The State Of A.P., By Inspector Of ... vs Sri Kommara Anil Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 3724 Tel

            HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1198 of 2007
JUDGMENT:

1. The State ACB aggrieved by the acquittal of the

respondent/accused officer for the offence under Sections 7,

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, vide judgment in C.C.No.14 of 2002, dated 27.11.2006

passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB

Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short the 'Act'), filed the

present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent/accused

officer worked as Sub-Divisional Co-operative Officer, Warangal.

The defacto complainant-P.W.1 is resident of Hanamkonda, who

was working as Veterinary Assistant in Animal Husbandry

Department at Cherlapalli village, Parkal Mandal of Warangal

District. He along with his 27 colleagues, submitted an application

Ex.P1 on 23.11.2000 to get their proposed Animal Husbandry

Employees Co-operative Credit Society registered. P.W.1 was

nominated as convener of the proposed society to process the

application and to get the society registered. Taking responsibility 2 KS, J Crl.A_1198_2007

of the same, P.W.1 visited the office of the accused officer, met him

and requested to process the application for registration of the

society. Accused Officer informed that it would take time. Again on

11.01.2001, P.W.1 met the accused officer at his house for

processing the application. It was then the respondent/accused

officer demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- as bribe and on repeated

requests, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.1,000/- and the

accused officer informed P.W.1 that unless amount was paid on the

next date i.e., on 12.01.2001, the application processing will not

take place.

3. Aggrieved by the demand of the accused officer, P.W.1 went to

the ACB and lodged Ex.P2 complaint on 11.01.2001. On receiving

the complaint, ACB arranged trap on the next day and P.W.2 was

asked to accompany P.W.1 on the date of trap. On 12.01.2001,

after completing pre-trap proceedings at 6.00 am, P.W.7 asked

P.W.1 to call the accused officer and enquire as to where the

amount has to be given. Accused officer informed P.W.1 that he

would be visiting PW1's residence to collect the amount.

Accordingly, on 12.01.2001, the trap party along with P.Ws.1 and 2 3 KS, J Crl.A_1198_2007

were waiting at vantage positions outside the house of P.W.1. The

accused officer arrived on kinetic Honda and after consuming tea

offered by P.W.1 asked for the bribe amount. Accordingly, P.W.1

took out currency notes and gave it to the accused officer. On

P.W.1 giving signal, DSP and other trap party members entered into

the house of P.W.1 and conducted post trap proceedings. During

the post trap proceedings, the accused officer when questioned

about receiving bribe, stated that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was

towards books meant for the PW1's request for society registration.

P.W.7- trap laying officer asked the accused officer to produce the

amount and accused officer took it out from his shirt pocket and

handed over the bribe amount to him. Accordingly, post trap

proceedings under Ex.P6 were drafted. Thereafter the accused

officer was taken to his office and third mediators report under

Ex.P11 was drafted for seizure of the relevant records which are

Exs.P7 to P10. The attendance register Ex.P12 was also seized by

the ACB.

4. After completion of investigation, the police-ACB filed charge

sheet against the accused officer for the offence under Sections 7 4 KS, J Crl.A_1198_2007

and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. The charges were also framed

under the said provisions.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, after completion of trial, acquitted

the accused officer on the following grounds:

i) the accused officer had spontaneously explained at the time

of second mediators report that he accepted Rs.1,000/- towards the

cost of bye-laws and other books of accounts required for

registration of the society on the application made by P.W.1;

ii) P.W.3, the then Junior Inspector in the office of the District

Co-operative Audit Office stated that the stationery items were pre-

requisite for registering the society and the amount would be

Rs.1,000/-, which was not disputed by the prosecution;

iii) P.W.1 deposed that he had purchased the stationery worth

Rs.500/- but such statement was not made at the time of giving

complaint;

iv) According to P.W.5, Co-operative Sub Registrar in

Divisional Co-operative Office, stated that on the application of

P.W.1, he made enquiries at the place suggested by P.W.1 and

since the application Ex.P1 was not in the proforma, he had asked 5 KS, J Crl.A_1198_2007

P.W.1 to prepare and submit the form as per Ex.D2 and declaration

as required under Ex.D1 proforma and also the list of members in

Ex.D3 proforma. For the said reason, there was no fault on part of

the accused officer going to the house of P.W.1 on the date of trap;

v) Ex.D5 disclosed that no elections were conducted to the

society in question and on evidence, there was no real necessity to

form a society. The society was formed with an intention to

facilitate the members in getting loans and the society was defunct

from the beginning.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the present

case when the receipt of bribe amount is admitted by the accused

officer, the burden shifts on to the accused officer and it is his duty

to discharge the said burden. The reason that the amount received

was towards purchase of stationary items which were necessary

for registration of the society cannot be believed. He submits that

the learned Special Judge failed to see that even according to

P.W.1's version that he had already purchased stationery as such

the question of receiving money for the purpose of stationery is not 6 KS, J Crl.A_1198_2007

believable and on that ground alone, the order of acquittal has to be

reversed and the respondent/accused officer has to be convicted.

7. Learned counsel for the accused officer would submit that very

cogent reasons are given by the learned Special Judge while

acquitting the respondent/accused officer. Even according to the

prosecution witnesses including P.W.3, have stated that it was

necessary to purchase the stationery before registering the society,

which fact was not disputed by the prosecution. He placed reliance

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 3 Supreme Court

Cases 687), wherein it is observed as follows:

"10. ......... By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under :

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge :

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise [email protected](Crl.)Nos.4729-30 of 2020 of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such 7 KS, J Crl.A_1198_2007

phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court."

8. Learned Special Judge as narrated above has given convincing

and cogent reasons for recording acquittal. Learned Judge has

found that the respondent/accused officer had given spontaneous

and consistent explanation during post trap proceedings in Ex.P6

stating that he never demanded or accepted any bribe and the said

amount of Rs.1,000/- was towards stationary for the purpose of

registration of the proposed society, which was not provided by

P.W.1. The earliest version given by the respondent/accused officer

was supported by P.W.3, who deposed that the stationery items

were pre-requisite for registration of the society. As seen from the

file that was seized during investigation, there were no such

stationery items which were provided by P.W.1, for which reason

also, the defence version is more probable and acceptable. Further 8 KS, J Crl.A_1198_2007

the accused officer was passing by the house of PW1 on duty as and

to facilitate PW1 he received the amount.

9. In the said circumstances, the respondent/accused officer

explaining the reason for accepting the amount of Rs.1,000/- at the

inception itself when he was trapped, subsequently during trial also

proved that the version which was stated by the accused officer

was correct. Therefore, the finding of the learned Special Judge

needs no interference.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal filed by the state is

dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any

pending, shall stand closed.

                                                  ________________
                                                  K.SURENDER, J
Date: 15.07.2022
kvs
 9                                                       KS, J
                                            Crl.A_1198_2007




      HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER




          Criminal Appeal No.1198 of 2007




                 Date: 15.07.2022




kvs
 10               KS, J
     Crl.A_1198_2007