Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State, Rept.By Its Inspector Of ... vs Mude Krishnaiah on 25 January, 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.161 OF 2012
Between:
The State,
Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.
Amaravathi. .... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Mude Krishnaiah, S/o.Subbaiah,
Formerly Deputy Civil Surgeon,
Resident Medical Officer &
Hospital Administrator,
SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati,
Chittoor District. .... Respondent/Respondent.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 25.01.2024
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 wishes to see
The fair copy of the judgment? Yes/No
______________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.161/2012
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.161 OF 2012
% 25.01.2024
# Between:
The State,
Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.
Amaravathi. .... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Mude Krishnaiah, S/o.Subbaiah,
Formerly Deputy Civil Surgeon,
Resident Medical Officer &
Hospital Administrator,
SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati,
Chittoor District. .... Respondent/Respondent.
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri.S.M.Subhani,
Learned Standing Counsel-cum-
Special Public Prosecutor.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy.
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 1989 LawSuit (SC) 415
2) 2014 LawSuit (SC) 217
3) 2021 LawSuit (AP) 1624
This Court made the following:
3
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.161/2012
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.161 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated
30.08.2011, in Calender Case No.23 of 2005, on the file of the
Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore (for short,
'the learned Special Judge'), where under the learned Special
Judge found the Accused Officer not 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') and acquitted him
under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
short, 'the Cr.P.C').
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, Tirupati Range, Tirupati filed charge sheet
against the Accused Officer in Crime No.10/RCT-TCT/2004
alleging the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of
the PC Act. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the
charge sheet averments, is as follows:
AVRB,J
(i) The accused worked as Deputy Civil Surgeon-cum-
Resident Medical Officer as well as Hospital Administrator in Sri
Venkateswara Ramanarayan Ruia Government General (SVRRGG)
Hospital, Tirupati in between June 2001 and 11.06.2004. Hence,
he is a 'Public Servant' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC
Act. PW.1 - Sri Nagari Ranjit Kumar is a resident of B. Kothakota
village of Chittoor District. He was studying B.Com., as on
10.02.2004. On that day, he was sleeping in front of his house at
B.Kothakota, when an RTC Bus ran over him, causing serious
injuries. On account if it, he was taken to Government Area
Hospital, Madanapalle and thereafter he was shifted to SVRRGG
Hospital, Tirupati for better treatment. PW.1 had undergone
surgery to his left thigh, while was admitted in Orthopaedic Ward
in that Hospital. He made a claim against APSRTC in the Court of
learned II Additional District Judge-cum-MACT, Madanapalle, for
compensation in O.P. No.135/2000 of Rs.1,00,000/-. In proof of
his claim, he was advised by PW.5 - Sri S. Rajendra, an Advocate
at Madanapalle to obtain a disability certificate. For such purpose,
PW.1 approached the accused, in his office, several times, and the
accused demanded him Rs.6,000/- as bribe. When PW.1 pleaded
his inability, the accused reduced it to Rs.5,000/-, asking him to
pay the same on 11.06.2004 at his office. Unwilling to pay such
AVRB,J
amount on 10.06.2004, PW.1 approached ACB at Tirupati,
presented a written complaint, on the basis of which, after due
enquiry, this case was registered against the accused.
(ii) A trap was planned and organized by the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nellore, who was in-charge of
Tirupati Range, on 11.06.2004. Pursuant to it, in the presence of
mediators, namely, PW.3 - Sri A. Balakrishnaiah, the then
Assistant Executive Engineer, G.N.S.S. Sub-Division-II, Tirupati
and Sri Md. Usman, the then Assistant Engineer, GNSS Sub-
Division-II, Tirupati. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted in
which the currency of Rs.5,000/- produced by PW.1 was applied
phenolphthalein. He was also appraised of his conduct with the
accused while delivering the tainted currency and also to give
signal. On 11.06.2004 at about 11:30 a.m., the accused was
caught red-handed, when he accepted the tainted currency as
bribe, on further demand, from PW.1. He turned negative to the
colour test, and however, the currency notes were seized that were
rolled up in a paper, kept in LIC Table Calendar on the table of the
accused, in his room, in the course of same proceedings. When
their serial numbers were compared, they were found tallying with
the one noted at the time of pre-trap proceedings. The accused
was arrested in connection with this case. During such trap
AVRB,J
proceedings, PW.2 - Sri Katari Kesavulu Setty was also present,
who was then working as a Foreman in APSPDCL in the office of
Assistant Engineer, Operations, Tirupati.
(iii) The Government of Andhra Pradesh had also accorded
sanction to prosecute the AO in this case.
(iv) Thus, the accused, in order to issue a disability
certificate, demanded, received and accepted Rs.5,000/- as
gratification, other than legal remuneration as a public servant, in
discharge of his functions as such, using corrupt means, to gain
pecuniary benefit. Thus, the prosecution has set out the case
against the accused.
4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under
the above provisions of law. After appearance of the accused and
after complying necessary formalities under Sections 207 Cr.P.C.
and further under Section 239 Cr.P.C, the learned Special Judge
framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of the PC
Act against the AO 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 accused, the
prosecution, during the course of trial, got examined PWs.1 to
PW.11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 and MOs.1 to MO.8. Relevant
AVRB,J
portions in the 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.1 and
relevant portions in Ex.P-1 report were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-6.
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 filed his written
statement setting forth his defence, in brief, as follows:
(i) Father-in-law of AO, who belonged to Congress party, had
ill-feelings with the father of PW.1 by name Sri Venkataramana
Naidu, who belonged to Telugu Desam Party, in a faction
environment. He had set out that Sri Venkataramana Naidu had
demanded special treatment to his son, when he was admitted in
SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati providing special room, free medicines
and better facilities which were refused by him. He had also set
out the disputes and differences between him and then
Superintendent and other hospital authorities, when he was
working in SVRRGG Hospital. He also referred to his attempt in
filing O.A. No.4568 of 2003 on the file of Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad against his transfer from SVRRGG Hospital to the
Medical College and while setting out that he had preferred
complaint in Crime No.129 of 2003 of Alipiri Police Station against
AVRB,J
then Superintendent of the Hospital Dr. G. Raghavarao, the then
Assistant Director of the same hospital namely Sri
K.V.Ramakrishna Reddy under SC and ST (POA) Act, in respect of
which, he had made representation to several authorities. Thus,
setting out background that he was falsely implicated in this case,
while explaining the situation on the date of trap, he requested to
acquit him, stating that he had never demanded nor accepted any
bribe from PW.1. He also pleaded that there was no official favour
pending with him, as he was incompetent to issue a disability
certificate to PW.1, as alleged by him.
7. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found
the Accused Officer not guilty of the charges and accordingly
acquitted him under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful State,
represented by Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati
filed the present Appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal.
9. In the light of the contentions advanced, now in deciding
this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as
follows:
AVRB,J
1) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court
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
under Section 19 of the PC Act for the charges framed
against him?
2) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court
proved that pendency of official favour in respect of the
work of PW.1 was pending with AO in the manner as
alleged?
3) Whether the prosecution before the trial Court
proved that AO, for doing official favour, demanded
PW.1 prior to the trap bribe of Rs.6,000/- and later
reduced it to Rs.5,000/- and further made a demand
on the date of reduction of the amount and further
demanded him, during the course of post-trap, and
accepted the same from PW.1 in the manner as
alleged?
4) Whether the prosecution proved that AO, by corrupt
or illegal means or by abusing his official position as
public servant, obtained a sum of Rs.5,000/- from
PW.1?
AVRB,J
5) Whether the judgment, dated 30.08.2011, in
Calender Case No.23 of 2005, is sustainable under law
and facts and whether there are any grounds to
interfere with the same?
10. POINT No.1: Insofar as this point is concerned, a perusal of
the evidence of PW.9, coupled with Ex.P-15, shows that the
sanctioning authority after due application of mind with reference
to the material sent by the ACB granted sanction so as to
prosecute the AO for the offences alleged under Sections 7 and
13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The learned Special Judge
though extended an order of acquittal in favour of AO but with
regard to this point found favour with the case of prosecution. This
finding is not in dispute even during the course of arguments by
learned counsel for the Respondent/AO. Having regard to the
above, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution
before the learned Special Judge proved that AO was a public
servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act as such
prosecution obtained a valid sanction to prosecute the AO for the
charges framed against him.
AVRB,J
POINT Nos.2 to 5:
11. Sri S.M.Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-
Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the Appellant-State,
would contend that AO was working as Deputy Civil Surgeon,
Resident Medical Officer and Hospital Administrator at SVRRGG
Hospital. When PW.1 met with him so as to issue a disability
certificate to enable him to file in Motor Vehicle Accidents Claim
case, AO demanded him bribe of Rs.6,000/- and later reduced it to
Rs.5,000/- and demanded him to pay, for which PW.1 expressed
his inability and he was further demanded to pay the above
amount. Having felt aggrieved by the action of AO, PW.1 lodged a
report with the ACB. The ACB officials after conducting
preliminary enquiry got registered the FIR. They secured
independent witnesses to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings
and laid a trap against the AO. By the time of laying trap, PW.2,
who was First Grade Foreman, happened to be present before the
AO as a patient, supported the case of prosecution. AO wisely
asked PW.1 to keep the tainted amount in a paper and keep it
under a Table Calendar without touching the amount and it was
spoken to by PW.1 and PW.2 and that amount was recovered in
the presence of independent mediator. Though the chemical test
AVRB,J
proved to be negative but the amount was recovered from the room
of AO which was in his custody. The prosecution adduced
consistent evidence. PW.3 - mediator and the Trap Laying Officer
spoke to these facts. DSP, ACB seized Ex.P-3 - disability certificate
prepared by AO before issuing to PW.1 during the course of trap.
MO.5, the wrapper in which tainted amount was bundled, was
recovered and according to the evidence of PW.4 and PW.6,
Ex.P-13 (Circular relating to sanitary rounds of SVRRGG Hospital
Superintendent, dated 04.06.2004, in which the tainted amount
was bundled) was circulated to AO during the local Tappal. All
these circumstances were not considered by the learned Special
Judge properly. Procedural aspects were spoken to by PW.7. PW.1
fully supported the case of prosecution. His evidence has
corroboration from PW.2 with regard to the demand made by AO.
During the post-trap, tainted amount was recovered from the
custody of AO. Thought the AO did not touch the tainted amount
personally, the evidence of mediator and Trap Laying Officer is
consistent. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate the
evidence in proper perspective and on erroneous appreciation of
evidence on record extended an order of acquittal as such the
Appeal is liable to be allowed.
AVRB,J
12. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Respondent/Accused Officer, would contend that
there were previous ill-feelings existing between the accused family
and PW.1 family. Apart from this, there were disputes in the
hospital where AO was working with his superiors. The
background for false implication was elaborately dealt with by the
learned Special Judge in the judgment. AO was not competent to
issue the disability certificate. The evidence of PW.7 falsifies the
case of prosecution. The disability certificate was to be issued by a
team of doctors consisting of an Orthopaedic Surgeon. AO was not
an Orthopaedic Surgeon. He was incompetent to issue disability
certificate, as admitted by PW.7. PW.1 wanted to get the disability
certificate to produce in a Court of law and it is rather improbable
that AO will go to the extent of issuing a false disability certificate.
The learned Special Judge elaborately dealt with all issues and
held that no official favour to be done by AO was pending with him
in respect of the work of PW.1. The presence of PW.2 was highly
doubtful because being a patient he was supposed to be there by
obtaining the OP Chit. He was a chance witness deliberately
chosen by the Investigating Officer for false implication of the AO.
According to the evidence of PW.7 and Trap Laying Officer, AO was
found in verandah when he relayed a prearranged signal but
AVRB,J
according to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, the ACB officials
caught hold of AO in his room. When it was born out by the record
that ACB officials were waiting outside the main gate to receive a
pre-arranged signal, they would not have rushed into the Chamber
of AO, the moment PW.1 came out. The learned Special Judge on
thorough appreciation of the evidence found any amount of falsity
from stage to stage in the case of prosecution as such an order of
acquittal was extended rightly. The judgment of acquittal was well
supported with reasons. He would submit that in an Appeal
against acquittal, the Appellate Court shall be slow in reversing
the order of acquittal unless the impugned judgment suffers with
un-reasonable ness and in support of his contention he would rely
upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalit Kumar
Sharma v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal
Affairs, Government of West Bengal1. Learned counsel would
submit that mere recovery of the tainted amount is not sufficient
to convict the accused. He would submit that the tainted amount
was not recovered from the possession of AO and according to the
findings given by the learned Special Judge there was a chance by
PW.1 to plant the amount. In this regard, he would rely upon a
1 1989 LawSuit (SC) 415
AVRB,J
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P2
and a decision of this Court in Akurathi Yellamanda v. State,
ACB3. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the
Respondent/Accused Officer seeks to dismiss the Appeal.
13. As seen from Ex.P-1, which was the report lodged by PW.1,
and as seen from the evidence of PW.1, the fact that PW.1
sustained a motor accident injury while he was sleeping in front of
his house was not in dispute. There was also no dispute that he
was subjected to surgical procedure in Ruia Hospital, Tirupathi.
So, the whole controversy is the moment when PW.1 allegedly
approached AO with a request to issue a disability certificate so as
to enable him to file it in a claim before the Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Tribunal. Ex.P-1 alleges in substance that when he
approached the Accused Officer who was in the cadre of RMO one
month prior to his report with a request to issue a disability
certificate, he was asked to come after one week and when he met
him after one week, he demanded him to pay bribe of Rs.6,000/-
for which he expressed his inability but he did not hear his words
as such he went away. Thereafter, on 07.06.2004 he made an
application with x-ray, O.P. slips and other documents before AO
2 2014 LawSuit (SC) 217
3 2021 LawSuit (AP) 1624
AVRB,J
and even at that time he demanded bribe and reduced it to
Rs.5,000/- and stated to him that if the disability is mentioned as
10%, he would get compensation of Rs.50,000/- and if the
disability is mentioned as 40%, he would get in lakhs as such
can't he pay the bribe of Rs.5,000/-? With the above, he
demanded him to pay the bribe. This is the substance of the
allegations in Ex.P-1. So, the substance of Ex.P-1 is that so as to
issue a disability certificate in favour of PW.1, AO demanded him
to pay the bribe.
14. So, the case of prosecution is that AO was capable of doing
official in favour of PW.1 demanded him for bribe. When it comes
to the evidence of PW.1, he deposed in tune with Ex.P-1 contents
insofar as pendency of the alleged official faovur. So, his evidence
in this regard is that his Advocate instructed him to get the
disability certificate for the purpose of evidence in Motor Accident
Claim Case of the respondent/claimant and he approached the AO
with such a request and as AO asked him to come after one month
on 07.06.2004, he met the AO and furnished necessary
documents for which the AO demanded bribe. Though he told him
that he is a poor person but the accused insisted him to pay the
bribe and that he would not issue the disability certificate if he did
AVRB,J
not pay the bribe. He asked him to bring the amount on
11.06.2004. As he is not interested to give the bribe, he lodged A
report with the ACB officials, which is Ex.P-1 on 10.06.2004. He
spoke of the pre-trap and post-trap events.
15. His evidence insofar as the post-trap proceedings is that
when he approached the AO during the post-trap with the tainted
amount, AO asked him whether he brought the amount for which
he answered in affirmative. AO took out a paper and asked him to
keep the amount in it, wrap it and place the bundle in the table
calendar of LIC. Accordingly he did it. The entire transaction was
witnessed by a person who was sitting along with the AO. Then, he
came out and gave a pre-arranged signal. Through his
examination, Ex.P-2 - case sheet, Ex.P-3 - disability certificate,
Ex.P-4 - outpatient card and Ex.P-5 - x-ray was also marked.
16. PW.2 claimed that on 11.06.2004 having suffered with some
right hand pain, he went to AO for treatment and then one person
came there with a request to issue a medical certificate and AO
asked him whether he brought the money and handed over a
paper asking him to wrap the currency notes in the paper and to
keep the bundle of currency notes in the table calendar. The said
person did it and he went away. Later, the AO also went to the
AVRB,J
door of the room and returned and sat in his seat. Thereafter, 4 or
5 persons entered into the room and surrounded the accused.
17. PW.3 was a mediator to the pre-trap and post-trap
proceedings and he supported the case of prosecution.
18. PW.4 and PW.6 were examined by the prosecution to speak
that in pursuance of Circular under Ex.P-13, MO.5 was circulated
to AO which was a cover and AO acknowledged it.
19. Prosecution examined PW.5, who was the counsel for PW.1
in Motor Vehicle Accident case to prove that he advised PW.1 to
get a permanent disability certificate for the purpose of his claim.
20. Prosecution examined PW.7 regarding the procedural
aspects as to how the disability certificate is to be issued.
21. Prosecution examined PW.8, the then Senior Assistant in
SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati to ascertain the rubber stamp
impression appearing on Ex.P-3.
22. PW.10 was the Trap Laying Officer who supported the case
of prosecution.
AVRB,J
23. Prosecution examined PW.11, who was the Inspector of
Police, ACB, Tirupati who assisted PW.10 in pre-trap and post-
trap proceedings.
24. In the light of the contentions advanced, firstly, this Court
would like to deal with as to whether prosecution proved the
pendency of official favour in respect of the work of PW.1 to be
attended by the AO in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
To decide the same, evidence of PW.7 is of immense help.
According to the testimony of PW.7, to issue a disability certificate
patient will be referred to a Board consisting of two Orthopaedic
Surgeons, presided by the Superintendent. The Orthopaedic
Surgeons will evaluate each and every case and thereafter
Superintendent signs the certificates which would be issued later
to the patients. In the absence of the Superintendent, RMO will be
in-charge of the Superintendent and in the absence of the RMO,
the next senior most Civil Surgeon will be the in-charge of
Superintendent. The accused was Deputy Civil Surgeon. During
cross-examination, he admitted that accused is not the
Orthopaedic Surgeon. In the Board to issue the disability
certificate, there should be two Orthopaedic Surgeons. It is true
that case of PW.1 did not relate to specialization of the accused
AVRB,J
nor PW.1 was treated by the accused at any time. The accused
had no authority to issue the disability certificate. He cannot say
as to whether Ex.P-3 is in exact proforma of the disability
certificate. In the disability certificate there will be columns
relating to designation of the Orthopaedic Surgeons and the
Superintendent and the Superintendent will be described in that
certificate as Chairman. Ex.P-3 did not disclose the said columns.
The rubber stamp impression on Ex.P-3 as Orthopaedic Surgeon
did not relate to the designation of the Accused. There were
disputes between the accused and one Dr. Raghava Rao when he
was the Superintendent in the nature of SC/ST case.
25. By virtue of the above admissions of PW.7, it is quite clear
that the disability certificate was supposed to be issued by a
Medical Board consisting of team of doctors of two Orthopaedic
Surgeons. Ex.P-3 the so called certificate prepared by AO did not
contain any columns as spelled out by PW.7. PW.7 confirmed that
AO had no power to issue the disability certificate. Even the so
called rubber stamp affixed on Ex.P-3 was not relating to the
designation of the accused. Even according to the admissions
made by PW.1, it is clear that the disability certificate was to be
signed by another doctor and not by the accused.
AVRB,J
26. It is to be noted that serious inconsistencies were found by
virtue of the answers from PW.1 and the Trap Laying Officer
relating to the person who filed up Ex.P-3. According to PW.1, he
filled up the contents in Ex.P-3. According to the case of
prosecution, Ex.P-3 was seized during the course of post-trap
proceedings on 11.06.2004 in the office room of the accused when
he produced it. It is quietly evident from Ex.P-11 - mediators
report, the evidence of PW.3 - trap mediator and PW.10 - Trap
Laying Officer. PW.1 even in the chief-examination stated that
Ex.P-3 was returned to him along with the x-ray, negative and
O.P. sheet asking him to meet him again by 01:00 noon or 02:00
p.m. and by then Ex.P-3 was not in complete form. When PW.1
admitted that the contents of Ex.P-3 were filled up by him but the
prosecution alleged that it was filled up by the accused. It was
testified by PW.10. According to PW.3, it was handed over by the
accused to PW.10 - Trap Laying Officer. There is apparent conflict
in the manner in which Ex.P-3 contents were filled, as above.
PW.10 - Trap Laying Officer was not supposed to say that
Ex.P-3 was filled up by the accused when PW.1 claimed that those
contents were filled up by him. Even according to PW.1, firstly, he
met the Medical Officer who attended surgical procedure on him.
It is to be noted that AO must have knowledge that a disability
AVRB,J
certificate would contain the necessary columns showing the
designation of the persons to be signed and, in such
circumstances it is rather surprising that he would venture to
issue a certificate like Ex.P-3, which cannot be taken as a
disability certificate. There is no dispute that AO was not an
Orthopaedic Surgeon. The person who was supposed to sign on
Ex.P-3 in its original form would be the Orthopaedic Surgeon. AO
had knowledge that such Ex.P-3 certificate would be under legal
scrutiny in a Motor Vehicle Accident Case filed by PW.1. So, it is
highly doubtful as to whether AO would venture to prepare and
issue the certificate like Ex.P-3 in the given set of circumstances.
In my considered view, the evidence on record would not prove
categorically that AO was capable of obliging the request of PW.1
so as to issue a valid disability certificate. In my considered view,
the learned Special Judge disbelieved the case of prosecution with
proper reasons so as to negative a theory that official favour in
respect of the work of PW.1 was pending with AO as on the date of
trap.
27. Coming to other aspects of the case with regard to demand
before the learned Special Judge, PW.1 was subjected to extensive
cross-examination and according to Ex.P-1, PW.1 met the AO one
AVRB,J
month prior to the date of Ex.P-1 and enquired about the
disability certificate and he was asked to come one week later.
PW.1, during the course of cross-examination, denied such a
version as such the defence counsel marked Exs.D-3 and D-4
contradictions. Further, contradictions under Exs.D-2 and D-6
were also same which are proved by the evidence of PW.10 - Trap
Laying Officer. According to PW.1 in cross-examination, the
demand for bribe was made on 07.06.2004 for the first time. He
denied that he stated before Police as in Ex.D-5 which was also
proved through the examination of the Investigating Officer. As
evident from the same, he gave inconsistent and prevaricating
statements.
28. Coming to the events happened during the course of post-
trap proceedings, the specific case of the prosecution is that PW.1,
as directed by AO, kept the amount in a paper after wrapping it
and kept the paper under a table calendar and came out and
relayed a pre-arranged signal. The evidence of PW.3 and PW.10
and the contents of Ex.P-11 were that the accused was found in
the verandah in front of his room, who was identified by PW.10 the
in-charge DSP and thereafter he was taken into his room and was
probed. According to the evidence of PW.2, AO accompanied PW.1
AVRB,J
to the door and came back. Even according to the evidence of
PW.1, he just came out from the room and relayed a pre-arranged
signal. So, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 means that after
accepting the tainted amount, AO remained in the room. It is born
out from the record that PW.1 took 10 to 15 minutes time for
entering into the room after entering into the hospital. So, the
same time was supposed to be taken by the trap party after
receiving pre-arranged signal but within no time i.e., in a couple of
minutes, trap party claimed to have rushed into the chamber of
AO. So, it is quietly evident that though it was the case of the
prosecution that the trap party was waiting outside so as to
receive a pre-arranged signal but practically they were following
PW.1 from stage to stage by entering into the Hospital. It is to be
noted that MO.5 - wrapper was found in the room of AO. AO was
in the verandah when the trap party stopped him. It is not a case
where the tainted amount was recovered from the physical
possession of AO. AO did not deal with the tainted amount. It is to
be noted that according to the instructions given by PW.10 - the
Trap Laying Officer to PW.1, he should pay the tainted amount to
AO directly, according to the demand made by him. So, he was
supposed to pay the amount to the AO directly. As AO was found
moving in the verandah by the time of trap party entered into the
AVRB,J
hospital, it also presents a theory that there was every possibility
for PW.1 to enter into the room of AO and keep the amount in a
wrapper. All these circumstances were rightly dealt with by the
learned Special Judge with sound reasons.
29. There was no pendency of official favour as alleged by the
prosecution. AO did not deal with the tainted amount. The
presence of PW.2 was highly doubtful and he was a chance
witness and further the fact that without getting any OP chit, his
entering into the room of AO is highly doubtful. The manner in
which AO was in the chamber after allegedly taking the bribe
amount had no support from the evidence of PW.10 - Trap Laying
Officer. There was every possibility and probability for PW.1 to
enter into the room of AO and plant the tainted amount. There
were serious ill-feelings between AO with one Dr. Raghava Rao,
who was his superior in the Hospital and apart from this the
written statement of AO is quietly elaborate to the effect that AO
for some period worked as Doctor in PHC of B. Kothakota during
1977-1980 and 1980-1987 and further the defence of AO was that
when PW.1 met with the accident, father of AO demanded AO to
provide special room, free medicines and better facilities. AO
pleaded animosity between his family and PW.1's family since
AVRB,J
long. The learned Special Judge rightly looked into the entire
background of the case and analyzed the evidence with proper
care and caution.
30. It is settled law and also evident from the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalit Kumar Sharma (1st supra) that in an
Appeal against acquittal though the appellate Court has power to
reappraise the evidence on record but it should be slow in
interfering with the order of acquittal unless there are compelling
reasons to do so. Here, the grounds set forth by the learned
Special Judge for extending an order of acquittal are basing on
sound reasons. As evident from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in B. Jayaraj (2nd supra), and a decision of this Court in
Akurathi Yellamanda (3rd supra), mere recovery of the tainted
amount is not sufficient to convict the accused. Here, absolutely
the recovery of the tainted amount was not from the physical
custody of AO. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the
pendency of official favour in respect of the work of PW.1 with AO.
31. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances and
having gone through the evidence on record, this Court is of the
considered view that the learned Special Judge extended an order
of acquittal with proper reasons and the said reasons cannot be
AVRB,J
said to be un-reasonable. Having regard to the above, I am of the
considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) R/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of the PC Act against the Accused Officer beyond reasonable doubt
as such the Appeal is devoid of merits.
32. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming
the judgment, dated 30.08.2011, in Calender Case No.23 of 2005,
on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases,
Nellore.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 25.01.2024
DSH
