was informed that unless the bribe amount is paid, his son would
not get the agricultural service connection to the bore well. He
pleaded his inability to pay the demanded bribe and on his
request, AO reduced the amount to Rs.4,000/-. When he informed
to AO that he was not having any money and he further informed
his financial position, AO asked him that as he is a salaried
person after receiving the salary to pay the demanded bribe
amount on 02.11.1999 at his house. He reluctantly agreed to pay
the demanded bribe amount as there was no option. On
30.10.1999 he visited the office of DSP, ACB and presented a
report. Ex.P-1 is his written report, dated 30.10.1999 with his own
hand writing. He was asked by DSP, ACB to come to his office on
02.11.1999 at 02:00 a.m. along with the proposed bribe amount of
Rs.4,000/-. He further testified that he went to the office of DSP
and spoken about the facts relating to pre trap. His evidence in
this regard will be discussed at appropriate places. Insofar as the
post trap proceedings is concerned, the evidence of him on
material aspects is that during the post trap, he went to the house
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
of AO at about 06:15 a.m. He called the AO, who was in the house.
Then, he came out into verandah. He enquired AO about the
pending agricultural service connection. AO asked him as to
whether he brought the demanded bribe. He gave a positive reply.
He took the amount from his pocket and gave it to AO and AO
received the amount with his right hand. Then, he came out and
gave the pre arranged signal to the trap party. The trap party
members came to the gate of the house of AO, AO attempted to
escape and they caught hold of him. He showed the AO to DSP.
DSP instructed him to wait outside. After one or two hours, he was
called by DSP. On enquiry, he told to DSP as to what was
happened.
26. PW.2, son of PW.1, deposed that he dug bore well in his land
at Sreeramapuram. During the year 1992, he applied for
agricultural service connection to his bore well. Ex.P-2 is his
application dated nil submitted in duplicate. During the year
1996, he submitted his representation requesting him to prepare
estimation. Ex.P-3 is the letter, dated 05.02.1996. After receiving
intimation, they paid Rs.50,620/- during the year 1996 by way of
demand draft. As per the estimation, he never approached the
office of AO after Ex.P-3. He was told by his father during March
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
or April, 1999 that they were sanctioned electrical service
connection. On 20.10.1999, he came to know through his father
that AO demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- and at his request it was
reduced to Rs.4,000/- and that it should be given on 02.11.1999.
He came to know that AO was trapped by ACB officials on
02.11.1999.
27. PW.3 is the mediator to the pre trap and post trap
proceedings and his evidence with regard to the post trap is that
in pursuance of the instructions in the pre trap proceedings, PW.1
proceeded to the house of AO and at 06:15 a.m., they received pre-
arranged signal and they rushed to the house of AO and DSP
asked PW.1 to wait outside and while entering into the house of
AO, they found a wad of currency notes in the right hand of AO
and AO due to confusion was about to move. The Inspector, ACB
caught hold of the hand wrist of AO and the chemical test
conducted to the right hand fingers of AO yielded positive result.
The version of PW.1 as well as the AO was reduced into writing to
the post trap proceedings. They served copy of Ex.P-7, post trap
proceedings, on the AO.
28. The evidence of PW.5, Inspector of Police, ACB relating to his
part of investigation regarding pendency of the official favour is
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
that during the course of investigation, on the date of trap, he
proceeded to the office of AO, as per the instructions of DSP and
seized the file containing Exs.P-2 and P-3 and Ex.P-11 is the file
relating to estimates work order issued in favour of PW.2. Ex.P-12
is the DD Register in the office of AO. Ex.P-13 is the requisition
book for issuance of material and Ex.P-14 is the Annexure No.III
showing the details of ORC paid agricultural loads.
29. The evidence of PW.6, Trap Laying Officer, regarding the
post trap proceeding is similar as that of the evidence of the
mediator i.e., PW.3.
30. Apart from the above evidence let in by the prosecution, the
AO also brought in some documents to disprove the allegations
against him and during the course of cross-examination of PW.1,
Exs.X-2 to X-5 are marked. Exs.X-2 to X-5 are demand draft
vouchers for Rs.135/-, Rs.60, Rs.330/- and Rs.5,015/-
respectively for obtaining DDs in favour of Divisional Electrical
Engineer (Operations), Eluru, dated 29.10.1996, which were
scribed by him in his hand writing on Andhra Bank DD
applications. These documents were marked during the further
cross-examination of PW.1. Needless to point out here, Ex.X-1 was
marked during the course of evidence of PW.4, which was no other
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
than the authorization to him to give evidence. Apart from Ex.X-2
to X-5, the AO, during the course of examination of DW.1 got
marked Ex.X-6, the attested xerox copy of the report of ADE - S.
Venkateswara Rao, dated 23.11.1999 and Ex.X-6 is enclosed with
the report of VAO. He further got marked Ex.X-7, attesting xerox
copy of the proceedings issued by the Chief Engineer, Vijayawada
relating to imposition of ban on releasing of agricultural service
connection during the relevant period. The learned Special Public
Prosecutor got marked Ex.X-8, his covering letter, dated
20.06.2006, during cross-examination of DW.1 enclosed with
Exs.X-6 and X-7 bearing his signature. He further got marked
Ex.X-9, the letter dated nil, addressed by him to the Court seeking
some more time to produce the documents during cross-
examination of DW.1. During the evidence of DW.4, Ex.X.10, the
letter of the then MPDO, T. Narsapuram along with the file relating
to PW.1 was marked.
31. As seen from Ex.P-1, it is a written report by PW.1 alleging
that after he came to know that the electricity service connection
in respect of the request of his son was granted on priority basis,
he met the AO at his house on 20.10.1999 morning and enquired
about it and then AO demanded to pay bribe of Rs.5,000/- to draw
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
the material pertaining to the electricity service connection and if
that amount is paid then only service connection would be issued
and when he expressed his inability on the ground that already
years were elapsed from the date of request, he reduced it to
Rs.4,000/- and when he further expressed his difficulty on
account of the financial constraints, he told him that he is getting
salary and after receipt of the salary, that amount can be paid.
32. As can be seen from Ex.P-2, the Schedule-I application cum
agreement for supply of electricity in the name of son of PW.1 i.e.,
PW.2 namely T. Suresh Kumar, it was dated 05.03.1992. It was
made to give electricity connection for the purpose of agriculture in
RS No.200/3 Sriramavaram, H/o.Tedlam Village. There was an
endorsement by the concerned Village Assistant, dated
05.10.1999, certifying that in RS No.200/3 in an extent of Ac.0.96
cents applicant dug a bore well as such there is no objection to
give the electricity service connection. Ex.P-3 is the letter made by
PW.3 to Additional Assistant Engineer (Operations),
T.Narsapuram, Electricity, stating that on 05.03.1992 he made an
application for electricity service connection to the agricultural
bore well so as to get 7.5 HP with single phase and that he is ready
to pay the necessary charges in accordance with the Rules. There
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
is no dispute about the genuinity of Exs.P-2 and P-3. Further,
Ex.P-11 is the file containing estimates and work order relating to
PW.2. It is in pursuance of the said estimates a sum of
Rs.50,620/- was said to be paid towards the connection charges
and it is also not in dispute.
33. It becomes necessary now to specify here elaborately as to
how the electricity service connection to the lands of PW.2 was to
be carried out for better appreciation in the light of the
contentions raised by the AO. According to Ex.P-11, it is the letter
dated 15.02.1996 from the AP State Electricity Board stating that
the total estimated amount is Rs.61,620/- and material portion is
Rs.21,884/- plus Rs.23,573/- and labour portion is Rs.5,851/-.
Ultimately, PW.2 was requested to pay only Rs.50,620/- and
according to the letter, dated 27.02.1996, in Ex.P-11 made up file,
an amount of Rs.11,000/- is exempted towards the Board share.
Therefore, ultimately Rs.50,620/- was the amount payable by
PW.2 and the said amount was paid, which is not in dispute.
Coming to the nature of things that are to be complied in providing
the service connection as sought for by PW.2 as evident from Ex.P-
11 file, there was a proposal for 1) erection of 6.3 KV line with
7/2.11 ACSR over 8 M PSCC poles at 110M span, 2) Erection of 15
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
KVA Tr. Oil Immersed and 3) erection of meter equipment.
Further, the point of supply was to tap the existing H.T. Lines
shown in the sketch. As seen from Ex.P-12, the DD Register of AO
there was an entry opposite to the name of PW.2 - T. Suresh
Kumar to the effect for a sum of Rs.50,620/-, the DD was taken
on 25.03.1996 bearing DD No.794404 and it was said to be
received on 25.04.1996. So, either by March, 1996 or April, 1996,
PW.2 was able to comply the payment of necessary charges to a
tune of Rs.50,620/-. Admittedly, on account of the ban relating to
giving agricultural service connections under Ex.X-7, there was
delay from 1996-1998, as the case may be, in complying the
request of PW.2. The complainant did not blame anybody as
regards this delay. The case of the prosecution is that complainant
was informed that the request relating to service connection of
PW.2 would be done on priority basis. So, there is no dispute that
till the middle of 1999, PWs.1 and 2 waited for the electricity
service connection.
34. In the light of the defence of AO, which is evident from the
cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 and by virtue of Exs.X-2 to X-5,
it appears that after the payment of necessary charges by PW.2
with regard to his request made in Exs.P-2 and P-3, PW.2 got
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
electricity to his bore well unauthorizedly and in that connection
according to AO, fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed and after that
the said unauthorized service connection was regularized and the
connection number is said to be 210. AO also contended that
PW.1 filed a false report under Ex.P-1 against him as he was
responsible for imposition of fine against the son of PW.2 which
will be discussed hereinafter at appropriate stages to decide as to
whether there was any reason for PW.1 to implicate AO falsely.
35. Now, it is appropriate to look into the relevant cross-
examination part of PWs.1 and 2, as it is the contention of AO that
already PW.2 had a service connection vide No.210, there was a
difficulty in giving newly sanctioned service connection etc. PW.1
during cross-examination deposed that during the year 1992 after
digging the bore well, his son applied for agricultural service
connection. He denied that his son has unauthorizedly availed
electrical service connection without the knowledge of the office of
AO and used electrical consumption for agricultural purpose in
1996. He does not remember whether AO was the Additional
Assistant Engineer to T.Narsapuram at the time of submitting the
application in the year 1992. He cannot say that AO joined as AAE
to T.Narsapuram on 01.07.1995. He does not know that after AO
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
joined in T. Narsapuram, during the course of his enquiries, he
found that his son unauthorizedly availed agricultural service
connection to his land as such imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- and
other charges and regularized their service connection after
payment of necessary charges as per Rules. It is true that after AO
took charge, the estimation in respect of their agricultural service
connection was sanctioned. The agricultural service connection
number allotted to his son is 210. He did not state in Ex.P-1 or
when he was examined how SC No.210 was allotted to his son. He
does not know that after lifting of the ban and after his son's
service connection was sanctioned on priority basis, AO has drawn
the connected material in September, 1999 and deputed Assistant
Lineman - J.V.Ramana Murthy to verify physically as to where the
material has to be transported and that on verification,
J.V.Ramana Murthy reiterated that his son was granted SC
No.210 for the bore well already existed and there was no other
bore well and that AO deputed his person to secure the presence
of his son. He does not remember whether he (PW.1) and his son
visited the office of AO on 15.10.1999. His wife has lands in
Survey No.145/1, 2 & 3 which is at a distance of more than half
kilometer. He denied that he and his son went to the office of AO
on 15.07.1999 and AO asked them whether they are ready to take
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
the service connection or to surrender the material, which was
already drawn for the service connection, and that then he
requested the AO to allot the service connection and the material
sanctioned to it in the lands of his wife where they proposed to dig
another bore well. He denied that AO informed them that it is
against the Rules and asked them to give a fresh application after
digging the bore well and then they bounced on him and made a
galata. He denied on account of the above, they implicated the AO.
36. PW.2 during cross-examination denied that during the year
1996 he unauthorizedly erected agricultural service connection to
his bore well in his lands and that it was regularized after payment
of necessary penalty and other charges when the same was found
by AO. He deposed that SC No.210 is 5 H.P connection. It is true
that the service connection for which he applied during the year
1992 is 7.5 HP connection. He denied that after his service
connection was sanctioned on priority basis, AO deputed
J.V.Ramana Murthy to verify the place as to where the material is
to be transported and that J.V.Ramana Murthy after verification
informed him that there was only one bore well which was already
regularized. He further denied that on 15.10.1999, AO called him
and PW.1 through J.V.Ramana Murthy and asked them whether
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
to surrender the material drawn or whether they are going to dig
second bore well and then his father informed to AO to give the
service connection in the lands of his mother situated one and half
kilometers away from his lands and AO told that it is against the
Rules and that they have to apply afresh and that they made
galata with AO. He denied that on account of the above, they bore
grudge against AO.
37. Though PWs.1 and 2 denied that the service connection to
the bore well bearing No.210 was unauthorized but in view of the
later admissions made by PWs.1 and 2, there is no dispute that
when Ex.P-2 application was made by PW.2, there was only one
bore well without any electricity service connection. The necessary
charges in pursuance of the request under Exs.P-2 and P-3 were
made in March, 1996 as pointed out. As seen from Exs.X-2 to X-5
they were marked during the course of cross-examination of PW.1.
They were dated 29.10.1996. PW.1 admitted his writings in
Exs.X-2 to X-5. AO examined DW.3, who deposed that he
produced Exs.X-2 to X-5 which were written by PW.1 in favour of
the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Eluru. Basing on it, DDs were
issued. So, it is clear that Exs.X-2 to X-5 were in connection with
regularization of unauthorized electricity service connection
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
alleged to be obtained by PW.2 after he made the necessary
payment in March, 1996 so as to obtain electricity service
connection. There is no dispute that in pursuance of the payments
made under Exs.X-2 to X-5, the unauthorized electricity service
connection to the bore well of PW.2 was regularized with SC
No.210. So, these are the circumstances under which subsequent
to the request of PW.2 under Exs.P-2 and P-3 and subsequent to
the payment made by PW.2 to a tune of Rs.50,620/- he was
alleged to have obtained electricity service connection which was
regularized later.
38. The defence of AO is that after sanction of the service
connection to PW.2, he got verified the physical possession at the
land and as already there was service connection No.210, he
secured the presence of PWs.1 and 2, who insisted to him to
provide service connection in the name of the wife of PW.1 and as
it was against the Rules, he turned down the request of PWs.1 and
2. PWs.1 and 2 denied the defence of AO in this regard i.e., they
never insisted AO to provide the service connection in the name of
wife of PW.1 in the far away lands. The suggestions put forth
before PWs.1 and 2 in this regard were flatly denied.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
39. It is worthwhile to make a specific mention here that
according to AO, in September, 1999 he has drawn the necessary
material so as to provide service connection to the bore well of
PW.2 and then deputed J.V.Ramana Murthy to cause physical
verification and came to know that already PW.2 was granted SC
No.210. Even according to the AO, subsequent to payment of
amounts under Exs.X-2 to X-5, the service connection in the lands
of PW.2 was regularized. So, he had knowledge that already there
was a service connection in the lands of PW.2 bearing No.210.
When he had knowledge of these facts, it is not understandable as
to how he can depute J.V.Ramana Murthy to cause further
verification. However, the defence of AO in this regard is totally
inconsistent from stage to stage. According to him, he has drawn
the necessary material in September, 1999. According to him,
when he secured the presence of PWs.1 and 2 on 15.07.1999 so as
to take further process, PWs.1 and 2 insisted to provide service
connection to the wife of PW.1 in the lands which are far away
from the lands of PW.2 and both PWs.1 and 2 denied the same.
The defence of AO before PW.1 is that the above was happened on
15.07.1999. If that is considered, it is not understandable as to
how he could draw the material in September, 1999. He suggested
to PW.1, the so called drawing of the material in September, 1999.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
He suggested to PW.1 that PWs.1 and 2 were called on
15.07.1999. He suggested to PW.2 the date again on 15.10.1999,
which he denied. He examined DW.2, who has spoken the date as
to that of 15.07.1999. According to DW.2 in July, 1999, AO asked
him that the material regarding connection of PW.2 was received
and asked him to verify the place where the material has to be
dumped. Then, he verified the spot and found that there was no
second bore well in the fields of PW.2 and he found one service
connection which was directly tapped previously by PW.2 and was
regularized later. AO asked him to bring the consumer. He
brought PWs.1 and 2 on 15.07.1999. AO informed them that there
was no second bore well and that connection has to be cancelled.
PWs.1 and 2 requested him to give the connection in the fields of
the wife of PW.1 which was one Kilometer away from the lands of
PW.2 and AO expressed that it was not possible and there was
heated exchange of words between AO and PWs.1 and 2. As
pointed out, the so called suggestion given to PW.2 was that the
incident was happened on 15.10.1999 and it was contrary to the
suggestion made to PW.1. According to DW.2 it was happened on
15.07.1999. During cross-examination, DW.2 deposed that no
written instructions were issued to him by AO for dumping the
material and asked him to verify the place where it has to be
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
dumped. He did not give in writing about his visit to the fields of
SC No.210. He cannot say the day and date of the visit. He is not
maintaining any tour dairy about his inspections and visits. He
denied that he is deposing false.
40. Having regard to the answers spoken by DW.2 in cross-
examination, it is very difficult to believe his testimony. He claimed
that simply he obeyed the oral instructions of AO. As this Court
already pointed out when AO and DW.2 had knowledge that
already there was SC No.210, which was already regularized, the
so called physical inspection caused by AO is highly doubtful.
Hence, it is very un-safe to believe the defence theory that either
on 15.10.1999 or on 15.07.1999, PWs.1 and 2 indulged in making
heated exchange of words with AO. If really, the incident that
PWs.1 and 2 bounced on AO, who was a public servant, was
happened, AO would not have kept quiet without bringing the
facts to the notice of his superiors or to the Police.
41. Even according to the defence of AO, the service connection
which PW.2 got regularized after payment of necessary charges is
5 H.P. with three phase. There is no dispute that originally PW.2
applied for a service connection of 7.5 HP with single phase. As
detailed out by this Court looking into Ex.P-11, made up file,
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
certain things are to be carried out so as to give 7.5 HP service
connection with single phase and it includes erection of certain
poles and for that only a huge amount of Rs.50,620/- was
collected from them. On the other hand, the so called
unauthorized service connection drawn by PW.2 was regularized
by just collecting Rs.5,000/- and the necessary charges according
to AO. So, the 7.5 HP service connection with single phase is
totally different to that of 5 H.P with three phase.
42. Now, it is relevant to look into Exs.X-6 to X-9 coupled with
the relevant oral evidence. AO examined DW.1 in pursuance of the
defence and according to DW.1, Ex.X-6 is the attested xerox copy
of the report of ADE Sri S. Venkateswara Rao, K.Kota, dated
23.11.1999. He is no more. It is enclosed with the report of VAO.
Ex.X-7 is the attested xerox copy of the proceedings issued by the
Chief Engineer, Vijayawada imposing ban on releasing of
agricultural service connection. During cross-examination, he
further deposed that Ex.X-8 is the covering letter, dated
20.06.2006, enclosing Exs.X-6 and X-7. Ex.X-9 is the letter dated
nil received by the Court on 28.09.2005 requesting to grant time
to produce the documents. Further, the AO examined DW.5 in
support of Ex.X-6 report, who deposed that he is Village Assistant
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
Secretary of T.Narsapuram Mandal, Tedlam Village. Enclosure to
Ex.X-6 is with his hand writing and it bears his signature dated
07.11.1999. The Sarpanch of Tedlam Village came to him on
07.11.1999 and informed that AE and ADE of Tedlam came to
verify the electrical connection and bore wells in the fields of PW.2
and asked him to come. Then, he accompanied the Sarpanch to
the fields of PW.2 along with the Officers. In the presence of
Sarpanch and Officials, the fields of PW.2 were verified and found
only one bore well with SC No.210 and then he wrote the original
enclosure to Ex.X-6 and handed over to the ADE, which was also
signed by the Sarpanch - Seetharami Reddy and B.V.Subba Rao.
43. As seen from Ex.X-6, it is reflection of the things that were
said to be happened on 07.11.1999 i.e., subsequent to the date of
trap. It is curious to note that according to Ex.X-6, AO was also a
participant to the said proceedings. This Court is not able to
understand first when the ACB was proceeding with the
investigation as to the allegations contained in Ex.P-1, how a
document like Ex.X-6 can be brought into existence by the AO
parallel to the ACB investigation! However, Ex.X-6 is of no use to
the defence of the AO viewing from any angle. According to Ex.X-6,
the persons present were P. Satyanarayana, AAE (AO), K. Sitarami
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
Reddy, Sarpanch, Tedlam Village, B.V.Subba Rao, Owner of Tiles
factory and PW.2. It reads that PW.2 has lands in Survey
No.200/3 apart from other lands. It was found that he already had
a bore well in the lands and prior to inspection a 3 phase service
connection was taken for the bore well and it was under utilization
and it is No.210 with 5 HP. There was no other bore well. PW.2
asked AAE on 07.11.1999 to give single phase service connection
for the bore well which is already having a 3 phase service. AAE
said that it is not possible for which PW.2 agreed but he told that
only 3 phase service is in use in his land and there is no other
bore well for which another electricity supply is required. Again, he
asked to give single phase service connection to AAE and ADE told
that it is not possible and said that if single phase service is
required, he has to cancel the existing three phase service and
then he went away. So, Ex.X-6 proceedings were pressed into
service only after the trap. In my considered view, though Ex.X-6
was brought into existence subsequent to trap, it would falsify the
defence theory. If really, PWs.1 and 2 on the so called dates i.e.,
15.07.1999 or 15.10.1999 (inconsistent dates put up by AO)
insisted AO to provide service connection to the lands of wife of
PW.1, which are about half kilometer or one and half kilometer
away from the lands of PW.2, definitely PW.2 would have insisted
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
the matter even before ADE, Electrical and AAE i.e., AO on
07.11.1999. In that view of the matter, these documents negative
the defence theory.
44. It is to be noticed that by the time PW.2 made Exs.P-2 and
P-3 applications, and by the time he paid a sum of Rs.50,620/-,
there was no electricity service connection in the lands. The nature
of service connection he sought for is 7.5 HP with single phase and
the nature of connection that was given to PW.2, when he got
unauthorized service connection in the end of 1996 and paid the
necessary penalty was the service connection of 5 HP with three
phase. So, his original request was only for 7.5 HP with single
phase. When already there was 5 HP service connection with three
phase, subsequent to Exs.P-2 and P-3 and payments that were
made in March, 1996 and when those facts were within the
knowledge of Electricity Department, how they ventured to accept
the request of PW.2 in providing service connection as sought for
is not known. Even otherwise, when the nature of connection that
was sought for by PW.2 was totally different with the nature of
connection that was already granted by the Electricity Officials by
way of regularization, technically, it may not be a problem to
replace 5 HP service connection with three phase with that of 7.5
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
HP with single phase. In stead of doing so, AO set up a defence as
if PWs.1 and 2 insisted him to provide service connection in the
lands of wife of PW.1, which is not tenable. It is to be noticed that
AO was supposed to process the official favour in respect of the
work of PW.2 to its logical conclusion. Processing the official
favour need not mean that AO should provide the service
connection as sought for. If there are difficulties i.e., the technical
difficulties in providing service connection to the lands of PW.2, as
sanctioned, AO was supposed to take the official favour relating to
the work of PW.2 to its logical conclusion, which is inclusive of
sending a report to the Superior Officers that it is not possible to
provide service connection to PW.2 or to get cancellation of the
sanctioned connection by taking necessary steps to refund the
huge amount of Rs.50,620/- if PW.2 is otherwise eligible for the
same. So, when AO allegedly took steps in this regard on
15.07.1999, as claimed by him, which he failed to probabilize his
silence till 20.10.1999 without taking any further steps means
that official favour in respect of the request of PW.2 was pending
with AO. AO was the proper person to take further steps to
process the work relating to PW.1. Viewing from any angle, I am of
the considered view that the contention of AO in this regard is not
at all tenable.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
45. AO set up a defence that after assumption of charge by AO
in the year 1995, he found unauthorized service connection
obtained by PW.2 as such he imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- for
regularization as such PW.1 bore grudge against AO and falsely
implicated him. PWs.1 and 2 denied the defence theory in this
regard. Though AO was able to probabilize by eliciting the
necessary cross-examination from PWs.1 and 2 and by examining
DW.4 and Exs.X-2 to X-5 that the unauthorized service connection
got by PW.2 was regularized but actually there is no proof that AO
assumed charge in the year 1995. There is no evidence to show
that it was the AO, who actually imposed the fine of Rs.5,000/-.
The AO, in my considered view, failed to probabilize the said
theory. Even otherwise, the so called regularization of
unauthorized service connection of PW.2 was in the year 1996.
PW.2 was granted service connection in pursuance of his request
under Exs.P-2 and P-3 even according to AO, in the year 1999.
Time of three years was expired subsequent to the imposition of
fine. It is very difficult to upheld the contention that as AO
imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- and regularized the unauthorized
service connection, PWs.1 and 2 developed grudge against him. It
is very difficult to accept the defence theory in this regard.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
46. Apart from this, AO examined DW.4, who is Superintendent
of Mandal Praja Parishad Office, T.Narsapuram. He produced the
file relating to PW.1 in pursuance of the complaint received
against him and Ex.X-10 is the letter of the then Mandal Parishad
Development Officer, T. Narsapuram along with the file relating to
PW.1. It is no doubt true as evident from Ex.X-10 that there were
certain laches in discharge of his duties by PW.1 in his official
capacity. In fact, even during the cross-examination, PW.1
admitted certain lapses and denied certain lapses. He admitted
that while he was Drawing Officer at Kethavaram, M.P. Elementary
School, S. Durga Bhavani and M. Ananda Raju, Teachers,
complained against him about the irregular disbursement of
salaries and further complaints of the Educational Society
Chairman and villagers of Kethavaram against him. He denied that
one Venkateswara Rao made a complaint agaisnt him alleging that
he demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000/- for issuance of a certificate. He
admitted that he was suspended from service on 02.11.1999 and
he faced enquiry also. So, what is evident from the admissions
made by PW.1 and by virtue of Ex.X-10 is that PW.1 was facing
certain enquiries and there were certain complaints against him.
On the ground that PW.1 is of such a person, his evidence cannot
be disbelieved. Of course as it is a trap case, the evidence of
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
complainant has to be scrutinized basing on certain principles.
Simply because PW.1 faced some enquiries and he was of a litigant
character, the allegations in Ex.P-1 cannot be thrown out.
According to the evidence of PW.5, he was asked by the DSP, ACB
to conduct preliminary enquiry. According to the evidence of PW.6,
he asked PW.5 to conduct preliminary enquiry. The endorsements
made by PWs.5 and 6 in this regard can be found on Ex.P-1.
During the course of cross-examination of PW.5, he denied that he
did not conduct any enquiry. It is to be noticed that what type of
enquiry PW.5 conducted is not supposed to be proved. The so
called enquiry was a confidential one and preliminary one to take
further steps on the report of the complainant. Hence, the
contention of AO that no preliminary enquiry was conducted is not
tenable. Apart from this, the contention of AO that PW.1 did not
disclose in Ex.P-1 about the previous SC No.210 is not tenable
because the service connection sought for by PW.2 by virtue of
Exs.P-2 and P-3 has nothing to do with the so called unauthorized
connection which was regularized later. Hence, non-mentioning of
the previous connection, as above, is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered
view that the prosecution adduced cogent evidence before the
Court below which is convincing that the official favour in respect
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
of the work of PW.2 was pending with AO prior to the trap and as
on the date of trap. The learned Special Judge rightly dealt with
this aspect by furnishing sound reasons.
47. Now, I proceed to appreciate as to the allegations of demand
and acceptance of bribe by AO. PW.1 deposed about the demand
alleged in Ex.P-1 relating to payment of bribe of Rs.5,000/- to AO
to do official favour and reduction of the same with instructions to
bring the same after receipt of his salary. Though in Ex.P-1, there
is no whisper that PW.1 was asked to bring the demanded bribe
amount on 02.11.1999 but the contents of Ex.P-1 and the
evidence of PW.1 is that AO demanded PW.1 to pay the demanded
bribe after receipt of the salary. So, the contents in Ex.P-1 coupled
with the evidence of PW.1 means that PW.1 was supposed to
comply the so called demand of AO to pay the bribe on
02.11.1999, the following date of receipt of the salary. I do not find
any infirmity in the case of the prosecution in this regard.
48. Insofar as the demand attributed against AO relating to
Ex.P-1 is concerned, it was deposed by PW.1. The evidence of
PW.1, PW.3 - mediator, and PW.6 - the Trap Laying Officer,
relating to post trap proceedings is that during the post trap, after
PW.1 produced the proposed bribe of Rs.4,000/- before PW.6 and
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
the mediators, the mediators ascertained from PW.1 about the
contents in Ex.P-1 and confirmed the same. The denomination of
currency notes and its numbers were mentioned in pre trap
proceedings. ACB Constable at the instance of DSP applied
phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes and handed over
the amount to PW.1 in a cover with specific instructions to PW.1
to pay the bribe amount to AO only on further demand. There is a
whisper in this regard in pre trap proceedings. The evidence of
PW.3 - mediator and PW.6 - the Trap Laying Officer relating to the
post trap in this regard is also that PW.1 was specifically directed
by DSP, ACB to pay the proposed bribe amount to AO only on
further demand. Even there is whisper during the post trap
proceedings and even PW.6 testified that even at the residence of
AO also, before they got down from the vehicle, DSP, ACB
reiterated the instructions to PW.1 again to pay the bribe on
further demand only.
49. Coming to the specific evidence of PW.1 relating to the
demand attributed against AO during the post trap his evidence is
that during the post trap, he went to the house of AO at 06:15
a.m. and called AO, who was inside of his house. Then he came
out into verandah. PW.1 enquired AO about pendency of the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
agricultural service connection. Then, he was asked by the AO,
whether he has brought the demanded bribe amount. He gave
positive rely. He took out the tainted amount from his pocket and
gave it to AO, who received the amount with his right hand. Then,
he came out from the house of AO and gave pre arranged signal to
the trap party. The trap party members, when came to the gate of
the house of AO, AO on noticing them attempted to escape from
the spot from the backside of his house, but the trap party
members caught hold of him. He showed the AO to the DSP, ACB,
who received the tainted amount from him. The DSP instructed
him to wait outside. One or two hours thereafter he was called
inside and then DSP enquired what transpired and his version
was reduced into writing.
50. The evidence of PW.3 is that after receipt of pre arranged
signal, they rushed into the house of AO and AO was about to
move on seeing them in confusion and the tainted amount was
recovered. The evidence of PW.6, the Trap Laying Officer, in this
regard is that during the post trap after receipt of pre arranged
signal, they rushed to the house of AO and found one person was
running to backward. Inspector i.e., PW.5 with the assistance of
Constable caught hold of that person and found that there was a
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
wade of currency notes in his right hand.PW.1 told them that the
above said person was AO. Then, he asked PW.1 to wait outside.
He further has spoken about recovery of the tainted amount and
conducting of chemical test which yielded positive result and
version of AO and later version of PW.1. The evidence of PW.5 is
that he assisted the DSP, ACB in pre trap and post trap
proceedings and also he seized certain documents.
51. During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 denied that
on the date of trap, he forcibly kept the tainted amount into the
right hand of AO requesting him to give agricultural service
connection in the lands of his wife and when AO questioned him,
he hurriedly went out and then AO called him in order to return
the tainted amount. Meanwhile, ACB officials came. 200 villagers
came there and informed that AO is honest and sincere and that
he was falsely implicated. He denied that he implicated the AO
falsely. He further deposed in cross-examination that it is true
that he did not state during the course of his version that
when he went into the house of AO, AO enquired him,
whether he brought the demanded bribe amount and that he
gave positive reply and on enquiry by AO, he gave the amount
and that he received the same with his right hand and that
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
when trap party members rushed to the gate of AO, AO
attempted to escape from his backward and on that trap
party members caught hold of his hands. It is basing on these
answers elicited from the mouth of PW.1 and inviting the attention
of the Court to the copy of Ex.P-7 post trap proceedings available
in the paper book, the contention of learned counsel for the
appellant is that when the post trap proceedings did not disclose
that on the date of trap AO demanded the bribe of Rs.4,000/- and
when it runs that PW.1 on his own gave the amount to AO and
when AO also put forth a version that PW.1 on his own gave the
amount without any demand, the case of the prosecution must
fail. It is also his further submission that true version of AO was
not detailed out in Ex.P-7 post trap proceedings.
52. This Court has gone through the decisions cited by learned
counsel for the appellant. It is no doubt true that, in view of the
language employed in Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC
Act and as evident from the decisions cited, the demand to pay the
bribe is sine-qua-non. Turning to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Subair (4th supra), it is a case where the complainant
was not examined when there was no possibility to tender his
evidence and there was no substantive evidence to prove the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
factum of demand as such the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
accused is entitled for acquittal. In the present case, as the
complainant is examined on factual aspects, the above said
decision stood on a different footing.
53. Coming to the other decision in P. Satyanarayana Murthy
(3rd supra), it was a case where the complainant died before the
trial and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the evidence of other
witnesses was not sufficient to prove the demand though there
was recovery of amount. Even on factual aspects, the aforesaid
decision stood on a different footing from the present facts of the
case.
54. Turning to Mukthiar Singh (2nd supra), the case was that
after taking the bribe amount, the bribe taker kept the amount in
a cardboard box and during the trap, the amount was recovered
from the cardboard box and the cardboard box was not produced
before the Court at the time of trial. Considering the same and
analyzing the evidence on record, it was held that the demand for
bribe was not proved. So, on factual analyzation, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the above said decision held that the charges were not
proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the amount
is said to be recovered from the physical possession of the AO.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
Hence, the factual aspects in the above said decision stood in a
different footing.
55. Coming to another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.
Shanthamma (1st supra), it is no doubt true that the Hon'ble
Apex Court reiterating the essential ingredients of Section 7 of the
PC Act and further Section 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act held
that the demand is sine-qua-non for establishing the offence under
Section 7 of the PC Act was not established. Learned counsel for
the appellant relying upon it stressed to contend that the evidence
of PW.1 before the Court that during the post trap AO demanded
him to pay the bribe and on further demand only he paid that
amount is an improvement. Because, it is not there in Ex.P-7, post
trap and according to the version of PW.1 in the above trap,
without any demand he paid the amount to AO as such it is an
omission. He further contended that in K. Shanthamma (1st
supra), the evidence given by PW.1 as regards the demand was an
improvement. Hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court found favour with
the defence of AO.
56. Admittedly, in the above said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court
laid a stress that demand for illegal gratification is a sine-qua-non
to establish the guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
the PC Act and appreciated the case of the appellant therein, in
view of the fact that the evidence of the complainant that there
was a demand was an improvement as such upheld the defence of
the appellant.
57. Now, coming to the case on hand, admittedly, according to
the evidence of PW.1, he deposed that on further demand during
the post trap only he paid the amount to AO. Coming to the cross-
examination part, as pointed out, he did not state during his
version in the post trap that when he went into the house of
AO on the date of trap, AO enquired him whether AO brought
the demanded amount. As evident from the above said answers
spoken by PW.1 a single answer is recorded to various questions
posed to PW.1. During the course of cross-examination, multiple
suggestions were given to PW.1 and the answer was recorded in a
single sentence. It is referred already by this Court. So the
suggestions given to PW.1 were relating to the fact that he did not
state in the post trap that AO demanded him to pay the bribe and
he gave the amount to AO and AO took the same with his right
hand and when the trap party members rushed to the gate of AO,
AO attempted to escape and the trap party members caught hold
of him.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
58. It is to be noticed that according to Ex.P-7, post trap
proceedings, though PW.1 did not disclose that when AO
attempted to abscond, the trap party members caught hold of him
but the thing is that he was a witness when the trap party
members rushed into the house of AO and when AO made an
attempt to escape and that the trap party members caught hold of
him. After the trap party members caught hold of him only, DSP,
ACB asked PW.1 to wait outside. Though there was no literal
whisper from the mouth of PW.1 in the post trap proceedings in
this regard but PW.1 was a witness when AO made the so called
attempt to escape as such it cannot be taken as an omission.
59. This Court has verified Ex.P-7, original post trap
proceedings hand written in English. At page No.3, the DSP and
mediator recorded the so called version of AO which is to the effect
that when he was sitting in the house at 06:00 a.m. on
02.11.1999 PW.1 called him outside and kept a wade of
currency notes in his right hand without his demand and
requested him to issue service connection to the bore well
early and that he went out and within no time ACB party
rushed to the house and on seeing the ACB party, AO tried to
run away to the backside and that he was caught hold by the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
ACB Party. He further narrated about the service connection to
the bore well of PW.2 which was taken already i.e., three phase
service connection.
60. According to post trap, the DSP at page No.4 asked the
complainant to put forth his version and the complainant stated
that he went to the house of Sri P. Satyanarayana, AAE, and
he found Sri P. Satyanarayana, AAE, in the house and that
he called him outside and Satyanarayana, AAE, came
outside (next sentence in Ex.P-7 was strike off).
61. At this juncture, this Court would like to make it clear that
there are certain strikings made in the subsequent sentence and
still the contents under the strikings are physically visible and
they are to the effect that ―and asked him whether he brought
the money‖. The sentence after the strikings is that he requested
for the service connection that he gave Rs.4,000/- as bribe
amount to Sri Satyanarayana. So, originally there was a
whisper by PW.1 in the post trap that when he called AO to
outside, AO asked him whether he brought the money. The above
said words were strike off and still they are visible, if it is observed
closely. When these corrections were made is not known to
anybody. Neither the Special Public Prosecutor nor the defence
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
laid any stress at the time of chief-examination of PW.1 or during
his cross-examination. Even they did not ask PW.3, the mediator,
and PW.6 - Trap Laying Officer, about these corrections. The basis
for framing of charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of
the PC Act alleging that AO demanded to pay the bribe of
Rs.4,000/- was also Ex.P-7 post trap proceedings. Curiously,
PW.3, the mediator, was not cross-examined as to whether PW.1
disclosed in the post trap that AO demanded Rs.4,000/- during
the post trap. Even PW.6 was not cross-examined as to whether
PW.1 disclosed in the post trap that AO demanded him the bribe
amount in the post trap. So, originally there was a whisper in
Ex.P-7 that AO asked PW.1 whether be brought the money and
then only PW.1 paid the bribe amount to AO. Curiously, it was not
argued before the Court below as evident from the judgment that
PW.1 did not disclose in the post trap proceedings that AO
demanded him the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/-. If this contention
was raised before the Court below, learned Special Judge would
have answered this and would have an occasion to enquire as to
the circumstances under which the important words in Ex.P-7
were strike off. Under the circumstances this Court is of the
considered view that simply because certain words are strike off as
such Ex.P-7 did not disclose that AO demanded him to pay the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
bribe, case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. Apart from
this, multiple suggestions were put before PW.1 and answer was
recorded in one sentence. Under the circumstances the prudent
course is to scrutinize the evidence of PW.1 with care and caution
and by looking into the surrounding circumstances to prove the
allegations of demand during the post trap.
62. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi)6, presided over by a Constitutional
Bench elaborately dealt with the essential ingredients of Sections
7, 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) and 20 of the PC Act and held that the
allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe can also be proved
by relying upon other circumstances.
63. It is to be noticed that there is a whisper even in Ex.P-7,
post trap proceedings that on seeing the trap party, AO tried to
abscond from the backward of his house and then the trap party
members caught hold of him. It is testified by PW.1, PW.3 -
mediator, and even PW.6 - Trap Laying Officer. The Court has to
look into the natural reaction of the man of reasonable prudence
in whose hands when the amount was thrust forcibly without any
demand. Even according to the defence of AO, PW.1 is of such a
6 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
litigant person. In such circumstances, firstly AO had no business
to allow PW.1 to his residence in the early hours. Natural reaction
of AO when PW.1 thrust the amount into his right hand was to
throw out the amount to ground and try to catch hold of PW.1 by
chasing him to outside. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs.1,
3 and 6 goes to show that on seeing the trap party by carrying the
amount into his right hand, AO tried to rush towards backside of
his house and then ACB party caught hold of him. So, it is very
difficult to believe the theory of AO that PW.1 has thrust the
amount into his right hand. If really, PW.1 thrust the amount into
the right hand of AO without being any demand, he would have
come out by chasing PW.1.
64. PW.3, the mediator, had no reason to depose false against
AO that AO tried to abscond on seeing the trap party members.
The contention of AO is that PW.3 was the stock mediator. PW.3
being a public servant was bound to assist ACB officials when he
was requested. Though he deposed in cross-examination that
previously he acted as mediator in trap cases, AO did not elicit
whether the case on hand was subsequent to other cases or the
first case. On this count, the evidence of PW.3 cannot be
disbelieved. In view of the above, I am of the considered that the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
conduct of AO in the post trap, when the trap party rushed into
the house of AO is with guilty consciousness, which proves that he
accepted the bribe amount from PW.1 on further demand only. His
natural reaction if PW.1 thrust the amount into his right hand
would have been different. Having regard to the above, I am of the
considered view that the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the
demand dated 20.10.1999 and demand during the post trap
proceedings is convincing. It has support from the attending
circumstances as evident from pre trap proceedings and Ex.P-7,
post trap proceedings. The denomination of the tainted amount
and its numbers were mentioned in pre trap and they were found
to be tallied after the amount was recovered from the AO and they
were clearly mentioned in the post trap proceedings. There is no
dispute that the tainted amount was recovered from the right
hand of AO. There is no dispute that when the right hand fingers
of AO were subjected to chemical test, they yielded positive result.
So, the prosecution is able to prove that the tainted amount was
recovered from the physical possession of AO. In my considered
view, though the demand of illegal gratification to prove the
offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act is a
sine-qua-non but the factual aspects in Shanthamma (1st supra)
stood on a different footing.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
65. Various contentions raised by the AO to show that he is
falsely implicated are not probabilized. Only thing which the AO
was able to probabilize is that PW.1 was not discharging his duties
in his office properly but it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the
testimony of PW.1, as pointed out. When PW.1 and PW.3 admitted
that after the trap several villagers gathered and raised allegation
that PW.1 implicated the AO falsely but they were not the
witnesses to the episode that was happened on 20.10.1999 and
post trap proceedings. The Investigating Officer denied that several
villagers gathered and proceeded against PW.1 after the post trap
proceedings. The AO cannot succeed in his defence basing on the
fact that after the trap villagers gathered at the house of AO and
alleged that AO was falsely implicated. It is to be noticed that the
conduct of AO is such that un-necessarily he kept pending,
without processing the official favour in respect of the work of
PW.2 for a considerable period of time as detailed out. He did not
take any steps to replace the old service connection with the new
one or to report before the Higher Authorities seeking to cancel the
sanction and to take necessary steps to refund the huge amount of
PW.2 if he is otherwise eligible. Under the circumstances, the
conduct of AO is not above board. Having regard to the overall
facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that evidence
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
adduced by the prosecution with regard to the demand dated
20.10.1999 and 02.11.1999 is fully convincing as such I am
inclined to believe the evidence of PW.1.
66. As the prosecution established the foundational facts that
AO demanded PW.1 on 20.10.1999 and on 02.11.1999 and
accepted the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- on further demand
during the post trap proceedings, now there arises a presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act. Section 20 of the PC Act runs as
follows:
―20. Presumption where public servant accepts
gratification other than legal remuneration --
(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under
Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person
has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or
attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any
gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable
thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to
accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that
valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward
such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be,
without consideration or for a consideration which he
knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under
Section 12 or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any
valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or
attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or
offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that
valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward
such as is mentioned in Section 7, or, as the case may be,
without consideration or for a consideration which he
knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1)
and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption
referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the
gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial
that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.‖
67. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta (6th supra),
held that when the prosecution has established the foundational
facts, the legal presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would
arise. In my considered view, the AO miserably failed to probabilize
his defence theory. Therefore, AO failed to rebut the presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act. Hence, it is very clear that AO
demanded PW.1 and accepted the bribe of Rs.4,000/- for doing
official favour. The act of AO in demanding PW.1 and accepting the
bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- would not only establish the essential
ingredients of Section 7 of the PC Act and further established the
criminal misconduct in view of Section 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
PC Act. AO by virtue of his demand obtained a pecuniary
advantage from PW.1. Hence, the prosecution before the Court
below proved both the charges under Sections 7, 13(2)
R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC Act beyond reasonable doubt. The learned
Special Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record with
proper reasons. Hence, I do not see any reason to interfere with
the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/AO by
the learned Special Judge.
68. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as such the
judgment, dated 19.12.2006, in C.C. No.9 of 2001 on the file of the
Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada shall
stand confirmed.
69. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under
Section 388 Cr.P.C to certify the judgment of this Court to the
Court below and on such certification, the Court below shall take
necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the
appellant/AO in Calendar Case No.9 of 2001, dated 19.12.2006,
and to report compliance to this Court. Registry is directed to
dispatch a copy of this judgment along with the lower Court
record, if any, to the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases
at Vijayawada on or before 27.03.2023. A copy of this judgment be
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.36/2007
placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving
necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. A
copy of this judgment shall also be forwarded to the Head of the
Department of AO for information and further action, if any.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 21.03.2023
DSH
