Telangana High Court
Sri K.Raghunatha Rao, vs The State Of A.P., on 8 September, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1461 OF 2008
Between:
K.Raghunatha Rao. ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor for ACB. ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 08.09.2022
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?
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No.1461 of 2008
% Dated 08.09.2022
# K.Raghunatha Rao. ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor for ACB. ...Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V.Surender Rao
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Ch.Vidya Sagar Rao,
Spl. Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2010(1) ALD (Crl.) 497 (SC)
2 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC)
3 AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549
4 2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 952 (SC)
5 2022 (1) ALD (Crl.) 96 (TS)
6 2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 917 (TS)
7 2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 507 (TS)
8 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 934 (AP)
9 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 331 (AP)
10 2010 Cri.L.J 2867
11 1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 231 (S.C)
12 2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 697 (AP)
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1461 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the conviction recorded under
Sections 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988')
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months and one year, respectively, vide judgment in
C.C.No.29 of 2003, dated 06.11.2008 passed by the Principal
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the ACB is that the appellant worked as Junior
Accounts Officer in the office of APCPDCL, Mint Compound. The
acquitted Accused No.2 worked as LDC in the same office. The
complainant/P.W.1 was working as Accounts-cum-
Administrative Assistant in M/s.Embedded Infotech (Private)
Limited. PW1 approached the appellant requesting to change the
name of electricity service connection in the name of the
company as the company shifted their premises to new address.
An application was made to change the old service connection in
the name of the company M/s.Embedded Infotech Private
Limited as instructed by P.W.2, who is the Manager (Operation)
in the said company. Appellant refused to process the file and
demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- for processing the file. The
acquitted accused also allegedly demanded Rs.1,500/- for
processing. Aggrieved by the said demand, on 16.04.2002 P.W.1
as instructed by P.W.2 filed a complaint stating that the
appellant and another have demanded Rs.1,500/- to be paid on
the very same day i.e., 16.04.2002. Accordingly, the said
complaint was registered at 12.30 p.m on 16.04.2002 and P.W.1
was asked to come at 2.00 p.m on the same day. The pre-trap
proceedings under Ex.P6 were drafted from 2.30 p.m in the office
of ACB and concluded at 4.00 p.m.
3. At 4.00 p.m, the trap party which included DSP, P.W.1,
Inspector, independent mediators and others proceeded to the
office of the appellant. The complainant P.W.1 entered into the
office along with P.W.3 one of the independent mediators and
after receipt of the said tainted bribe amount by the appellant,
P.W.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal to indicate that
the amount of bribe has been received by the appellant. The DSP
and others entered into the office after receipt of the signal and
conducted tests on the hands of the appellant, which proved
positive. The said amount was produced by the appellant from
his left side pant pocket. Thereafter, after concluding the post
trap proceedings, the investigation was handed over to P.W.9,
who concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet for the
offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the
Act against the appellant and another. After concluding the
examination of the witnesses, the learned Special Judge found
that this appellant is guilty and acquitted accused A2 not guilty
for the said offences.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
complainant/P.W.1, P.W.2 at whose instance the complaint was
lodged and also P.W.3 who is an independent mediator have all
turned hostile to the prosecution case. Further, according to the
prosecution case, the work of PW.1 was already complete and file
was already processed by the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the
following judgments; i) A.Subair v. State of Kerala1; ii)
B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P2; iii) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v.
District Inspector of Police3; iv) Dashrath Singh Chauhan v.
Central Bureau of Investigation4; v) C.Giriprasad Babu v.
State, ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad5; vi) Sk. Hussain v.
State of Andhra Pradesh6; vii) J.Srinivasa Rao v. State of
Andhra Pradesh7; viii)Addala Subrahmanyam v. State8; ix)
State v. R.Krishnaiah9; x) Utpal Das v. State of West
Bengal10; xi) Chinnammal v. State of Tamil Nadu11 and
2010(1) ALD (Crl.) 497 (SC)
2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC)
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549
2018 (2) ALD (Crl.) 952 (SC)
2022 (1) ALD (Crl.) 96 (TS)
2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 917 (TS)
2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 507 (TS)
2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 934 (AP)
2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 331 (AP)
2010 Cri.L.J 2867
1997 (1) ALD (Crl.) 231 (S.C)
Dumala Mallaiah v. State of A.P12 and on the basis of the
aforesaid judgments argued that mere recovery divorced from
circumstances cannot be made basis to convict when the
aspect of demand is not proved. The presumption cannot be
come to the rescue of the prosecution and the same is not
attracted in the present facts of the case.
6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
submits that recovery was made from the pant pocket of the
appellant, for which reason, the burden shifts on to the
appellant under Section 20 of the Act and the appellant has
failed to discharge his burden of disproving the case of the
prosecution for which reason, the conviction recorded by the
learned Special Judge cannot be interfered with.
7. The application which was made by P.W.1 on behalf of
his company was in fact processed by the appellant. P.W.7,
who is the trap laying officer admitted in his cross-
examination that this appellant and the acquitted accused
2004 (1) ALD (Crl.) 697 (AP)
were not competent to issue any letter to change the name of
the electric service connection. It was further found that the
file of P.W.1's company was already processed and ordered by
the Accounts Officer and it was pending with the dispatch
clerk Satyabala. Further, Ex.P3 letter was received from the
said dispatch clerk Satyabala by PW1.
8. Admittedly, there was no official work pending with the
appellant. P.W.1 has turned hostile to the prosecution case
and stated that the appellant had never demanded any
amount. In fact PW1 stated that he forcibly thrusted the
amount in the pocket of the appellant, though he resisted and
that immediately all the trap party cornered the appellant.
P.W.2 did not state that demand was made by this appellant.
P.W.3 is the independent mediator who accompanied P.W.1
into the office of the appellant. He stated that he did not
witness giving or taking of bribe in between P.W.1 and the
appellant and in fact, when the documents were seized, it was
mentioned in page No.6 of Ex.P10 that the said letter was
handed over to P.W.1 by Smt.Satyabala after obtaining his
signature. P.W.3 further stated that since he had signed on
the post trap proceedings Ex.P10, he had come to the Court
to give evidence. However, he has not heard any demand being
made by the appellant nor any passing of money by P.W.1.
9. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant
had demanded any amount for processing the file of P.W.1's
company for change of its name. It is further on record that
PW.1 had already received Ex.P3 letter from Satyabala, who is
the clerk. Through Ex.P3 letter it was informed that the
change of name was affected from M/s.Clarixxon Technologies
Limited to M/s.Embeded Infotech Private Limited in which
P.W.1 worked. Ex.P3 is dated 16.04.2002 on which date the
appellant was entrapped.
10. Learned Special Judge in his judgment has made Ex.P2
complaint which was disowned by P.W.1 and also Section 164
of Cr.P.C statement to infer that the appellant had demanded
the bribe from P.W.1 for processing the file. The averments in
Ex.P1 complaint were disowned and P.W.1 also did not state
that there was any demand. The learned Special Judge erred
in relying upon the said complaint Ex.P2 and also statement
recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C to infer that the demand
was made by the appellant. A complaint when disowned by
complainant, the contents of the complaint cannot be read in
evidence.
11. Secondly, Section 164 Cr.PC statement is a previous
statement which can be used by the prosecution or the
defence for the purpose of contradicting any statement that
was subsequently made in Court. Section 164 of Cr.P.C
statement is not substantive evidence to rely upon by the
Court to draw inference regarding the culpability of an
accused.
12. In the said circumstances, the appellant is entitled to be
acquitted of all the charges leveled against him. In the result,
the conviction recorded against the appellant vide impugned
judgment in CC No.29 of 2003 dated 06.11.2008 is set aside.
Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
cancelled.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 08.09.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Crl.A.No.1461 of 2007
Dated: 08.09.2022
kvs
