Telangana High Court
K.Ranga Reddy, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Spl Pp., on 10 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.989 OF 2008
Between:
K.Ranga Reddy ... Appellant
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Karimnagar Range. Rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor,
Hyderabad ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 10.08.2022
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No. 989 of 2008
% Dated 10.08.2022
#K.Ranga Reddy. ... Appellant
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Karimnagar Range. Rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor,
Hyderabad ...Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: A.Hariprasad Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T.L.Nayan Kumar
Spl Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2021)3 Supreme Court Cases 687
2 AIR 2009 SC 2022
3(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
4 ( 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 972 (AP)
5 (2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 262 (S.C)
6 (2000 (8) SCC 571)
7 (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 625
8 (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 46
9 AIR 1964 SC 575
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.989 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant/AO was convicted for the offence under Section
7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of
1988") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of
1988 vide judgment in CC No.37 of 2003 dated 23.07.2008 passed
by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil
Court at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is
filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the AO worked as
Prohibition & Excise Inspector. P.W.1 was running a wine shop,
which was owned by P.W.2. Accused officer visited the wine shop on
15.06.2002 and demanded to pay Rs.20,000/- as yearly mamool.
Again he visited the shop on 25.06.2002 and 04.07.2002. The
accused officer further instructed that an amount of Rs.10,000/-
has to be paid at his residence in the evening of 05.07.2002. P.W.1
lodged a complaint with ACB on 04.07.2002. A trap was arranged
on 05.07.2002. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the ACB office at
Karimnagar with the bribe amount. P.W.5 and another
independent mediator and DSP- P.w.6 and Inspector-P.W.7, who
formed the trap party, were present in the office. The pre trap
proceedings were drafted under Ex.P6. The trap party proceeded to
the house of the accused officer at 6.55 p.m. Around 7.00 to 8.00
pm, P.W.2 gave pre arranged signal, as such, the trap party entered
into the house and conducted sodium carbonate solution test and
both the hands of the accused officer, when rinsed in the solution,
turned into pink colour. The trap amount was removed from the
table drawer and handed over to DSP. When questioned during post
trap proceedings, the accused officer stated that he has taken hand
loan of Rs.10,000 for his personal use. DSP questioned whether any
note for the loan was executed, he stated that no such note was
executed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exs.D1 to D7
which are crime occurrence reports and panchanama conducted on
01.11.2002, 12.06.2002, 25.06.2002. It goes to show that the
alleged demand of on 25.06.2002 and 13.06.2002 are incorrect, as
the accused officer conducted raids at various places. Further, the
alleged amount of bribe by the accused officer is towards mamool
and there was no official work pending. However, taking advantage
of his position, the alleged demand of bribe is made. Both the
witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution case and
supported the defence version of the accused officer as stated
during post trap proceedings that the amount was towards loan. In
the said circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case
and since no demand is proved, conviction under Section 7 of the
Act of 1988 cannot be maintained in view of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court;
i) N.Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu1. He also relied on
the judgment of C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin2, wherein the
(2021)3 Supreme Court Cases 687
AIR 2009 SC 2022
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the version of the accused officer
therein that the amount was paid towards the repayment of loan.
ii)He also relied on the judgment of Punjabrao v. State of
Maharashtra3, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
defence can be established by preponderance of probability and if
any explanation is offered during Section 313 Cr.P.C examination
and same is found to be reasonable, it cannot be refused merely on
the ground that the said explanation was not given when the
amount was seized.
iii) In Gaddam Mutyala Rao v. State of A.P4 , this Court
held that in the case of hostility of the prosecution witnesses, Court
can consider other circumstances showing the demand and
acceptance of bribe.
iv) T.Subramaniam v. State of Tamilnadu5, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the reasons for receiving the
(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
( 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 972 (AP)
(2006 (1) ALT (Crl.) 262 (S.C)
amount is explained and the explanation is probable and
reasonable, then the appellant has to be acquitted.
4. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits
that since the bribe amount is recovered from the accused officer
and the accused officer has accepted receiving of money, though
stated that it was loan, presumption under Section 7 is attracted
and the accused officer failed to discharge his burden. In the said
circumstances, conviction by the trial Court cannot be interfered
with. In support of his contentions he relied on the judgments; i)
Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra6, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in any trial for the offence
punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d), if it is proved that
the accused has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or
attempted to obtain for himself or for any other person, any
gratification, it shall be presumed that unless the contrary is proved
that the said amount was towards illegal gratification; iii) In Girija
Prasad (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of M.P7, the Hon'ble Supreme
(2000 (8) SCC 571)
(2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 625
Court upheld an order of the High Court reversing the acquittal
judgment of the trial Court on the ground of the accused failing to
discharge his burden; iv) Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of
Gujarat8; v) Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of
Maharashtra9, Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme
Court held that once it is shown that the amount received by any
accused is towards illegal gratification, presumption has to be
raised.
5. The alleged demand of bribe was towards mamool. There is no
official favour or work that was pending in the office of the accused
officer. However, the official favour was not to interfere with the
business, for which reason, mamool was asked. During the course
of trial, both P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution and stated that the said amount was towards loan.
6. D.W.1 was examined, who stated that the accused officer and
others were on patrolling duties and registered a case on
04.07.2002. D.W.2 is also another Excise Inspector, who stated that
(1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 46
AIR 1964 SC 575
on 25.06.2002, DW.2 and the accused officer conducted search at
the premises where illicit distilled liquor was found. D.W.3, who is
another witness corroborated the evidence of D.W.2. D.W.4 is
another witness to support the case of the accused officer that on
25.06.2002 a case was registered and he filed charge sheet in the
Huzurabad Court.
7. The demand allegedly made on 25.06.2002 is not proved by
the prosecution by oral and documentary evidence. The evidence of
defence witnesses cannot be overlooked only for the reason of their
supporting the accused. Both prosecution and defence witnesses
have to be treated equally. In the back ground of P.W.2 stating that
the amount was given towards loan and the same corroborating
with the earliest version of the accused officer stated in the post
trap proceedings, the same has to be believed. Though, witnesses
have turned hostile to the prosecution case that in itself would not
entail to discard the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in its totality and only
concentrate upon the recovery aspect to draw an inference of guilt.
On multiple occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once
the demand is not proved, any recovery which is not in consonance
with the facts of the case and its circumstances, benefit of doubt
has to be extended to the accused. Accordingly, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the trial Court has erred in convicting the
accused officer when demand is not proved and the defence version
was acceptable.
8. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in CC No.37 of 2003
dated 23.07.2008 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. Since
the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 10.08.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.989 of 2008
Date: 10.08.2022.
kvs
