Gangireddy Rami Reddy, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl. Pp ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4745 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1740 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant/AO, who is a police officer was convicted for the

offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of

1988 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 under both counts, vide judgment in CC No.12 of

2003 dated 15.12.2007 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 appellant was a

Traffic Inspector at Warangal. P.W.1 is the owner of the lorry

bearing No.AP 9U 5476 and P.W.8 was the driver of the said lorry.

On 21.07.2000, complaint was lodged against the driver of the lorry

bearing No.AP 9U 5476 for causing accident on 20.07.2000. On

21.07.2000 the person died, for which reason, the section of law

was altered from Section 323 IPC to Section 304 of IPC. P.W.8 was

detained in police station. On 20.07.2000 P.W.1 was informed that

PW.8 and the lorry were detained in the police station for being

involved in accident. However, due to marriage in the family, P.W.1

went to Mattewada Police Station on 27.07.2000 and met the

appellant and requested to release the lorry and P.W.8, for which,

the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.8,000/- as bribe. On the

same day, PWs.1 and 2 went to the ACB office at Warangal and

lodged complaint Ex.P1 at 4.00 p.m. The trap was arranged on

29.07.2000 and the trap party gathered at 9.30 a.m. After

concluding the pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P3, the trap party

proceeded to Mattewada Police Station. At about 11.15 a.m, P.Ws.1

and 3 went into the police station and were informed that the

appellant was deputed to bandhobast duty. However, at 12.30 p.m,

the appellant arrived at the police station and then P.Ws.1, 2 and 3

met the appellant, the appellant demanded the bribe amount and

having accepted the same put it in his table drawer. Thereafter,

P.W.3 came out and relayed the pre-arranged signal and trap party

entered and conducted tests on the hands of the appellant. The

solution in which right hand of the appellant was dipped, turned

positive, which shows that the bribe was handled. Thereafter post

trap proceedings under Ex.P10 were conducted.

3. The investigation was handed to one Sri Umakanth Reddy,

who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the

amount was planted in the drawer of the table of the appellant by

P.Ws.1 and 3 on their first visit, when admittedly, the appellant was

not present in the police station. The said fact is corroborated by

P.W.3, who is an independent mediator and during the course of his

chief examination stated that he did not view P.W.1 passing the

money to the appellant and further stated that though the tests on

the hands of the appellant was negative, it was wrongly noted as

positive in the post trap proceedings. The very complaint of P.W.1 is

doubtful for the reason of offence under Section 304-A being a

bailable offence and further, if the owner of the lorry wanted to take

back the lorry, he has to approach the concerned Court and file a

petition under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. If the property is not

produced before the concerned court, the Magistrate under Section

457 of Cr.P.C would direct the police to produce the property and

return the same. When such is the procedure prescribed for return

of the property, the demand of bribe for return of lorry cannot be

believed. He further submits that there are several discrepancies

which go to the root of the case and independent mediator has not

supported the case of the prosecution, for which reason, the benefit

of doubt has to be extended to the appellant. In support of his

contentions, he relied upon the judgments; i) Meena (Smt).

W/o.Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of currency notes

and positive result is not enough to establish the guilt of the

appellant when the other evidence is not acceptable; ii) Banarsi

Dass v. State of Haryana2 and argued that when the independent

witness has turned hostile, the demand becomes doubtful; iii)

M.K.Harshan v. State of Kerala3, wherein the amount was

recovered from the table drawer and the evidence was contradictory

for which reason, the Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted the

appellant; iv) Ganga Kumar Srivastava v State of Bihar4.

(2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 21

(2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 450

(1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 720

(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 211

5. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor

submitted that the appellant has misused his official position as the

Inspector of Police Station and demanded an amount of Rs.8,000/-

to release the vehicle. The amount was recovered from his table

drawer and test on his hand turned positive. Further, the case was

pending before the said police station, for which reason, the finding

of the learned Special Judge cannot be interfered with.

6. Admittedly, P.W.8, who was the driver of the lorry was involved

in the accident on 20.07.2000 and complaint was lodged on

21.07.2000. Both the lorry and the lorry driver P.W.8 were in the

police station since the date of accident. Complaint was lodged on

27.07.2000 against the appellant for demanding bribe of Rs.8,000/-

for releasing the vehicle, on which date, the driver of the vehicle and

the lorry were in the police station premises. On the date of trap ie.,

on 29.07.2000, when the trap was laid, it was found during the

post trap proceedings that the lorry was seized and the driver was

also present when the appellant was trapped. No explanation is

given as to why the lorry was kept in the police station without

being produced before the concerned Magistrate. P.W.8 driver was

also with the lorry and he was not allowed to move from 20.07.2000

till the date of trap i.e., 29.07.2000. P.W.8 was neither released on

bail nor produced before the concerned Magistrate.

7. There is no explanation as to why the lorry was kept in the

police station premises and the driver was in the police station for

all 9 days. P.W.1 is stranger to the appellant and there is no reason

as to why P.W.1 would lodge a false complaint against the appellant

unless demand was made. The presence of the lorry and driver in

the police station indicates that the appellant, who was in charge of

the police station had detained the lorry and P.W.8 for a period of

eight days without following due procedure under Code of Criminal

Procedure. In the said circumstances, the claim of P.W.1 that the

appellant demanded amount is believable. It cannot be said that a

false complaint was made against the appellant.

8. The argument of the learned counsel that the amount was

recovered from the table drawer and P.W.3 and the independent

mediator has stated that he did not see P.W.1 paying bribe to the

appellant is of no consequence, in the present facts and

circumstances of the case. PW1 specifically stated that the bribe

amount was received by appellant and placed in the table drawer.

The test on the right hand of the appellant turned positive. There

are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the

trial Court.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 20.09.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1740 of 2007

Date:20.09.2022.

kvs