Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nandipati Lakshman Rao, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 12 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1654 OF 2006
Between:
Nandipati Lakshman Rao,
S/o.Koteswara Rao, Aged 48 years,
Occ: Senior Accountant,
O/o.District Treasury Officer,
Guntur, Guntur District. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of AP,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.
Amaravathi. .... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 12.05.2023
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.1654/2006
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1654 OF 2006
% 12.05.2023
# Between:
Nandipati Lakshman Rao,
S/o.Koteswara Rao, Aged 48 years,
Occ: Senior Accountant,
O/o. District Treasury Officer,
Guntur, Guntur District. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of AP,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.
Amaravathi. .... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P.V. Krishnaiah,
Learned Counsel.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy,
Learned Standing Counsel-
cum-Special Public Prosecutor
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 1996 Crl.L.J. 3638 (AP)
2. ILR 2017 KAR 5591
3. 1979 SCC 926
4. (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 192
5. (2011) 12 SCC 294
6. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724
This Court made the following:
3
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1654 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) 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.7 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 therein, dated 17.11.2006, whereunder
the learned Special Judge found the AO guilty of the charges
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) 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 one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,500/- 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 a period of
one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- in default to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for three months for the charge under Section 13(2)
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Both the above substantive
sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be
referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of
convenience.
3. The State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-
Corruption Bureau (ACB), Vijayawada Range, Guntur District filed
charge sheet pertaining to Crime No.10/ACB-VJA/2000 of ACB,
Vijayawada Range for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2)
R/w. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act alleging, in substance, that the
AO by name Nandipati Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Koteswara Rao,
worked as Senior Accountant in the District Treasury Office (DTO),
Guntur from 30.01.1997 to 24.07.2000, as such he is a ‗Public
Servant' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
LW.1 - Nemalikanti Balaiah, S/o. Venkateswara Rao is a
native of Penumaka Village, Tadepalli Mandal and Guntur District.
His father was a retired worker in PWD Department, who died
while drawing service pension. Balaiah's mother Smt. Anna Mary,
applied for family pension in the last week of May, 2000. LW.1
visited the Sub-Treasury Office (STO), Mangalagiri on 04.07.2000
and ascertained that the concerned pension papers were
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
forwarded to DTO, Guntur. LW.1 visited DTO Office, Guntur on
04.07.2000 at 02:00 p.m. and met the AO, who demanded
Rs.500/- as bribe to process the said application. LW.1 was
unwilling to pay the bribe as such he approached LW.10 - Sri B.R.
Dumas, DSP, ACB with a written report. LW.10 - DSP, ACB
registered the same as the aforesaid case, after due verification on
07.07.2000. On 07.07.2000 at about 11:45 a.m. AO was trapped
by LW.10 in the premises of DTO, Guntur when he was
demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.500/- from LW.1. He was
subjected to chemical test which yielded positive result. He
produced the wad of currency notes from his trouser pocket. The
serial numbers of the tainted amount were found tallied with the
notes mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings. He was arrested and
released on self bail. Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide
proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.11, Finance and Planning (FIN.WING-
ADMN.III) Department, dated 29.01.2001, issued necessary
sanction to prosecute the AO. Hence, the charge sheet.
4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under
the above provisions of law and, after appearance of the AO, by
complying the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C,
framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
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 PW.9 and marked Exs.P-1 to
P-16 and MOs.1 to MO.8.
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 his
written statement contending in substance as follows:
The AO never demanded or accepted any gratification from
PW.3 and he was implicated in this false case. During the year
2000, he worked as Senior Accountant in the DTO, Guntur
looking after P4 seat, which relates to pensions and family
pensions. Since the Shroff was promoted as Junior Assistant, he
was entrusted with that work from 01.06.2000. He was very busy
since then and during that time he received Ex.P-2 application
and for attending to the said work, Pension Payment Order (PPO)
Register is necessary which used to be with PW.4 and further it
will be on rotation among the other staff members, whoever
requires the same. After receipt of Ex.P-2, he asked PW.4 about
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
the said register with an intention to complete the work but PW.4
informed that the said register was not available with her. So, he
could not attend Ex.P-2 application. On 07.07.2000, as usual,
while he was attending to his office duties, at about 11:40 a.m. he
came out of the office to have a tea in the tea bunk and when he
reached near a tree in front of the tea bunk, one person suddenly
came from his back and forcibly thrusted some currency notes in
his left side pant pocket and then he obstructed and that PW.3
went hurriedly without heeding to his calling. In the meantime, 7
or 8 persons came and caught hold of his hands, to whom he
represented spontaneously that he neither demanded nor accepted
any bribe from PW.3 and explained what all happened. PW.3 and
PW.8 - DSP, ACB have close association and they worked together
as CI and Station Writer of Tukaramgate Police Station,
Hyderabad from 1991 to 1994. The DSP filed the case against him
for statistical purpose as he had acquaintance with PW.3. PW.5 is
a stock witness to the ACB and he drafted proceedings to the
dictation of ACB.
7. AO got examined DW.1 in support of his defence with regard
to the so called thrusting theory of the currency notes into his
trouser pocket by PW.3.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
8. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found
the AO guilty of both the charges and convicted and sentenced
him, as above.
9. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in C.C.
No.7 of 2001, filed the present Criminal Appeal.
10. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise
for consideration are as follows:
1) Whether the 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
under Section 19 of the PC Act?
2) Whether the prosecution proved before the Court
below with regard to pendency of the official favour in
respect of the work of the mother of PW.3 with AO
prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap?
3) Whether the prosecution before the Court below
proved that AO demanded PW.3 to pay bribe of
Rs.500/- prior to the trap and on the date of trap and
obtained the same for doing official favour and such
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
act on the part of AO would amount to criminal
misconduct?
4) Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the
judgment of the Court below?
11. POINT No.1: The fact that AO worked as Senior Account in
the DTO, Guntur as ‗public servant' within the meaning of Section
2(c) of the PC Act is not in dispute. With regard to sanction
obtained by the prosecution to prosecute the AO for the charges
framed, the prosecution before the Court below examined PW.6.
PW.6 is the Section Officer in Finance Department, A.P.
Secretariat, Hyderabad.
12. His evidence is that, having received summons from the
Court below, he brought the file pertaining G.O.Ms.No.11, dated
29.01.2001. Their office received draft final report from DG, ACB
on 30.12.2000 along with copy of FIR, statements of the witnesses,
mediators report and explanation of AO. After considering the
material, the then Section Officer, put up the file and moved the
file to Deputy Secretary and from there to Principal Secretary to
Government (Finance). File was further moved to the concerned
Minister of Finance. After consideration of all the material on
record and due application of mind, the file was approved. After
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
receiving the file, the then Principal Secretary (Finance) - S.P.K.
Naidu, issued the sanction proceedings against AO. Ex.P-15 is the
G.O.Ms.No.11 issued ordering prosecution against AO. Since PW.6
worked under the S.P.K.Naidu, the then Principal Secretary, he
knows his signature and handwriting. Ex.P-15 bears the signature
of S.P.K. Naidu. During cross-examination, he deposed that
specimen sanction order was also enclosed with the draft final
report sent by DG, ACB. He denied that without application of
mind Ex.P-15 was issued.
13. As seen from Ex.P-15, it shows the application of mind by
the sanctioning authority. It reflects that having regard to the case
of prosecution right from the inception of the so called work
relating to the mother of PW.3 and having looked the report and
the outcome of the investigation, sanctioning authority decided to
issue sanction order. There is no dispute before the Court below
that PW.6 had acquaintance with the signature of the signatory
under Ex.P-15. The evidence of PW.6 means that they received
final report from DG, ACB along with the copy of FIR, statements
of the witnesses, mediators report and explanation of AO. Ex.P-15
discloses the application of mind by the sanctioning authority. It is
to be noticed the DG, ACB sent the draft sanction order for notice
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
of the sanctioning authority with regard to the form in which
sanction is to be issued. It cannot be held that there was non-
application of mind by the sanctioning authority. As seen from the
judgment of the Court below, the learned Special Judge relied
upon the decision of the High Court of A.P. in CBI, SPE,
Hyderabad v. P. Muthuraman1, wherein it was held that if the
sanction order is a speaking order, then the matter ends there.
Otherwise, evidence should be adduced to prove that the
sanctioning authority had perused the material before according
sanction, which may not be in a particular form.
14. Neither in the grounds of Appeal nor during the course of
hearing of the Appeal, this aspect was agitated. However, it is
found that on 21.01.2021 learned counsel for the appellant/AO
placed on record a decision of the Karnataka High Court in N.A.
Suryanarayana @ Suri v. State by Inspector of Police,
CBI/SPE/Bangalore2. The Karnataka High Court in N.A.
Suryanarayana (2nd supra), relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra
Pradesh3, held that the sanction order by the sanctioning
1 1996 Crl.L.J. 3638 (AP)
2 ILR 2017 KAR 5591
3 1979 SCC 926
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
authority could be proved either by producing the original
sanction which itself contains facts constituting grounds, or by
adducing evidence to show that the facts were placed before the
sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it.
15. Having regard to the above, looking into the evidence of
PW.6 and Ex.P-15 this Court is of the considered view that the
findings of the learned Special Judge holding that the prosecution
obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the AO cannot be said to be
erroneous. Hence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution
before the Court below categorically proved that AO was a ‗public
servant' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Further,
the prosecution proved a valid sanction under Section 19 of the PC
Act to prosecute the AO for the charges under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
16. POINT Nos.2 to 4: Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel,
appearing for the appellant, would contend that according to the
case of the prosecution, father of PW.3 - de-facto complainant, was
a retired Government employee, who died on 21.04.2000 while
drawing service pension as such mother of PW.3 applied Ex.P-2
application before the STO, Mangalagiri on 30.05.2000 to get
family pension. The contention of the prosecution is that when
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
PW.3 was pursing the said work, AO demanded bribe of Rs.500/-
from PW.3. He would contend that the prosecution alleged that on
04.07.2000, AO demanded PW.3 to pay bribe of Rs.500/- for doing
official favour, being a public servant. PW.3, for the reasons best
known to him, did not disclose his designation in Ex.P-8, the
report lodged by him. The movements of PW.3 used to be borne
out by the General Diary and though AO disputed that neither on
30.05.2000 nor on 04.07.2000, PW.3 met AO, prosecution did not
produce the general diary in support of its case. According to
PW.3, in cross-examination, he did not get any authorization from
his mother to look after her affairs regarding Ex.P-2. So, when he
had no authorization, whatsoever, he had no right to approach AO
either on 30.05.2000 or on 04.07.2000.
17. He would further contend that, in fact, AO was burdened
with certain duties consequent to promotion of one of the Shroff
and he expected PW.4 to produce PPO Register to process Ex.P-2
but as PW.4 did not handover the same, AO could not attend the
work relating to Ex.P-2. The prosecution failed to prove the
pendency of the official favour in the manner as alleged. PW.3 had
no locus-standi to take up the cause of his mother without any
authorization. He would strenuously contend that PW.8 - the Trap
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
Laying Officer, was superior officer to PW.3 when PW.3 worked at
Tukaramgate Police Station, Hyderabad. So, on account of the
close relationship between PW.3 and PW.8, just PW.3 obliged PW.8
in laying a false trap against AO for statistical purpose. A duty was
cast upon PW.8 when he received a report like Ex.P-8 against a
public servant with serious allegation of demand of bribe to make
necessary antecedents verification. So, if PW.8 conducted
necessary preliminary enquiry so as to ascertain the antecedents
of AO and PW.3, he would have come to know the fact that PW.3
worked as subordinate to him (Trap Laying Officer once upon a
time). The so called nature of enquiry that was conducted before
registration of FIR was not explained by the prosecution.
18. Learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously
contend further that demand and acceptance of bribe is a sine-
qua-non to establish the charges framed against the AO. With
regard to the allegations that on 04.07.2000, AO demanded PW.3
to pay bribe, evidence of PW.1 was without any corroboration.
Prosecution did not prove as to how PW.3 could attend before AO
leisurely in the day when he being a Police Constable was
supposed to be on duty round the clock. Further, though PW.3
deposed in cross-examination that he accompanied his mother
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
even on 30.05.2000, no proof is filed to that effect. The contention
of AO is that for statistical purpose PW.8 - the Trap Laying Officer,
with his subordinate PW.3, who worked under him for some time,
falsely implicated AO. AO set up a theory that on the date of trap,
when he went outside to have Tea, at a Tea Bunk in the premises
of DTO, PW.3 came behind him all of a sudden and thrusted the
amount into the trouser pant and went away in spite of calling
PW.3. AO in support of his defence, examined DW.1, who
supported the defence of the AO. So, even PW.3 did not specify
with which hand AO took the so called bribe amount. So, the
prosecution did not examine any other independent witnesses,
who might have witnessed the occurrence, which was alleged to be
happened in open space near a tree of tea bunk in the premises of
the DTO, Guntur. If the case of the prosecution is bona-fide, trap
laying officer would have examined the other persons at the trap
place. The incident of thrusting theory could not go un-noticed by
the persons present at the place of trap. In that process AO
examined DW.1. Prosecution did not examine any other
independent witness to falsify the defence of the accused. The
evidence of PW.3 during cross-examination cannot stand to the
test of scrutiny. The prosecution examined the mediator i.e., PW.5
who was a stock mediator to the ACB, as such he blindly
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
supported the case of the prosecution. AO categorically explained
in the post-trap that he never demanded any bribe from PW.3. In
fact, when he canvassed the thrusting theory, it was not
incorporated in the post trap in the exact version stated by AO.
PW.8 - the Trap Laying Officer did not bother to inspect the
general diary which was supposed to be maintained in the office of
PW.3 to ascertain as to whether what type of duties PW.3 was
attending either on 30.05.2000 or on 04.07.2000 and on the date
of trap. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence
on record properly. The prosecution failed to prove pendency of the
official favour. Even otherwise, there was inability on the part of
AO to process Ex.P-2 for want of PPO Register which was not
handed over to AO by PW.4. Apart from this, there was no
evidence of demand of bribe and evidence of PW.3 had no
corroboration and the accused categorically explained the
circumstances in which his hand fingers yielded positive result as
such accused is liable to be acquitted under benefit of doubt.
Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention
would rely upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.
Shanthamma v. State of Telangana4 and P. Parasurami
Reddy v. State of A.P5.
4 (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 192
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
19. Smt. A. Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-
Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the respondent-
State, would contend that the prosecution examined before the
Court below PW.1 - the then Sub-Treasury Officer; PW.2 - the then
Junior Accountant in the DTO, Guntur; PW.4 - the Senior
Accountant in the office of DTO, Guntur and PW.7 - the then
Sub-Treasury Officer, Guntur to prove pendency of the official
favour. The aforesaid witnesses deposed in support of the case of
the prosecution. Apart from this, the prosecution also examined
PW.5 - mediator and PW.8 - Trap Laying Officer with regard to the
seizure of the documents pertaining to the mother of PW.3 from
the custody of AO. There was no dispute before the Court below in
fact pendency of the official favour in respect of the work of mother
of PW.3 before the AO. The contention of AO before the Court
below was that as PW.4 did not pass on PPO Register, he could not
process the file. So, the prosecution before the Court below
categorically proved pendency of the official favour.
20. She would further contend that PW.3, being the son of his
mother, especially when his father died while drawing service
pension, was duty bound to attend the work of his mother. There
5 (2011) 12 SCC 294
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
need not be any authorization to him to pursue Ex.P-2
application. The evidence of PW.3 that he accompanied his mother
on 30.05.2000 and met AO on 04.07.2000 remained unshaked in
his cross-examination. AO failed to probabilize that PW.3 did not
attend before AO on 04.07.2000. The learned Special Judge
believed the case of the prosecution with sound reasons. In this
regard, there was no dispute that during the post trap on
07.07.2000 the tainted amount was recovered from the physical
possession of AO. Both hand fingers of AO yielded positive result
when they were subjected to chemical test. The true version of AO
was recorded in the post trap proceedings. AO adduced his
defence during the course of trial without any basis from the post
trap. The thrusting theory setup by AO was disbelieved by the
Court below with sound reasons. AO failed to prove contrary so as
to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The
learned Special Judge rightly appreciated the evidence on record
as such Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
21. In the light of the allegations of the prosecution and the
evidence adduced, firstly, I would like to deal with here as to
whether the prosecution before the Court below proved pendency
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
of the official favour relating to the work of mother of PW.3 before
the AO prior to the trap and on the date of trap.
22. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, the then Sub-Treasury
Officer, Mangalagiri, he deposed that on 30.05.2000, their office
received the application, dated 30.05.2000, from the mother of
LW.1 by name N. Anna Mary for conversion to family pension of
the pension received by N. Venkateswara Rao, father of Balaiah,
who is no other than the husband of Mary. They received the said
application along with the death certificate of N. Venkateswara
Rao, pensioner, legal heir certificate, Proforma Form No.76 along
with identification of thumb impression and photos. The said
application was in order. Basing on the above said documents,
family pension can be sanctioned by the DTO. Hence, he
forwarded the application submitted by Mary, along with the
enclosures to the DTO, Guntur with a covering letter sent by him.
Ex.P-1 is his covering letter, dated 19.06.2000, vide
RC.No.160/2000/A3. Ex.P-2 is the application of N. Anna Mary
along with enclosures. Ex.P-3 is both halves of the pensioner i.e.,
one copy is available with pensioner and the second copy is
available with DTO. Both the halves were sent to DTO by their
office. During cross-examination, he deposed that mother of LW.1
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
- Balaiah i.e., Anna Mary submitted Ex.P-2 application personally
in their office.
23. So, as can be seen from the evidence of PW.1, there was no
dispute before the Court below as to the application of Ex.P-2. As
per PW.1, the application of N. Anna Mary along with the
enclosures, as it was in order, was forwarded to DTO. There was
no dispute that it was sent under Ex.P-1 covering letter. Ex.P-3 is
both halves of the pensioner.
24. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, the then Junior Accountant
in the DTO, Guntur, she deposed that on 23.06.2000 she received
Exs.P-1 to P-3 from DTO, Guntur. After receiving the file, she
noted the same in the inward register and assigned a number as
3428 and sent them to AO (Seat P-4). AO acknowledged that he
received the file dated 26.06.2000 in Distribution Register. Ex.P-4
is the inward register from 04.01.1999 to 06.07.2000. Ex.P-5 is
the relevant entry at serial No.3428. Ex.P-6 is the Distribution
Register from 11.04.2000 to 06.07.2000. Ex.P-7 is the relevant
entry acknowledged by AO. She was examined by the Inspector,
ACB.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
25. Insofar as the evidence of PW.2 is concerned, her cross-
examination was recorded as nil. So, the testimony of PW.2 was
not challenged before the Court below. So, her evidence coupled
with the entries in Exs.P-4 to P-7 reveals that she sent the file to
AO and in token of the file relating to the mother of PW.3, AO
made such acknowledgment on 26.06.2000. So, the evidence of
PW.2 goes to prove that PW.2, after verification of the file,
forwarded it to AO for further action.
26. According to the evidence of PW.4, she knows AO, who was
dealing with the family pension seat. According to her, she is the
custodian of PPO Register. In order to settle the family pensions,
one has to verify, PPO Register. On 26.06.2000, AO asked her
about PPO Register but on that day, she was not having that
Register. Subsequently, till 07.07.2000, AO never asked her about
that Register. She was on duty from 26.06.2000 to 07.07.2000.
She came to know about the trap against AO.
27. Prosecution got declared PW.4 as hostile as she did not
support the case of the prosecution on certain aspects and during
cross-examination she denied that she stated before Police as in
Ex.P-10. During cross-examination, she deposed that except her
say, there is no recorded proof to show that AO asked her about
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
PPO Register on 26.06.2000. During cross-examination by the
learned defence counsel, she testified that one Sivaji, Appa Rao,
Madhava Rao were also working in D-4 Section and PPO Register
will be moving to any of the staff members including her.
28. As seen from the evidence of PW.9 - Range Inspector-II, ACB
Ex.P-10 - 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 was proved. According to
Ex.P-10, AO never contacted PW.4 with request to give PPO
Register. Whatever the reason may be for PW.4 for not supporting
the case of the prosecution but there was no dispute as to
pendency of the file relating to the mother of PW.3 with AO. There
is also no dispute that one has to look into the PPO Register to
process the application like Ex.P-2 and the Register used to before
several persons in the office. To decide the pendency of official
favour, the so called inability of the AO as canvassed by him that
he could not process the file for want of PPO Register is not
relevant. So, to decide the pendency of the official favour,
pendency of Ex.P-2 coupled with the enclosures before AO prior to
the trap and on the date of trap are the factors to be considered.
29. It is to be noticed that when PW.4 gave a statement before
the Investigating Officer like in Ex.P-10, that AO never demanded
her to furnish PPO Register but she deposed that on 26.06.2000
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
AO asked her about PPO Register but she could not give the same
as it was not in her custody. The so called inability of AO is not
liable to be considered here because if AO was not able to get the
said Register on 26.06.2000, later nothing prevented him to get
back the same. According to PW.4, subsequently till 07.07.2000
AO never asked her about the said Register though she was on
duty from 26.06.2000 to 07.07.2000. Under the circumstances,
the so called inability of the AO to get the said register from PW.4
on 26.06.2000 does not mean that official favour in respect of the
work of mother of PW.3 was not pending with AO.
30. The evidence of PW.5 - mediator and PW.8 - trap laying
officer proves the seizure of Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 from the physical
custody of the AO during the post trap. These facts are not at all
in dispute.
31. Further, there is evidence of PW.7 regarding procedural
aspects. He deposed that he worked as Sub-Treasury Officer,
Guntur. He was the STO in J Section. He was also holding
additional charge of Family Pension. The concerned STO will
forward PPOs along with Form-76, last payment certificate and
two halves. Halves means two books i.e., pension paper book No.1
and disbursement book No.2. Pension book will be with pensioner
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
and disbursement book will be with the concerned STO. The DTO
will receive the concerned from the respective STOs, put his initial
and send back to inward register clerk, who would enter them in
the inward register. The inward clerk would in turn place the
papers before the Distribution Clerk, who would enter them in the
distribution register. He cannot say that after entering into the
inward register, he will again enter the same in the distribution
register and then relevant information will be placed before the
family pension accountant, who in turn will enter in his personal
register. The accountant would trace the old PPO Register and
tally with the papers and if they are in order, he would prepare the
proceedings authorizing the family pension and place before the
DTO. After obtaining his order, the file would be sent back to STO
concerned. As on the date of trap, AO was dealing with family
pension authorization. He has to secure old PPO Register from
PW.4, whose seat is nearer to him. Ex.P-1 bears the signature of
T.D.Jaya Prasad, DTO, who received the same on 22.06.2000,
which contained the number bearing No.3428.
32. During cross-examination, he (PW.7) deposed that old PPO
Register will be roaming around four accountant seats, who will
deal with the service pension. As on the date of trap, old PPO was
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
with PW.4. Even during the course of cross-examination of PW.7,
AO did not dispute the custody of Exs.P-1 to P-3 with him.
33. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered
view that the contention of the appellant/AO that there was no
pendency of the official favour before AO cannot be accepted.
Having admitted the custody of Exs.P-1 to P-3 with him, appellant
cannot contend that there was no pendency of the official favour.
His so called inability to get back the file from PW.4 does not mean
that no official favour in respect of the work of the mother of PW.3
was pending with him. The evidence of PW.4 was negatived by
Ex.P-10 and even assuming for a moment that she was not able to
furnish the PPO Register to AO on 26.06.2000, as she was not in
custody by then, but later AO never asked her to furnish the said
Register. So, even AO failed to probabilize his defence that he had
no chance to look into the PPO Register right from 26.06.2000 to
04.07.2000. Hence, I am of the considered view that the
prosecution before the Court below categorically proved pendency
of the official favour in respect of the work of mother of PW.3 prior
to the trap and on the date of trap with AO.
34. Now, this Court would like to deal with as to whether the
prosecution before the Court below proved that on 04.07.2000 i.e.,
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
prior to the date of trap and on 07.07.2000 i.e., during the post-
trap AO demanded PW.1 to pay bribe of Rs.500/- and accepted the
same.
35. As seen from Ex.P-8, the report of the de-facto complainant -
PW.3, the substance of the allegations are that his father N.
Venkateswara Rao, retired employee, while drawing service
pension died on 21.04.2000 and his mother N. Anna Mary was the
legal heir as such he (de-facto complainant) on behalf of his
mother complied necessary applications in three sets and handed
over the same in the last week of May in STO and he was pursuing
the same on account of the old age of his mother and when he
enquired in STO office, Mangalagiri on 04.07.2000, he learnt that
it was forwarded to the DTO, Guntur and then he went to DTO,
Guntur and enquired about the same and came to know that file
is with the Senior Accountant Lakshmana Rao (AO) and when he
enquired him about the file, he took him to a Tea Stall outside the
office and after having tea, he demanded bribe of Rs.500/- to
complete the process relating to the family pension and, though he
expressed his inability, he insisted to pay the bribe amount. This
is the substance of the allegations in Ex.P-8, which was written in
Telugu.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
36. Turning to the evidence of PW.3 - the de-facto complainant,
his evidence is to the effect that his father, while drawing service
pension as retired Government employee, died on 21.04.2000 and
his mother N. Anna Mary, submitted Ex.P-2 application before the
STO, Mangalagiri on 30.05.2000 claiming family pension in her
name. Due to the old age of N. Anna Mary, he (PW.3) used to look
after the affairs relating to Ex.P-2. On 04.07.2000, he went to the
STO, Mangalagiri enquired about the status of Ex.P-2 and learnt
that it was forwarded to DTO, Guntur. He went to Guntur and
came to know that AO was the concerned clerk relating to the file
and approached him at 02:00 p.m. and enquired about Ex.P-2. AO
took him outside the DTO office at a Tea stall and had the tea and
demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.500/- for processing Ex.P-2
application. Though he pleaded his inability to pay bribe, AO
informed him that unless the bribe amount is paid, his work
would not be done. He agreed to pay the amount to AO. As he was
not willing to pay the amount, he approached the DSP, ACB,
Vijayawada and presented report on 06.07.2000. Ex.P-8 is the
original report. DSP, ACB asked him to come on 07.07.2000
morning hours along with the proposed bribe of Rs.500/-.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
37. Insofar as the pre-trap proceedings are concerned, PW.3
deposed that on 07.07.2000 at 08:00 a.m. he attended the DSP,
ACB, Vijayawada where he was introduced with the mediators and
mediators asked him to confirm the contents of the report and he
confirmed the same and on instructions of DSP, ACB, Vijayawada
he gave Rs.500/- to one of the mediators, whose particulars were
noted, and at the instructions of DSP, ACB one Constable
prepared Sodium Carbonate Solution and applied phenolphthalein
powder to the currency notes and asked the constable to keep the
amount in the left side empty shirt pocket of him and it was done
and he was instructed to pay the amount to AO only on further
demand. His evidence insofar as the post-trap proceedings are
concerned is that at 10:15 a.m., he, trap party members and staff
left to DTO, Guntur. They reached there at 11:30 a.m. DSP, ACB
reiterated the earlier instructions to them. Trap party members
took vantage positions. Then, he proceeded to AO, who was in the
seat. AO enquired him on seeing as to whether he brought the
demanded bribe amount. He replied in affirmative. Then, AO came
out from his office and he followed him. They reached near a Tea
bunk, which is within the premises of DTO and they stood under a
tree. On demand of AO, he gave the bribe amount to AO, who took
the amount with his hand and kept it in his pant pocket. He does
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
not remember with which hand the AO took the bribe amount.
Then, he relayed a pre-arranged signal. Trap Party came there. He
pointed out that though he gave the amount to AO, DSP and trap
party members took the AO into his office. He was directed by the
DSP, ACB to wait outside. One hour thereafter he was called by
the DSP, ACB and enquired as to what happened. He narrated the
same. Ex.P-2 application is in his hand writing. He accompanied
his mother to the STO, Mangalagiri at the time of presenting
Ex.P-2. He scribed application dated 08.05.2000 for receiving
funeral expenses on the death of his father and it is Ex.P-9.
38. As seen from the evidence of PW.3, as above, it has support
from the contents of Ex.P-8 report and the pre-trap proceedings
under Ex.P-12 and post trap proceedings under Ex.P-14.
39. Here, PW.5 is the mediator and PW.8 is the Trap Laying
Officer. The evidence of PW.5 - one of the mediators, reveals that
at the instructions of his Superior Officer on 06.07.2000, he
appeared before the DSP, ACB at 08:00 a.m. on 07.07.200. DSP,
ACB introduced PW.3 to them. As per the instructions of DSP,
ACB they confirmed the contents of report from PW.3. He further
has spoken about the production of the proposed bribe amount by
PW.3, application of phenolphthalein powder to the amount,
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
conducting of the chemical test and further keeping the amount
by the Police Constable into the empty shirt pocket of PW.3 with
an instruction to pay the amount to AO on his further demand. He
further deposed that during the post trap on receipt of the pre-
arranged signal, they reached to the spot where PW.3 and AO were
standing and DSP, ACB ascertained the identification of AO and
they took AO into his office and DSP, ACB got conducted sodium
carbonate solution test to both hand fingers and they yielded
positive result and on enquiry AO took out the tainted amount
from out of his left side pant pocket and the serial numbers of the
currency notes as mentioned in pre-trap were found tallied during
the post trap. The evidence of PW.8, insofar as the pre-trap and
post-trap proceedings are concerned, is consistent with that of the
evidence of P.5. So, what is evident by virtue of the evidence of
PW.3, PW.5 and PW.8 coupled with Exs.P.8, P.12 and P.13 is that
the evidence of PW.3 has corroboration from Ex.P-8 and pre-trap
and post-trap proceedings. Further, the evidence of PW.5 and
PW.8 is consistent and it is in accordance with the contents in the
pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. So, the particulars of the
currency notes which were kept in the shirt pocket of PW.3 during
pre-trap proceedings and the particulars of the currency notes
that were seized from AO during the post-trap proceedings are one
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
and the same. So the amount that was seized from the AO was the
amount which was kept into the shirt pocket of PW.3 during the
pre-trap. So now it is a matter of appreciation as to whether the
evidence adduced by the prosecution is believable or not.
40. Turning to the contention of the appellant that PW.3 had no
authorization, whatsoever, from his mother to pursue Ex.P-2,
during cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that he did not obtain
authorization letter from his mother to look after her affairs
regarding Ex.P-2. He did not make a mention in Ex.P-8 that he
accompanied his mother on 30.05.2000 while she went to office of
STO, Mangalagiri for submitting Ex.P-2. It is to be noticed that the
father of PW.3 died while drawing service pension as retired
government employee. It is not in dispute that the mother of PW.3
is old aged. It is not the defence of the AO that PW.3 was not
competent to look after the affairs of his mother. There need not be
any authorization to PW.3 from his mother to pursue the
application under Ex.P-2. In fact, when PW.3 categorically deposed
in chief-examination that Ex.P-2, the application of his mother to
claim family pension, was in his handwriting and further Ex.P-9,
the application of his mother for receiving the funeral expenses,
was also in his handwriting, there is no cross-examination
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
challenging the evidence of PW.3 in this regard. So, when PW.3
being the son of his mother happened to scribe Exs.P-2 and P-9,
nothing improbable could be found on the part of PW.3 in
pursuing the application under Ex.P-2. In fact, PW.3 was duty
bound to assist his mother in claiming the family pension. He had
every locus-standi to champion the cause of his mother. The
contention of the appellant/AO that PW.3 did not file any
authorization and did not prove his locus-standi to pursue the
application of his mother cannot stand to any reason.
41. Though PW.1, during cross-examination, deposed that the
mother of LW.1 - Balaiah i.e., Anna Mary submitted Ex.P-2
application personally in their office but he was not supposed to
note down the particulars of the persons who accompanied the
mother of PW.3 while submitting Ex.P-2. The fact that Ex.P-2 was
in the hand writing of PW.3 altogether excludes the contention of
AO that PW.3 had no interest to pursue the application under
Ex.P-2. As seen from Ex.P-8, report lodged by PW.3 also there was
a mention specifically that on behalf of his mother, he got filed all
three sets of documents and was pursuing the application of her
mother. Hence, this Court is not convinced to accept the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
contention of AO that PW.3 had no authorization from his mother
to look after the affairs relating to Ex.P-2.
42. During cross-examination, PW.3 testified that he
accompanied his mother on 30.05.200 also to pursue Ex.P-2. As
this Court already pointed out there was every possibility to do so.
He deposed in Cross-examination that Krishnalanka Police
Station, Vijayawada was maintaining general diary which discloses
the duties allotted to each of its staff and their movements. The
general diary does not disclose about his movement of his visiting
STO, Mangalagiri as well as DTO, Guntur on 30.05.2000 and
04.07.2000. He denied that he did not visit the office of STO,
Mangalagiri on 30.05.2000 and further he did not go to DTO,
Guntur on 04.07.2000 and did not meet the AO there. It is to be
noticed that, admittedly, PW.3 was a Police Constable and he did
not disclose about his designation in Ex.P-8. There need not be a
mention in Ex.P-8 about the occupation of PW.3. Absence of such
a mention in Ex.P-8 cannot be with any mala fide intention.
Further, it is also borne out from the record that PW.3 did not
disclose his identity to the effect that he belonged to Police
Department on the date of so called demand of bribe on
04.07.2000 to AO. If it was disclosed, AO might not have
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
demanded the bribe of Rs.500/- from PW.3. However, non-
mention of the designation of PW.3 either in Ex.P-8 or non-
disclosure of the same to AO either on 04.07.2000 or on
07.07.2000 cannot be taken as factors to disbelieve the case of the
prosecution.
43. Now the fact remained is that even according to the evidence
of PW.8, the Trap Laying Officer, PW.3 is a Police Constable and he
and PW.3 worked together in Tukaramgate Police Station,
Hyderabad. He did not verify the movements of PW.3 on
30.05.2000 and 04.07.2000 from the general diary of
Krishnalanka Police Station. He did not seize the general diary
entries of the Krishnalanka Police Station. He did not collect any
record to show that PW.3 went to the office of DTO, Guntur and
met the AO on 04.07.2000. It is to be noticed that simply because
PW.3 was a Police Constable as on 30.05.2000 and 04.07.2000
and especially when he submitted Ex.P-8 report in his individual
capacity, having felt grievance against AO, when AO allegedly
demanded bribe of Rs.500/- he was not supposed to prove entries
in the general diary. There is no denial of the fact that the
movements of each and every Police Constable or Police Official
discharging the official duties would be born out by the entries in
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
the general diary. PW.3 was not cross-examined before the Court
below as to whether either on 30.05.2000 or on 04.07.2000
whether he was on duty or not. If it was elicited during the cross-
examination that on those specific dates he was entrusted with
other official duties, then there would be a probability that while
discharging the official duties he was not supposed to pursue his
personal activities by visiting either the office of STO or the office
of DTO. Apart from this, as evident from the judgment of the Court
below, AO had taken steps to summon the general diary but the
concerned in the Krishnalanka Police Station submitted a Memo
with information that they made search for the documents in the
Police Station but they could not trace out the same. It is to be
noticed that there was no answer elicited from PW.3 by doing
necessary cross-examination that per day how many hours PW.3
has to attend duty and further his attended duty timings on those
days. Without eliciting anything in this regard from PW.3, AO
cannot contend that the prosecution did not produce the
movement register of PW.3 relating to the dates of 30.05.2000 and
04.07.2000. On the other hand, the various circumstances shown
by this Court goes to prove that PW.3 drafted with his hand
writing Ex.P-2 as well as Ex.P-9 championing the cause of his
mother. So, when his mother was old aged, it is rather possible
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
that a man like PW.3 would certainly take his mother to the office
of STO and would further pursue her claim.
44. It is no doubt true even from the admissions of PW.3 and
PW.8 they together worked for some time in Tukarakgate Police
Station, Hyderabad, AO wanted to take an advantage by
contending that as PW.8 had well acquaintance with PW.3, used
PW.3 to implicate the AO in a false trap case for statistical
purpose. Both PW.3 and PW.8 flatly denied the defence theory
during the course of their cross-examination. It is to be noticed
that laying a trap against a public servant is a serious issue. AO
did not elicit anything from the mouth of PW.8 that whether
Government fixed any targets to them to book a particular number
of cases in a month or year. Such a defence of AO before the Court
below was nothing but unreasonable. It is rather improbable to
assume that PW.8 for statistical purposes used PW.3 to lay a false
trap case against AO. Under the circumstances, the contention of
AO that he was implicated falsely by PW.8 using PW.3 for
statistical purpose cannot stand to any reason. In fact, when this
Court already pointed out non-mentioning of the designation of
PW.3 either in Ex.P-8 or before the AO is not going to affect the
case of prosecution in any way.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
45. Turning to the contention of the appellant that PW.5 is a
stock witness, this Court would like to make it clear that
according to the evidence of PW.5, on 06.07.2000 he was
instructed by his superior to attend before the DSP, ACB on
07.07.2000 and accordingly he attended. It is elicited from the
mouth of PW.5 during cross-examination that he acted as
mediator in four ACB cases and deposed in C.C. No.37 of 2000 on
21.06.2005. Basing on the above, the contention of the AO is that
PW.5 is a stock mediator. It is to be noticed that it is not the case
of the AO that pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were not at all
conducted. PW.5 was bound to assist the DSP, ACB when he was
directed by his superior officer. Though, PW.5 deposed that he
acted as mediator in four ACB cases, it is not elicited whether
present case is subsequent to other cases or not. Under the
circumstances as PW.5 was a public servant, he was bound to
assist ACB officials whenever requested. The evidence of PW.5
cannot be tainted as stock witness. Absolutely, PW.5 had no
reason to depose false against the AO. As seen from the evidence
of PW.8, Trap Laying Officer, after receipt of Ex.P-8 from PW.3 at
02:00 p.m. on 06.07.2000, he endorsed the same to LW.11 - K.
Veerabhadra Rao, Range Inspector-II, ACB, Vijayawada for
verification of the antecedents of AO and PW.3. He received the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
same by way of endorsement on Ex.P-8 from the said Range
Inspector on 07.07.2000 at 08:30 a.m. Then he sought permission
to lay a trap from DG, ACB and registered the same as a case in
Crime No.10/ACB-VJA/2000 of ACB, Vijayawada Range at 08:30
a.m. Ex.P-16 is the original FIR. Admittedly, as seen from Ex.P-8,
there was an endorsement by the DSP, ACB to cause antecedents
verification and after getting the necessary information only he
registered the FIR. With regard to this part of evidence of PW.8,
there is no cross-examination. Nothing is suggested before PW.8 -
the Trap Laying Officer that he fabricated the endorsement as
regards the antecedents' enquiry. It is to be noticed that the type
of preliminary enquiry or antecedents' enquiry may be
confidential. PW.8 need not depose in detail as to the type of
enquiry conducted. Even otherwise, when he specifically deposed
that he conducted necessary antecedents enquiry, the said
evidence of PW.8 was not at all challenged during the course of his
cross-examination. Under the circumstances, I am of the
considered view that the contention of the AO that prosecution did
not explain as to what was the antecedents enquiry and
preliminary enquiry conducted before registration of the FIR is not
tenable. Though PW.8 had acquaintance with PW.3 and even the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
antecedents enquiry revealed the same but PW.8 was not debarred
from laying trap against AO basing on the report of PW.3.
46. AO did not deny that the tainted amount was recovered from
his possession. He suggested a theory before PW.3 that on
07.07.2000 at about 11:40 a.m. when AO was proceeding from his
office to tea bunk to have tea as he was a sugar patient, suddenly
he (PW.3) went behind while he was crossing the tree and forcibly
thrusted the tainted amount in his left side pant pocket and the
AO obstructed the same with his hands and without hearing, the
AO he hurriedly relayed pre-arranged signal. So, the contention of
AO before the Court below was that PW.3 thrusted the amount
into his shirt pocket outside the office.
47. A look at the post trap proceedings reveals that the Trap
Laying Officer claimed to have recorded the version of AO. The
version of AO before the Trap Laying Officer in the presence of
mediators is that on 07.07.2000, PW.3 came to him and asked
about pension papers of his mother and he replied that he will
attend and then he asked him to come out with him and he
followed him to the tea stall and when they reached there, the
complainant gave the bribe amount without his demand and that
he accepted the same with his left hand and kept it in the pant
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
pocket and then trap party surrounded him. It is to be noticed
that so called thrusting theory was not there in Ex.P-14 - post
trap proceedings. Absolutely PW.5 - the mediator or PW.8 - the
trap laying officer had no necessity to distort the version of AO in
the post-trap proceedings. AO had knowledge of the contents of
Ex.P-14 because he received a copy of it. So, for the first time,
after a long lapse, contrary to the version in Ex.P-14 - post-trap
proceedings, AO agitated before the Court below that PW.3
thrusted the amount into his shirt pocket for no fault of him. In
support of his defence he examined DW.1.
48. As seen from the evidence of DW.1, he is doing a private job.
He went to the office of DTO, Guntur to meet his friend, who was
working there. He did not find him. He waited and came out and
had tea in the tea bunk while he was waiting under a tree at about
11:00 a.m. he found AO came out from his office and reached
towards the tree. One person behind him speedily thrusted some
currency notes in the left side pant pocket of AO. AO obstructed
with his hands. The person went running away. In the meanwhile,
7 or 8 persons apprehended the AO, who disclosed that they are
ACB officials. During cross-examination by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor, DW.1 deposed that he did not have any official
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
work or bills of his own as on 07.07.2000. He did not make any
attempt or to resist the person, who thrusted the amount into
pant pocket of AO and they did not try to caught hold of him. He
met his friend in treasury office at 12:30 p.m. He did not inform
about the alleged incident to anybody. He denied that he did not
go to the office of his friend on 07.07.2000 and he did not witness
anything.
49. It is to be noticed that, absolutely, DW.1 was a chance
witness. AO did not examine the so called friend of DW.1 namely
Ramesh Babu, who was said to be working in the office of AO to
support the theory of DW.1. Apart from this, one has to look into
the natural reaction of AO when somebody without his fault
thrusted the currency notes into his trouser pocket. It is to be
noticed that the defence of AO is bereft of necessary details as to
why he kept quiet without raising any cries or without moving
forward to chase PW.3 so as to catch him. Apart from this, the
natural reaction of AO when PW.3 thrusted the amount would be
to pick up the amount from the trouser pocket and throw it away
on PW.3. Apart from this, DW.1 did not try to catch the person
who thrusted the amount into his shirt pocket. All this goes to
show that the defence of the AO before the Court below is nothing
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
but an afterthought. The conduct of AO was not that of reasonable
prudence when PW.3 allegedly thrusted the amount into the
trouser pocket. Absolutely, there was no necessity for PW.5 and
PW.8 to mention a different version in the post-trap proceedings
as against the thrusting theory. Hence, I am of the considered view
that AO miserably failed to probabilize his defence before the
Court below. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered
view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is fully
convincing.
50. Turning to the contention of learned counsel for the
appellant/AO that the Trap Laying Officer did not examine any
persons, who were present at the time of trap, this Court would
like to make it clear that in a case of this nature, as already the
Trap Laying Officer secured mediators and resorted to the
scientific test to ascertain as to whether the amount that was
recovered from the possession of AO was the amount which was
given by PW.3 in the post-trap proceedings, he was not supposed
to examine the persons who were said to be present at the time of
trap.
51. It is no doubt true according to the decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in K. Shanthamma (4th supra) and P. Parasurami
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
Reddy (5th supra), cited by learned counsel for the appellant/AO,
the demand for bribe is sine-qua-non to establish the charges
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
Apart from this, even the Hon'ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi)6, presided over by a
Constitution Bench while dealing with the essential ingredients of
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act, held that proving
the allegations of demand is a sine-qua-non to establish the
charges. When this Court already pointed out the evidence of PW.3
that when he met the AO on 04.07.2000, he demanded the bribe
of Rs.500/- is fully convincing. Apart from this, there is evidence
of PW.3 with regard to the incident happened in the post-trap that
on further demand, he gave the tainted amount to AO. The
amount was recovered from the physical possession of AO for
which the prosecution adduced cogent evidence. Accused failed to
probabilise his defence that PW.3 thrusted the amount into his
trouser pocket. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered
view that the prosecution has established the essential ingredients
of demand as contemplated under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
R/w.13(2) of the PC Act. Evidence on record categorically proved
the fact that on demand only PW.3 paid the bribe of Rs.500/- to
6 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
the AO. The act of the AO in making such demand and accepting
the amount of Rs.500/- by way of demand squarely attracts the
essential ingredients of Section 7 of the PC Act. Further, it attracts
the act of criminal misconduct as defined under Sections 13(1)(d)
R/w.13(2) of the PC Act. It is nothing but obtaining the pecuniary
advantage by AO from PW.3 on demand which amounts to
criminal misconduct under the above provision of law.
52. In Neeraj Dutta (6th supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that upon proof of foundational facts and facts in issue, a
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would arise in favour
of the case of the prosecution. As AO dealt with the tainted
amount, 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
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
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
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.‖
53. As this Court already pointed out the prosecution is able to
establish the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by
AO, it clearly proves the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) R/w.13(2) of the PC Act. AO miserably failed to rebut the
presumption available to the case of the prosecution.
54. As seen from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, the
learned Special Judge analyzed each and every contention raised
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
by the AO before the Court below and with sound reasons
negatived the contentions of the AO. The judgment in Calendar
Case No.7 of 2001, dated 17.11.2006, on the file of the Court of
Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada is well
considered by appreciating the evidence on record in proper
perspective. Hence, no other conclusion can be possible except the
conclusion that the prosecution before the Court below with
cogent evidence established the charges framed against the AO
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment.
55. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as such the
judgment in Calendar Case No.7 of 2001, dated 17.11.2006, on
the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases,
Vijayawada stands confirmed. MO.7, tainted currency notes of
Rs.500/-, is ordered to be returned to PW.3. MOs.1 to 6 and MO.8
is ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over, if available
before the Court below.
56. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under
Section 388 Cr.P.C to certify the judgment of this Court to the
learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Vijayawada and
on such certification, the learned Special Judge shall take
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.1654/2006
necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the
appellant/accused in Calendar Case No.7 of 2001, dated
17.11.2006, 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 Court below on or before 19.05.2023. A
copy of this judgment be 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: 12.05.2023
DSH
