The State Of A.P., Thru Inspector ... vs Sri M.Laxmaiah
2023 Latest Caselaw 5118 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.769 OF 2007

JUDGMENT:-

      The challenge in this Criminal Appeal is made to the

judgment, dated 12.02.2007 in Calendar Case No.23 of 2002,

on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City

Civil Court at Hyderabad ("Additional Special Judge" for short).

The unsuccessful State, represented by the Inspector of Police,

Anti-Corruption Bureau ("A.C.B." in short), Kurnool Range,

Kurnool, filed the present Criminal Appeal as against the

judgment of the trial Court under which the learned Additional

Special Judge found the Accused Officer ("A.O." for short) not

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

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

acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal

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

      2)    The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter

be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of

convenience.

      3)    The State, represented by the Inspector of Police,

Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, filed the

charge sheet against the A.O. alleging in substance as follows:
                                 2


      (i) The A.O. Sri M. Laxmaiah worked as Junior Lineman in

Power House Section, Distribution No.1, A.P. Transco, Kurnool,

from 06.04.1999 to 17.02.2001. He is a public servant within

the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988.

      (ii) The complainant Sri Katika Rasool, S/o Hazi Hussain

Miah who will be hereinafter referred to as P.W.1 is the resident

of Gowligeri, Kurnool town. P.W.1 is residing in the ground floor

of the house bearing No.42/17-A, situated in Gowligeri, Kurnool

Town belonging to P.W.2 since 3 ½ years. P.W.2, the owner of

the house, is staying in the first floor of the house.         The

electricity meter H.S.C.No.40848 of the house was installed in

the ground floor of the house in which P.W.1 was residing.

P.W.2 borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from P.W.1 and

mortgaged the said house to P.W.1 under an agreement, dated

26.08.1989. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were using the electricity through

the meter H.S.C.No.40848 and they were sharing the electricity

bill equally. P.W.1 noticed that the electricity meter was stuck

up and informed the same to P.W.2.       On that P.W.2 lodged a

complaint    before   P.W.7-Assistant   Engineer,    Power   House

Section, Distribution No.1, Kurnool, on 16.10.2000 to rectify the

defects.    As there was no action on the said complaint, P.W.2

lodged another complaint before P.W.7 in the first week of
                                      3


January, 2001. On that the A.O. and another person visited the

house on 30.01.2001 and replaced the defective meter with new

one. At that time, the A.O. threatened P.W.1 and P.W.2 stating

that they tampered the meter and that the A.O. would get a

case booked against them unless he was paid bribe of

Rs.5,000/-.    After   bargaining,       the   A.O.   agreed   to   accept

Rs.4,000/- i.e., Rs.2,000/- each from P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1

and P.W.2 agreed to pay the said amount after one week. On

03.02.2001 the A.O. visited the house of P.W.1 and demanded

him to pay bribe. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe

and requested time for one week. Again on 09.02.2001 the A.O.

demanded P.W.1 to pay bribe of Rs.4,000/-. P.W.1 informed the

A.O. that P.W.2 is not available in the house and promised to

pay the bribe on 11.02.2001 i.e., on Sunday. P.W.1 unwilling to

pay the bribe to the A.O., lodged oral complaint before P.W.10-

the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Kurnool Range,

Kurnool, on 10.02.2001 and the same was reduced into writing

by P.W.12. The said statement of P.W.1 i.e., Ex.P.1 was

registered by P.W.10, as a case in Crime No.1/ACB-KUR/2001

and laid a trap against the A.O. on 11.02.2001.

     (iii)    On   11.02.2001    at       about   10-00    a.m.,    P.W.1

accompanied by the mediator-P.W.4 went to the house of the
                                      4


A.O. and found that the A.O. was waiting at his house.               On

seeing P.W.1, the A.O. asked him whether he brought his share

of bribe amount. P.W.1 gave positive reply. As per the

instructions    of   the    A.O.,   P.W.12    accompanied    by    P.W.4

proceeded to Sreerama Tiffin Center, where the A.O. demanded

and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- from P.W.1 in

the presence of P.W.4. Both hand fingers of the A.O. when

subjected to the chemical test, gave positive result. The tainted

amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the possession of the

A.O. on production by the A.O. from his left side shirt upper

pocket. Inner linings of the shirt pocket of the A.O. also yielded

positive   result    to    the   chemical    test.   P.W.10-the   Deputy

Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., seized the tainted amount

recovered from the possession of the A.O. P.W.11-the Divisional

Electrical Engineer, Operation, A.P. Central Power Distribution

Company Limited, Kurnool, has accorded sanction proceedings

for prosecution of the A.O. in a Court of law. The A.O.

committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988. Hence, the charge

sheet.

      4)       On appearance of the A.O., the learned Additional

Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
                                        5


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

same to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

      5)      In order to establish the guilt against the A.O., the

prosecution       before   the    learned     Additional    Special    Judge

examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16

and M.O.1 to M.O.10.              After closure of evidence of the

prosecution, the A.O. was examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C.    with    reference     to   the   incriminating    circumstances

appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same

and filed a written statement contending in substance as

follows:

      The A.O. worked as Junior Lineman in Power House

Section,    Distribution    No.1,      A.P.   Transco,      Kurnool,    from

06.04.1999 to 17.02.2001. The A.O. is not aware of the dealings

in between P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding mortgage of the house.

The house belongs to P.W.2. P.W.2 resides in the upstairs and

P.W.1 is staying in the ground floor. P.W.1 is not the owner of

the house. Ex.P.3-application, dated 16.10.2000, addressed to

the Assistant Engineer was signed by P.W.2. As per Ex.P.4,

meter was replaced on 30.01.2001. P.W.1 tampered service

connection No.31299 and he paid penalty of Rs.27,927/-. P.W.1
                                    6


admitted that he tampered the meter in the shop. The evidence

of P.W.1 is not trustworthy. The A.O. never demanded any bribe

from P.W.1. The A.O. is not competent authority to book a case

nor he can prevail on the officers from booking a case against

P.W.2. P.W.2 has to oblige P.W.1 as he has to pay Rs.1,00,000/-

to P.W.1. P.W.2 was fined about Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,000/- for

compounding the offence for tampering of meter No.40848. The

A.O. received the amount as P.W.6 instructed him to receive it.

The   A.O    gave    spontaneous       explanation     to   the   Deputy

Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., that Chander Lineman gave

instructions to him to receive Rs.4,000/- and it is not bribe

amount. In order to save the Assistant Engineer, this case was

foisted    against   the   A.O.   P.W.6     was      with   the   Deputy

Superintendent of Police at the house of P.W.1 and he had

talked with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., after

the trap incident. The A.O. is innocent of the charges framed

against him.

      6)     In furtherance of the defence, the A.O. examined

D.W.1 to D.W.3. Apart from this, the learned defence counsel

during cross examination got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4, the

relevant portions of Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. statements,

recorded by the learned Magistrate.
                                   7


     7)    The learned Additional Special Judge on hearing

both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary

evidence, found the A.O. not guilty of the charges framed

against him as stated above and accordingly, acquitted him

under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the same, the

unsuccessful   State,    filed   the   present   Criminal   Appeal,

challenging the judgment of acquittal through the learned

Standing Counsel for ACB and Special Public Prosecutor.

     8)    Before going to frame the points for determination,

this Court would like to make it clear that there was no dispute

before the trial Court that the A.O. was a public servant within

the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the P.C. Act. In respect of the

findings of the learned Additional Special Judge that the

prosecution obtained a valid sanction under Section 19 of the

P.C. Act, the same is not challenged by the respondent in this

matter in any way. Hence, the scope of the appeal is confined to

the following aspects:

(1) Whether the prosecution before the learned Additional Special Judge proved that the official favour in respect of the work of P.W.1 was pending with the A.O. as on the date of report and as on the date of trap in the manner as alleged by the prosecution?

(2) Whether the prosecution before the learned Additional Special Judge proved that the A.O. demanded P.W.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.5,000/- and later reduced it to Rs.4,000/- so as to do official favour in the manner as alleged by the prosecution and that pursuant to such demand, he accepted a sum of Rs.2,000/- within the meaning of Section 7 of the P.C. Act and whether he abused his official position, as such, as public servant?

(3) Whether the judgment, dated 12.02.2007 in C.C.No.23 of 2002, on the file of Additional Special Judge, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal?

POINT NOs.1 TO 3:-

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

and Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the appellant/

State, would contend that P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the mediators to

the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. P.W.4 was

accompanying witness to observe the events between P.W.1 and

the A.O. and he supported the case of the prosecution. The

tainted amount was recovered from the possession of the A.O.

P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 spoke about the demand made by the

A.O. prior to the trap and on the date of trap, as the case may

be. The learned Additional Special Judge erred in ignoring the

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 with regard to the demand on the

date of trap. There is no inconsistency, as such, as pointed out

by the learned Additional Special Judge. Both hand fingers of the

A.O. yielded positive result when they were subjected to

chemical test. The prosecution by virtue of the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other official witnesses, proved the

pendency of the official favour. The A.O. set forth contrary

arguments before the learned Additional Special Judge as if the

tainted amount was received towards compounding fee and that

he accepted the amount at the instructions of P.W.6. The

prosecution with consistent evidence proved the pendency of the

official favour and demand made by the A.O. as alleged by the

prosecution prior to the trap and on the date of trap and

recovery of tainted amount from the A.O. In spite of convincing

evidence adduced, the trial Court erred in disbelieving the case

of the prosecution. The prosecution has the benefit of Section 20

of the P.C. Act, as such, the prosecution supplemented its case

to any extent by relying on Section 20 of the P.C. Act. He would

further contend that the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed

by reversing the acquittal so as to convict the A.O.

10) Miss B. Poonam, learned counsel, representing the

learned counsel for the respondent, would contend that the

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is interested. They put forth a

case that the meter was stuck up for which they made an

application. It is borne out by the record that even prior to the

allegations of demand, the A.O. at the instructions of superior

officer replaced the meter. Ultimately, it was found that P.W.1

and P.W.2 tampered the meter for which P.W.1 was directed to

pay the compounding fee and he paid it. P.W.2 simply obliged

the request of P.W.1 in support of the case of the prosecution.

Ex.P.1 alleges three dates of demand. P.W.1 and P.W.2 spoke

about the date of demand prior to 30.01.2001. They did not

speak about the demand, dated 29.01.2001 and subsequent

thereafter. There was no evidence that the A.O. reduced the

bribe amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,000/- on 30.01.2001.

Apart from this, there was no question of making demand for

bribe as the A.O. at the instructions of superiors duly attended

the replacement of meter. The contention of the prosecution is

that the A.O. demanded bribe from P.W.1 and P.W.2 for not

booking case against them. The A.O. had no power to book any

case. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the pendency of

the official favour. The A.O. voluntarily during the post-trap put

forth a version that at the instructions of P.W.6, he received the

amount. P.W.6 during cross examination admitted this. The

investigating officer ought to have booked a case against P.W.6.

There was inconsistency between the evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.4-the accompanying witness. Mere recovery of tainted

amount from the A.O. is not sufficient to convict him. The

learned Additional Special Judge with cogent reasons disbelieved

the case of the prosecution, as such, the Criminal Appeal is

liable to be dismissed.

11) P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant. P.W.2 is the

owner of the house in which P.W.1 was residing. The agreement

between P.W.1 and P.W.2 in this regard is that P.W.1 paid a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to P.W.2 and that the said amount would

not carry any interest and P.W.1 need not pay any lease. There

is no dispute about this aspect. P.W.1 who is the defacto-

complainant deposed in support of the case of the prosecution

especially Ex.P.1-complaint on certain aspects. He supported

the case of the prosecution insofar as Ex.P.5 is concerned. The

prosecution examined P.W.2 also who was the owner of the

house and he deposed about the agreement entered into by him

with P.W.1 in respect of his house. The testimony of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 is such that the electricity meter in the ground floor of the

building was stuck up and he made Ex.P.3-letter on 16.10.2000

to the Assistant Engineer. Even he deposed about the so-called

demand made by the A.O.

12) P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are the mediators to the pre-

trap and post-trap proceedings, supported the case of the

prosecution. The prosecution also examined the owner of the

hotel Sreerama Tiffin Center in Gowligeri, Kurnool town where

the alleged trap was laid against the A.O. He testified in

substance that on 11.02.2001 at 10-00 a.m., P.W.1 and two

others came to his hotel. Turning to the evidence of P.W.6, in

the month of January, 2001 P.W.1 met him with a version that

his meter was stuck up and he advised him to present an

application to the concerned Assistant Engineer. The prosecution

examined P.W.7 to P.W.9, who are the officials of

A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Kurnool, whose evidence is to the effect that

there was tampering of electricity meter service No.40848 in the

name of P.W.2. P.W.10 was the trap laying officer. The

prosecution examined P.W.11-the Divisional Electrical Engineer

to speak about Ex.P.16-sanction to prosecute the A.O. P.W.12 is

the Inspector of Police, who assisted the trap laying officer in

investigation.

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

whether the prosecution before the learned Additional Special

Judge proved the pendency of the official favour. There is

consistent evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to the

agreement entered into between them and they spoke to the

fact that the electricity meter is in the ground floor which was

stuck up. This fact is also testified by P.W.7-Additional Assistant

Engineer, Power House Distribution, APCPDCL, Kurnool. Ex.P.3

is the application in this regard. There is no dispute that P.W.7

deputed the A.O. to replace the stuck up meter with a new

meter and the A.O. visited the house of P.W.2, removed the

stuck up meter with new meter on 30.01.2001. According to

P.W.2, Ex.P.4 bears his signature which reveals that meter was

replaced on 30.01.2001. The fact that the A.O. was deputed to

replace the so-called stuck up meter with the new meter which

was deposed by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.7. There is no dispute

insofar as this aspect is concerned.

14) Ex.P.1 depicts that there was a demand made by

A.O. on 29.01.2001 with a version that if that amount is not

paid, he will book a case against P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no

dispute that the A.O. had no power whatsoever to book a

criminal case against P.W.1 and P.W.2 for allegedly tampering

the electricity meter. P.W.1 and P.W.2 admittedly did not testify

that there was a demand on 30.01.2001 as alleged in Ex.P.1.

Of course, they spoke to the fact that the demand was made on

29.01.2001 and their evidence with regard to the subsequent

demands is nothing but vague.

15) As seen from the evidence of P.W.8, he deposed

that according to the procedure, the defective meters will be

forwarded to MRT lab and accordingly, the meter of P.W.1 was

forwarded to the MRT lab on 03.03.2001. P.W.9 testified the

meter reading as 5500 units as on 07.07.2000 and the same

reading was also shown on 02.09.2000 and on 09.11.2000.

Thus, throughout the said period, the meter reading was shown

only as 5500 units. As evident from the evidence of P.W.1

during cross examination after the trap he paid penalty for

tampering the meter regarding HSC No.40848. So, the case of

the prosecution is such that though it alleged that the electricity

meter in the house of P.W.2 was stuck in the ground floor, but

later it came on record, that in fact, the meter was tampered for

which P.W.1 paid the penalty for tampering the meter after the

trap incident. Therefore, the conduct of P.W.1 is to be looked

into as highly doubtful.

16) As seen from the evidence of P.W.7 as pointed out,

absolutely, the A.O. was alleged to have replaced the meter on

30.01.2001 itself with new meter. Thus, even as on 30.01.2001,

there was nothing to be attended by the A.O. As pointed out,

the A.O. had no power whatsoever to book criminal case against

P.W.1 or P.W.2 for allegedly tampering the meter. Having

regard to the above crucial aspects, the prosecution before the

trial Court failed to prove that the A.O. was capable of booking a

case against P.W.1 and P.W.2 either prior to the trap or

subsequent to the trap. Hence, when he had no power to book

any criminal case, it is improbable to assume that the A.O.

demanded P.W.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.5,000/- for doing any

official favour. This Court is of the considered view, the evidence

is lacking absolutely that there was official favour pending prior

to Ex.P.1 or as on the date of Ex.P.1 or subsequent to Ex.P.1 or

as on the date of trap laid on 11.02.2001.

17) Now coming to the crucial aspects of the demand as

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

P.C. Act, Ex.P.1 alleges the demands as on 29.01.2001.

Absolutely, according to the case of the prosecution on

29.01.2001 itself, the A.O. came to the house of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and replaced the new electric meter in the place of old

one. Another date of demand is immediately after 29.01.2001.

Another date of demand was on 03.02.2001 and 09.02.2001.

When it comes to the evidence of P.W.1, his evidence in chief

examination is that on 29.01.2001 the A.O. came to his house

and removed the old meter and fixed a new meter in its place.

The A.O. alleged that they committed theft of energy and that a

case will be booked unless they paid Rs.5,000/-. He did not

speak about the demand on 30.01.2001. Even he did not speak

about the subsequent date of demands. The prosecution version

is that it was on 30.01.2001, the A.O. replaced the meter in the

house of P.W.1 and P.W.2. That aspect is not testified by P.W.1

and P.W.2. So, with regard to the demands immediately after

29.01.2001 and also in the first week of February, 2001,

absolutely, P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not testify anything in this

regard. Their evidence in this regard is nothing but vague. It is

altogether a different aspect that P.W.1 testified about the

demand on the date of trap. Thus, the evidence is lacking

substantially with regard to the demands immediately after

29.01.2001, during first and second week of February, 2001.

The prosecution failed to prove the same with any consistent

evidence.

18) As this Court already pointed out that the A.O. was

not capable of doing any official favour subsequent to his

replacing of meter. It is not the case of the prosecution that for

replacing of the meter with new one in the place of so-called

stuck up meter, the A.O. demanded bribe and it is never the

case of the prosecution. Therefore, when the A.O. was not

capable of doing any official favour for not booking case against

P.W.1 and P.W.2, the allegations in Ex.P.1, as if the A.O.

demand bribe for not booking case is very weak in nature. The

fact that there was no official favour pending as alleged by the

prosecution is coming in the way of the prosecution to contend

that the A.O. demanded P.W.1 to pay the bribe. The evidence

of P.W.1 is such that on 29.01.2001 itself, the A.O. reduced the

bribe to Rs.4,000/-. It is contrary to the allegations in Ex.P.1.

Thus, it is very difficult to believe the evidence of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 with regard to the demand on 29.01.2001. If that is

excluded from consideration, there is no substantive evidence

that on 30.01.2001 or subsequent thereto prior to the post-trap

also the A.O. demanded P.W.1 or P.W.2.

19) With regard to the allegations of the prosecution,

the A.O. demanded P.W.1 on the date of trap to pay the bribe of

Rs.2,000/- and accepted the same, the evidence of P.W.1 is that

he went to the house of the A.O. on the date of trap and the

A.O. asked him „emaiah naa dabbulu istava‟ and he replied that

he would pay the amount. The A.O. asked him to come to

Sreerama Tiffin Center, which is near to his house. Then he,

mediators and the A.O. went there where they had tea. The

A.O. asked him to pay the bribe amount and he took out the

amount and gave the same to the A.O. The A.O. counted it and

kept the same in his left hand shirt pocket. The A.O. promised

that case will not be booked. Then he came out and gave pre

arranged signal. P.W.3 was not accompanying witness. The

evidence of P.W.4-the accompanying witness is that on

11.02.2001 he and P.W.3 proceeded to the house of P.W.1.

They reached to the vicinity. He and P.W.1 proceeded to the

house of the A.O. The A.O. was present. The A.O. asked P.W.1

whether he brought the demanded bribe amount and P.W.1 said

that it is in his pocket. Then, they went to Sreerama Tiffin

Center and had tea. The A.O. asked money to P.W.1. P.W.1

picked up it and gave to the A.O.

20) It is to be noted that there is inconsistency,

admittedly, between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4.

According to P.W.1, the A.O. asked him „emaiah naa dabbulu

istava‟. According to P.W.4, the A.O. asked P.W.1 whether he

brought the demanded bribe amount. The learned Additional

Special Judge found clearly this inconsistency between the

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4. Apart from this, it is very difficult

to assume that the A.O. ignoring the presence of P.W.4 along

with the A.O., asked P.W.1 to pay the bribe of Rs.2,000/-. In

the considered view of this Court there is every doubt as to the

manner in which P.W.4 claimed to have witnessed the

occurrence. If really P.W.4 accompanied P.W.1 and observed

the events between P.W.1 and the A.O., he would have

supported the version of P.W.1 that the A.O. asked P.W.1 as to

whether „emaiah naa dabbulu istava‟. As this Court already

pointed out there was no pendency of the official favour.

Looking into this type of inconsistency coupled with the fact that

the pendency of the official favour was not proved by the

prosecution, it is very difficult to believe the evidence of P.W.1

and P.W.4 that during post-trap, the A.O. demanded him to pay

the bribe of Rs.2,000/-.

21) The prosecution strongly relied upon the

circumstances that the tainted amount was recovered from the

possession of the A.O. As seen from Ex.P.12-post trap

proceedings, there was a spontaneous version of the A.O. to the

effect that at the instructions of P.W.6, he received the amount.

There is no dispute about this version recorded by the mediators

in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in post-

trap. During cross examination, he denied that as he

apprehends that the A.O. may impose penalty, he filed a false

trap against the A.O. As seen from the evidence of P.W.3 and

P.W.4, they admitted about post-trap version of the A.O. As

seen from the evidence of P.W.6, the so-called Chandra Sekhar

at whose instance the A.O. was claimed to have received the

amount, during cross examination he deposed that the Inspector

asked him whether the A.O. was due any amount to him and

whether he instructed the A.O. to take that amount from P.W.1.

He did not question C.I why he was asking him about money

which was given by Rasool to Lakshmaiah. It is to be noted that

during further cross examination he admitted that he stated

before ACB Inspector that he informed Rasool to pay Rs.4,000/-

to Lakshmaiah, Junior Lineman for the meter not being stuck up

and to see that no case is made out.

22) It is to be noted that when the investigating officer

got recorded such a version from P.W.6 as to why he did not

think over to investigate into the allegations against P.W.6

shrouded in mystery. Therefore, when the investigating officer

recorded the statement of P.W.6 which is to the effect that he

informed to P.W.1 to pay Rs.4,000/- to the A.O., why the

investigating officer did not contemplate to look into the

allegations against P.W.6 is not known. It throws any amount of

doubt about the bonafide in the investigation.

23) Apart from the above, in furtherance of the defence,

the A.O. got examined D.W.1 to D.W.3. Insofar as the evidence

of D.W.1 and D.W.2 is concerned, it is supported the case of the

prosecution that no official favour was pending. According to

D.W.3, on 30.01.2001 he went to the house of P.W.1 for

replacing the meter. He was physically present during that

time. The A.O. removed the meter and handed over to him.

The A.O. did not ask P.W.1 any amount. There was no quarrel

between P.W.1 and the A.O. at that time. Having regard to the

overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered

view that the evidence is lacking that the prosecution proved the

allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe by the A.O.

24) It is well settled that mere recovery of the tainted

amount from the A.O. is not sufficient to convict him. There is

no doubt that the amount was recovered from the possession of

the A.O. There was a spontaneous version of A.O. that at the

instructions of P.W.6, he received the amount. The investigating

officer recorded the statement of P.W.6, as if he instructed the

A.O. to receive the amount from P.W.1. The investigating Officer

did not think over to look into the allegation against P.W.6.

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

considered view that the learned Additional Special Judge rightly

looked into all these aspects and extended benefit of doubt to

the A.O. In the considered view of this Court, as the prosecution

did not prove the foundational facts as regards the demand and

pendency of the official favour, it had no benefit of presumption

under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The learned Additional Special

Judge on thorough analyzation of the evidence on record rightly

found the A.O. not guilty of the charges and extended benefit of

doubt rightly in favour of the A.O. Hence, in the considered

view of this Court that the prosecution before the learned

Additional Special Judge failed to prove the above aspects, as

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

learned Additional Special Judge.

26) In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, as

such, the judgment, dated 12.02.2007 in C.C.No.23 of 2002, on

the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City

Civil Court at Hyderabad, shall stand confirmed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt.19.10.2023.

PGR

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

CRL. APPEAL NO.769 OF 2007

Date: 19.10.2023

PGR