Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.Adinarayana vs Stated on 1 May, 2025
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 848 OF 2007 & 862 of 2007
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 848 OF 2007
Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Nellore in
CC.No. 24/2002 dated 27.06.2007
Between;
M.Adinarayana, S/o. Venkata Swamy, Formerly Mandal Surveyor, O/o.
Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapallid Chittoor District.
...Appellant/AO.1
AND
The State of A.P.
rep.by Special Public Prosecutor,(ACB) High Court of
A.P., Amaravathi
...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M B Thimma Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Standing Counsei for ACB and Special
Public Prosecutor
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 862 OF 2007
Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the conviction and
3i^e imposed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore in
CC.N6.'^24/2002 dated 27.6.2007.
Between:
Kondamari Subramanyam, S/o. Avulappa, Petition Writer(Private Person),
Checckilagutta, Madanapalli Town, Chittoor District.
...Appellant/AO.2
AND
The State , rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., on behalf of
Anti Corruption Bureau, Amaravathi
...Respondent
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2007fCRLAMP. NO: 1167 OF 2007)
Petition under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the imprisonment
against the petitioner/A02 in CC.24 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge
for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore.
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. A Hariprasad Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Standing Counsel for ACB and Special
Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 65 862 of 2007
Common Judgment:
Since both the appeals arise out of the same
judgment dated 27.06.2007 in C.C.No.24 of 2002 passed
by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases,
Nellore (for short, 'the learned Special Judge'), they are
being disposed of, by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No.848 of 2007 has been preferred
by AOl, and Criminal Appeal No. 862 of 2007 has been
preferred by A2, in the aforesaid C.C.
3. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Special
Judge found AO.l guilty of the offences under Sections 7
and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and found A.2
and
guilty of the offence under Section 12 of the Act,
accordingly convicted them of the respective offences. The
learned Special Judge sentenced AO.l to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine
of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for
2
^ , SRK, J
Crl, Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
one month, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of
the Act; sentenced AO.l to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i m
default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one
month for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1)
(d) of the Act, and both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The learned Special Judge sentenced A.2 to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months
and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple
imprisonment for one month, for the offence under Section
12 of the Act.
4.
Case of the prosecution is as follows.
AO.l was working as Mandal Surveyor in the office of
the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalli. A.2 was a
petition writer at MRO Office, Madanapalli town. P.W.l
bought a house site admeasuring 875 square yards in
survey No.41/1 of Bandameeda Kammapalli, Madanapalli
mandal, Chittoor district. He submitted an application
under Ex.P3 by enclosing Ex.P2-challan, to the Mandal
Revenue Officer, Madanapalli to survey his site. The
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
r
application was forwarded to AO.l on 09.01.2001 by
P.W.6-Mandal Revenue Officer. On 10.01.2001, P.W.l
informed AO.l about making Ex.P3-application and
requested to eonduct survey of his site and to mark its
boundaries. On that, AO.l told P.W.l to approaeh him in
the office on 15.01.2001. On 15.01.2001, when P.W.l
approached AO.l, the latter demanded bribe of Rs.lOOO/-
as illegal gratification to do the offieial favour. When P.W. 1
pleaded his inability, AO.l stated that the work would be
done only on payment of the bribe. When P.W.l
approaehed AO.l on 25.01.2001, AO.l reiterated his
earlier demand. On 05.02.2001, when P.W.l approached
AO.l at Mandal Revenue Office, AO.l reiterated his earlier
demand and told P.W.l to come to his office along with
bribe amount on 06.02.2001. Unwilling to pay the bribe
amount, P.W.l gave Ex.P4-report to P.W. 12-Deputy
Superintendent of Poliee, ACB, Tirupati on 05.02.2001 at
2.00 PM. After condueting a preliminary enquiry, P.W. 12
registered a case in erime No.3/RCT/TCT/2001 based on
Ex.P4 under Ex.P20 FIR. After completion of pre-trap
proceedings, the trap was laid on 06.02.2001 at 3.45 PM in
"'--t
4
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
the
presence of P.W.2 and L.W.3-K.Somasundara Pillai.
On that day, AO.l further demanded the bribe and told
A.2, who is his Personal Assistant, to receive the amount,
and noted the
names of neighbourers to whom he has to
issue notices in a slip Ex.P13. On that, P.W. 1 paid the
amount to A.2, came out of the office and
gave the pre
arranged signal. Thereupon, the raid party entered the
office, conducted chemical test on the hands of AOl and
a.2, recovered the tainted
amount of Rs. 1,000/- (M.0.9)
from A.2, and
post-trap proceedings were conducted.
P.W. 13-Inspector of Police, ACB took up further
investigation. examined the witnesses, got recorded
statement of P.W. 1 under Section 164 CrPC by Magistrate.
After receipt of sanction order Ex.P19 to prosecute AO.l
and other relevant documents and completion of
investigation, P.W. 13 laid the charge sheet.
5.
On appearance of accused, copies of documents were
furnished to them
as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
and, on considering the material on record, charges under
Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Act against AO.l
SRK, J
Cri. Appea! Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
and under Section 12 of the Act and 7, 13 (2) read with 13
(1) (d) of the Act read with Section 109 IPC, against A.2,
were framed. When the respective charges were read over
and explained to the accused in Telugu, they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.l to
13 were examined and Exs.Pl to P20 were marked, besides
case properties M.Os.l to 10. During cross-examination of
P.Ws.l, 6 and 13, Exs.Dl to D6 were got marked.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the
incriminating material found against them in the evidence
of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. D.Ws 1
and 2 were examined on behalf of AO.l and Ex.D7 was got
marked.
8. After hearing both sides and appreciating the
evidence on record, the learned Special Judge found the
appellants guilty, accordingly convicted and sentenced
them, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present
Criminad Appeals were filed.
6
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
9.
Learned counsel for the appellant/A. 1 submitted
that entire case of prosecution rests on
the solitary
testimony of P.W. 1; that much credence cannot be given to
the evidence of P.W.l for the reason that P.W.l has got
chequered history and as many as 5 criminal cases were
registered against P.W.l. He submits that there is no
recovery of tainted currency from the possession of the
appellant/AO.l. He further submitted that P.W.l is not a
trustworthy witness and his evidence cannot be relied
upon for the reason that he changed his stands from time
to time.
He submits that at the earliest point of time,
P.W.l stated that when he met AO.l on 15.1.2001, the
latter demanded the alleged bribe amount, but 15.1.2001
happens to be 'Sankranti festival' and it is highly
improbable that P.W.l met AO.l on the festival day. It is
further submission that P.W.l deposed that he happened
to meet AO.l on 25.01.2001 on which date AO.l is alleged
to have made a demand for payment of illegal gratification,
but P.W.l admitted that in his statement in Section 164
CrPC, he stated that he met AO.l on 20.01.2001, on which
date AO.l made the demand, and this inconsistency goes
7
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
to root of the case as regards the earlier demand; that AO. 1
was not present at the office on 25.1.2001 as he was on
duty elsewhere. He submits that in view of the above
inconsistent versions in the evidence of P.W. 1 with regard
to demand of bribe on earlier occasions, it cannot be said
that the alleged demands on earlier dates are proved to be
established beyond reasonable doubt.
He further submits that AO.l was on duty for a
period of almost one month going to fields on Prajala
vaddaku palana as per the instructions of the Government
and he was not present in the office, which is clear from
Ex.P9-list of Mandal Surveyors' day to day activities, and
hence, the earlier demands allegedly made by AO.l on the
alleged dates stated by P.W.l, cannot be taken into
account. He further submitted that there is no evidence
on record that A.2 is Private Assistant of AO.l and that he
received the amount at the instance of AO.l, and AO.l
cannot be held responsible for the tainted money, if any.
recovered from the possession of A.2; that the same is clear
from the written statement of A. 2, which is marked as
Ex.D7. The learned counsel submits that in view of the
-■''N ,
8
^ . SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
aforesaid circumstances, it is not safe to reliance on the
evidence of P.W.l alone, which is uncorroborated, to
maintain a conviction. but these aspects were not
considered by the trial Court in right perspective. Hence,
he
prays to set aside the convictions and sentences
recorded by the learned Special Judge against AO.l.
He placed reliance on the following decisions,
(i) in Sat Paul us.
Delhi Administration^, the
HonTole Supreme Court held thus (paragraphs. 15 and 23):
15. It is true that ordinarily, as a matter of
practice, this Court does not review the evidence and
disturb concurrent ifndings of fact unless those
findings are clearly unreasonable or are vitiated by
an illegality or material irregularity of procedure or
are otherwise contrary to the fundamental principles
of natural justice and fairplay. The instant case IS
one which falls within the exception to this rule. As
shall be presently discussed, the courts below have
adopted a basically wrong approach. They have not
only used the statement of certain witnesses in
i a
manner which IS
manifestly improper or
impermissible under the law, but have also erred in
i
accepting the testimony of the interested witnesses
without due caution and corroboration, requisite in
(1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 727.
9
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is therefore,
necessary to have another look at the evidence and
the salient features of the case.
23. It is true that there is no absolute rule that the
evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted
without corroboration. But where the witnesses have
poor moral fibre and have to their discredit a heavy
load of bad antecedents, such as those of PWs. 1, 2,
7 and 8, having a possible motive to harm the
accused who was an obstacle in the way of their
immoral activities, it would be hazardous to accept
their testimony, in the absence of corroboration on
crucial points from independent sources. If any
authority is needed reference may be made to
R.P.Arora v. State of Punjab (supra), wherein this
Court ruled that in a proper case, the Court should
look for independent corroboration before convincing
the accused person on the evidence of trap
witnesses. "
(ii) in Chodagudi Sambasiva Rao vs. Stated, the
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
held thus (paragraphs 34 and 38):
34. As noticed earlier, second demand was on
24.07.1993. According to PWl he met AOl in his
office and he was asked to come back on 26.07.1993
with Rs. 5,000/-. Except the evidence of PWl there is
no other evidence either direct or corroborative as to
2 2012 (2) ALD (Crl.) 201 (AP).
10
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
the demand on 24.07.1993. It is true that merely
because there is direct or corroborative evidence is
not available in the matters relating to demand, the
evidence of the sole witness need not be rejected
provided the demand is made out from the
surrounding circumstances. The evidence on record
would not show existence of any such
circumstances, suggesting, that there was a demand
by AOl even on 24.07.1993.
38.
I am unable to agree with the said reasoning
since Ex.DS is supported by the order of a competent
authority in Ex.D3 pursuant to which AOl was
required to attend to survey duties on all Tuesdays
and Saturdays. Even if ti is assumed that AOl was
present in the office on 24.07.1993 as correct, that
itself will not lead to any presumption that he
demanded bribe from PWl on the said date. Initial
burden is on the prosecution to prove demand and
acceptance, de hors the plea of alibi of the accused.
The burden cannot be placed on the Accused Ofifcer
to prove that there was no demand made by him.
The burden shifts on the accused only after it has
been established by the prosecution. As noticed
above there is no evidence either direct or
circumstantial to prove the demand by AOl even on
24.07.1993. The trial Court, which has placed the
burden on the Accused Officer in this regard, has
drawn the inference only on the basis of evidence of
PWl and Ex. PI-complaint, is not tenable."
''1
11
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
(iii) in Hah Dev Sharma vs. State (Delhi
AdministrationP, the Honhle Supreme Court held thus
(paragraph No.3);
"The High Court on appeal preferred by the appellant
before us did not accept the prosecution case on the
first two charges on the ground that it would be
unsafe to hold on the bare testimony of the
complainant that Rs.20 had been paid to the
appellant as alleged. Apparently, the High Court
looked upon the complainant as a witness not to be
believed unless his evidence was corroborated by
other evidence. The High Court however accepted the
other part of the prosecution case that the appellant
had been caught while accepting Rs.70 as bribe from
the complainant. One circumstance which appears to
have impressed the learned Judge was that the
complainant was being harassed by various
objections raised on his application ever since 1964
when the property was purchased. It appears
however that the appellant started dealing with the
file only from July 1966, and the earliest of the notes
made by him on the file was dated July 20, 1968.
Admittedly, the complainant met the appellant for the
first time on January 29, 1969 and, that being so, it
is difficult to hold that the objections raised prior to
this date were calculated to put pressure on the
^ (1977) 3 Supreme Court Cases 352.
12
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
complainant. It is hardly reasonable to think that the
appellant could anticipate what in fact followed.
Besides, the appellant could not have been
responsible for any objection raised between 1964
and July 1966. But the main difficulty we feel in
accepting the prosecution case arises out of the fact
that the High Court disbelieved the part of it which,
according to the prosecution, was the genesis of the
case. Having disbelieved the story that the appellant
had asked for a bribe of Rs 100 of which Rs 20 was
paid in advance, we do not think the High Court
could reasonably proceed on what was left of the
prosecution case to afifrm the order of the conviction
passed by the trial court. The prosecution case was
one integrated story which the trial court had
accepted. If the High Court did not find it possible to
accept a vital part of the story, it is difficult to see
how the other part, which did not stand by itself,
could be accepted. It was not the prosecution case
that Rs 70 which was recovered from the appellant
was the amount that the appellant had asked for
from the complainant. This was a new case made by
the High Court. Undoubtedly there are circumstances
in this case which are highly suspicious against the
appellant, but the High Court having disbelieved an
essential part of the prosecution case on which the
other part was dependant, we do not consider it safe
to sustain the conviction of the appellant.
Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the
/ 13
SRK, J
Crl, Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
order of conviction and sentences passed against the
appellant. "
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
appellant/A.2 contended that A.2 is a petition writer at the
office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle and he
has nothing to do with the transaction made by AO. 1 as he
was only present in the office and writing petitions for the
persons who approach the office of the MRO. It is his
further submission that there is no evidence to establish
that A.2 abetted AO.l to commit any offence punishable
under the Act. He submits that even if recovery of tainted
currency from A.2 is accepted, there is no evidence to show
that A. 2 received the same having knowledge that the same
was bribe amount, and under Ex. D7-written statement.
A.2 offered plausible explanation at the earliest point of
time, for receipt of the amount from P.W. 1. He submit that
A. 2 cannot be made liable for the offence alleged and
hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence
recorded against the appellant/A.2 and acquit him of the
said charges.
•c--..
14
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor
appearing for respondent/A.C.B. submitted
that the evidence of P.W.l is consistent and cogent with
regard to the earlier demands and the demand made on
the date of trap, by AO.l for bribe for doing official favour;
that an official favour was pending with AO.l as on the
date of trap; that there is no reason for P.W.l to foist a
false case of this nature against AO.l, unless AO.l
demanded the bribe amount. It is his submission that
contradictions, if any, in the evidence of P.W. 1 would not
go to the root of the case of the prosecution. As regards
acceptance, he submits that A.2, who was writing petitions
at the office of the MRO, was close to AO.l and on the date
of trap, on the instructions of AO.l, he accepted the
tainted currency from P.W.l, which is evident from the
evidence of P.W.l, and the chemical test conducted on A.2
gave positive result, and hence, he is liable for the offence
punishable under Section 12 of the Act. The trial Court,
upon considering the evidence on record, rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellants and there are no grounds to
interfere, with the impugned judgment.
15
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
12. Now, the point for consideration is whether the
prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of
appellant/AO. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections
7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act, and for the
offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act against
appellant/A. 2, beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether
the judgment pa o ^
d by the learned Special Judge needs
any interference by this Court?
13. In the case on hand, the charges framed against
appellant/AO. 1 are punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2)
read with 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The essential ingredients of
the offence under Section 7 of the Act are -
i) that the person accepting the gratification
should be a public servant;
ii) that he should accept the gratification for
himself and the gratification should be as a motive
or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official
act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the
exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour
to any person.
14. Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned
its essential ingredients are:
(i)that he should have been a public servant;
' "N. ■
16
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
(ii)that he should have used corrupt or illegal
means, or otherwise abused his position as
such public servant, and
(iii)that he should have obtained a valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or
for any other person.
15. Coming to appellant/A2, the charge against him is
punishable under Section 12 of the Act. Under Section 12
of the Act, whoever abets any offence punishable under
this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in
consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable.
16.
The allegations against appellant/AO. 1 is that he,
being a public servant, working as Mandal Surveyor in the
Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle,
Chittoor District, accepted Rs. 1,000/- from P.Wl on
06.02.2001 at about 3.00 p.m. at his office pursuant to
this previous demands on 15.01.2001, 25.01.2001 and on
05.02.2001, as illegal gratification or bribe for doing official
favour of surveying his house site situated in Survey
No.41/1 of B.K.Palli village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor
District and to fix boundaries of the said house site,
thereby, he obtained a pecuniary advantage by corrupt or
17
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
illegal means. The allegation against appellant/A.2 is that
he abetted AO.l to commit an offence punishable under
the Act.
17. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the
solitary testimony of P.Wl with regard to the alleged
and
demand of illegal gratification by appellant/AO. 1
acceptance thereof by appellant/A2 on the instructions of
appellant/AO.l. When a case rests on the solitary
testimony of a witness, it is settled law that it must be
consistent, cogent and trustworthy and it has to be placed
in the category of Vholly reliable'. In such a case, there is
no legal bar to base conviction basing on the testimony of
solitary witness. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a
decision in Vadivelu Thevar us. the State of Madras^,
wherein it was held thus: (Paragraph No. 10)
this
"Generally speaking oral testimony in
context may be classified into these categories,
namely:
(i)wholly reliable
(iijwholly unreliable
^ AIR 1957 sc 614.
18
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
(iii)Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable
In the first category of proof the Court
should have no difficulty in coming to its
conclusion either
way it may convict or may
acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it
is found to be above reproach on suspicion of
interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In
the second category, the court equally has no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the
third category of cases, that the Court has to be
circumspect and has to look for corroboration in
material particulars by reliable testimony, direct
or circumstantial."
18.
Coming to the evidence, P.Wl is the person who set
the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P4-report to
P.W12/DSP, ACB. In his evidence, P.Wl deposed that for
the purpose of surveying the land, he submitted Ex.PS-
application in the Office of the MRO, Madanapalli by
enclosing relevant documents on 08.01.2001; on
10.01.2001, he went to the office of the MRO and met
appellant/AO.l and requested to survey the land; on that,
he was asked to come on 15.01.2001; that on 15.01.2001,
he again went to the appellant/AO.l and reiterated his
19
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
request, on that, the appellant/AO. 1 demanded bribe of
Rs. 1,000/-; that when he expressed his inability, the
appellant/AO. 1 told him to come again; on 25.01.2001, he
again approached appellant/AO. 1 and reiterated his
request, for which, the latter stated that in view of the
Independence Day, it was difficult to survey the land and
asked about the amount demanded; that thereafter, on
05.02.2001, when he met appellant/AO. 1, the demand was
reiterated by appellant/AO. 1 stating that he would survey
only after the amount is paid. It is his further evidence that
unwilling to pay the same, he lodged report under Ex.P4 to
P.W12. Pursuant to Ex.P4-report, the case was registered
under Ex.P20-FIR.
19. P.W2, who was working as Assistant Director of
Sericulture, Tirupati deposed about his participation as a
witness to the pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P7 and post
trap proceedings under Ex.P14.
20. P.W3 was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector in
the Office of the MRO, Madanapalle during the relevant
point of time. His evidence is to the effect that he knows
20
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
A2, who used to write petitions sitting in the verandah of
his office and there is no connection in between
appellant/AO. 1 and A.2, but A.2 used to follow
appellant/AO. 1 whenever he was called.
21.
P.W4 worked as VAO of B.K.Palli village, during the
relevant point of time. P.W6 worked as Mandal
Revenue Officer, Madanapalli at the relevant point of time.
His evidence is to the effect that his office received Ex.P3-
application along with Ex.P2-challan, on 09.01.2001 and it
was
entered in the Central Distribution Register at Serial
No.29 and forwarded to appellant/AO. 1 on 09.01.2001
itself. The relevant entry in the said register is Ex.PlbA.
22. The evidence of P.WIO, who worked as Deputy
Tahsildar in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Madanapalli during the relevant point of time, is on the
same lines as that of P.W6.
23. P.Wll was working as Section Officer in the General
Administration Department during the relevant point of
time. He deposed about issuance of Ex.PI9-Sanction Order
21
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
to prosecute the appellant/AO. 1. There is no dispute with
regard to the fact that appellant/AO. 1 is a public servant
within the definition of Section 2 (c) of the Act.
24. P.W12 was working as Deputy Superintendent of
Police, ACB, Tirupati during the relevant point of time. He
deposed about lodging of Ex.P4-report by P.Wl,
registration of the crime under Ex.P20-FlR and conducting
pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P7, laying of trap,
conducting post-trap proceedings under Ex.P14, seizure of
relevant documents and conducting investigation in the
subject crime. P.Wl3, who worked as Inspector of Police
ACB, Tirupathi during the relevant point of time deposed
that he assisted P.W12 during pre-trap and post-trap
proceedings, recorded statement of P.Wl under Section
161 CrPC and also got recorded his statement under
Section 164 CrPC, and filed charge sheet after obtaining
Ex.PI9-Sanction Order.
25. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that
appellant/AO. 1 is a public servant within the definition of
Section 2 (c) of the Act. It is the contention of the learned
■' V.
22
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
counsel for appeliant/AO. 1 that P.Wl has chequered
history and according to his own admission in his
evidence, as many as five cases were registered against
him. It is his submission that there is inconsistency in the
evidence of material prosecution witness P. W. 1 with regard
to the vital part of the prosecution story i.e. the alleged
demand made on 15.01.2001 and 25.01.2001 and if the
said part of the prosecution story is held to be not
accepted, conviction cannot be based on the other part,
which cannot stand by itself in the absence of proof of the
vital part beyond reasonable doubt. In the case on hand,
according to the evidence of P.Wl, the first demand made
by appellant/ AO.l was on 15.01.2001. Admittedly, 15* of
January of every year happens to be Sankranthi festival
and it is a holiday, and no office functions on that day.
Furthermore, the evidence of P.Wl is silent with regard to
the place of meeting appellant/AO.l. There is any amount
of ambiguity as regards the P.Wl meeting appellant/AO.l
on 15.01.2001 and appellant/AO.l demanding the bribe.
23
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
26. As regards the demand made on 25.01.2001, it is the
evidenee of P.Wl that on 25.01.2001 he met
appellant/AO. 1, who demanded the bribe amount. P.W.l
admitted that he stated in his statement recorded under
Section 164 CrPC that he met the appellant/AO. 1 on
20.01.2001. Therefore, there is material contradiction in
the evidence of P.Wl with regard to the date of the demand
by appellant/AO.l. According to the learned counsel for
appellant/AO.l, as per the diary register seized from the
office of the MRO on the date of the trap, AO.l was on duty
at Chinnathippa Samudram, which is about 15 kilometers
away on 25.01.2001. Further, the appellant/AO.l relied on
Ex.P9-list of Mandal Surveyors' day-to-day activities to the
effect that appellant/AO.l was not present in the office for
almost one month going to fields on 'Prajala Vaddaku
Palalana' as per the instructions of the Government and
hence, the question of demand of bribe by him either on
20.01.2001 or 25.01.2001 does not arise. Therefore, in
view of the inconsistency in the evidence of P.Wl with
of
regard to his earlier statement as regards the date
alleged second demand by appellant/AO.l and in view of
24
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
recitals in Ex.P9, this Court is of the opinion that there IS
i:
any amount of ambiguity with regard to demand of bribe
made by appellant/AO. 1 on 25.01.2001. This Court has no
hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish
the alleged demands made by appellant/AO. 1 on the
earlier dates.
27.
In order to attract the offences alleged against the
appellant/AO.l, it is essential that all the essential
ingredients of aforesaid offences have to be made out. It is
just and necessary that earlier demand which has been
made by the appellant/AO.l has to be proved, so as to lead
the informant i.e. PW. 1, to lodge a complaint before PW.12.
Earlier demands are integral part of subsequent demand
and acceptance.
28.
There cannot be any dispute that the prosecution
case is one integrated stoiy. However, in view of the
aforesaid discussion, it is difficult to accept a vital part of
the story i.e. earlier demands made by the appellant/AO.l
on 15.01.2001 and on 25.01.2001, which is the genesis of
the case.
In the absence of the same, the other part of the
25
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
prosecution story did not stand by itself and the same is
also not acceptable.
29. Furthermore, there are circumstances which are
highly suspicious against the accused. Even as per the
admission of P.Wl, that he was involved in five or six
criminal cases, which were pending before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalli and that one of the
cases is a murder case and the same ended in acquittal.
As per his admissions, on earlier occasion, appellant/AO. 1
seized kerosene of P.W. 1 when he was selling the same
near Seshamahal area unauthorizedly without valid
license. In Ex.DS-explanation submitted by the appellant
/AO.l, a plausible explanation was given by him that he
told P.W. 1 that unless he produces title deed relating to the
property, it is not possible to survey the land, but P.W.l
did not get the title deed, When a case rests upon the
evidence of solitary testimony of a witness, his evidence
Because the
must be unimpeachable and above board,
appellant/AO 1 insisted for production of the title deed to
survey the land of P.W.l and in view of the previous
26
SRK, J
Cri. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
incidents of seizure of kerosene when the same was being
sold by P.W.l unauthorizedly, etc. must have caused
annoyance to P.W.l.
For that reason, the possibility of
ensuing misunderstandings or ill-feeling between P.W.l
and the appellant/AO. 1 cannot be ruled out. These
circumstances indicate that P.W.l has not come with true
version of the case. The conduct of P.W.l is not above
board.
Therefore, P.W.l cannot be termed as a wholly
reliable witness. In such a case, his evidence requires
corroboration. There is no accompanying witness. Except
his evidence, there is absolutely no evidence, either direct
or circumstantial, to establish the alleged demands made
by the appellant/ AO.l. Admittedly, even as per the case
of prosecution, there is no recovery of tainted money from
the possession of the appellant/AO. 1. Hence, this Court
has no hesitation to hold that an implicit reliance cannot
be placed on the solitary testimony of P.W. 1 to base the
conviction, and it can be said that the prosecution failed to
prove the guilt of the appellant/AO. 1 beyond reasonable
doubt.
27
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
30. As regards appellant/A.2, he is a petition writer at
MRO Office, Madanapalli town. According to evidence of
P.W.l, at the time of trap, appellant/AO. 1 instructed
appellant/A.2 to receive the bribe amount, and on that, he
paid the amount to appellant/A. 2, who counted the same
and stated it was Rs. 1,000/-, and when appellant/A.0.1
told him to keep the amount, he kept the amount in his
pant pocket. There is no dispute with regard to the fact
that tainted money was recovered from A2 and chemical
test conducted on the hands of A.2 gave positive result.
Mere recovery of tainted currency, by itself, is not a ground
to find a person guilty of the offence under Section 12 of
the Act. The appellant/A.2 gave explanation vide Ex.D6
stating that on 6.2.2001 at about 3.00 PM, when he was in
compound of the office, PWl requested him to accompany
to the room of Revenue Inspector, but the official was not
in the room at that time; that at that time, P.W. 1 gave him
Rs. 1,000/- and requested to keep the same with him and
he would come within one hour as some persons were
There
waiting for him outside as he is indebted to them,
is no evidence on record to show that appellant/A.2
28
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
accepted the tainted money, having knowledge that it is a
bribe or illegal gratification. There is also no evidence to
establish that appellant/A.2 established appellant/AO. 1 to
commit any offence punishable under the Act. As
observed by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs, this
Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its
case as
against the appellant/AO. 1 beyond reasonable
doubt.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has
no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to
establish the guilt of the appellant/A.2 beyond all
reasonable doubt for the charge leveled against him.
31. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of
the appellants for the charges leveled against them beyond
all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has not considered
the evidence on record in right perspective and erred in
convicting and sentencing the appellants, Hence, the
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be
set aside.
. .
29
SRK, J
Crl. Appeal Nos.848 of 2007 and 862 of 2007
32. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed,
setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded
against the appellants, in the judgment dated 27.06.2007
in C.C.No.24 of 2002 passed by the learned Special Judge
for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore. The appellants are found
not guilty of the charges leveled against them and are
are set
accordingly acquitted of the said charges and they
at liberty. Fine amounts, if any, paid by them shall be
refunded to them.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions. if any.
pending in these Criminal Appeals shall stand closed.
Sd/- E KAMESWARA RAO
JOINT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
One fair copy to the Honourable SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
(For His Lordship's kind perusal)
To
1. The Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases Nellore, SPSR Nellore
District (with records)
2. The Inspector of Police-Ill, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Tirupathi Range,
Tirupathi, Chittoor District
3. One CC to Sri. A Hariprasad Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri. M B Thimma Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi [OUT]
6. Nine (09) L.R copies
7. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and
Company Affairs, New Delhi
8. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association
Library, High Court Buildings at Amaravathi
9. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi
10. Three CD Copies
stu
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED: 01/05/2025
COMMON JUDGMENT
CRLA.Nos.848 of 2007 & 862 of 2007
X 08 MAY 2025
Current Swiion ^
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEALS
