Telangana High Court
Atthar Hussain vs The State Of A.P., A.C.B., ... on 22 September, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.532 OF 2007
Between:
Atthar Hussain ... Appellant
And
State ACB, Karimnagar Range,
Adilabad. ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.09.2022
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. 532 of 2007
% Dated 22.09.2022
# Atthar Hussain ... Appellant
And
$ State ACB, Karimnagar Range,
Adilabad. ..Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri B.Venkata Ratnam
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T.L.Nayan Kumar.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3382
22010 Crl.L.J 2419
3 (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 687
4
(2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases
5 2013 CRI.L.J 4050
6 (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 364
7 2003(1) ALD (Crl.)656 (AP)
8 (1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 227
9(1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 644
10 (1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 557
11 (1974) 4 Supreme Court Cases 560
12 (1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 46
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.532 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant/AO is convicted for the offence under Sections 7
and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of 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.23 of 2002 dated 23.04.2007 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 defacto
complainant/P.W.1 was Sarpanch of Kamole Village in Bhainsa
Mandal, Adilabad District and the Grampanchayat passed
resolution during March and April, 1999 for construction of slabs
over side drains at Kumsara, Hamlet of Kamole village and other
works at the cost of Rs.1,30,000/-. P.W.1 undertook and completed
the works during the month of October, 1999 and approached the
appellant for recording in M books. However, no such recording
was done though P.W.1 went around office of the appellant several
times. On 27.01.2000, P.W.1 again requested the appellant at
Mandal Parishad Office and the appellant demanded an amount of
Rs.15,000/- to record in M books and reduced the said amount to
Rs.10,000/-. P.W.1 lodged complaint Ex.P1 with the Inspector-
P.W.9 on 01.02.2000. DSP-P.W.6 was also in Karimnagar ACB
office on 01.02.2000. Having conducted preliminary enquiry, the
trap was arranged on 03.02.2000 at Nirmal.
3. After registration of the crime, the trap party assembled in a
lodge at Nirmal and after concluding the pre-trap proceedings
drafted Ex.P7. The trap party went to the house of the appellant.
While the other trap party members waited outside. P.Ws.1 and 2
entered into the house at 9.00 am and at 9.15 am P.W.2 came out
and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party to indicate that the
bribe amount was passed on to the appellant.
4. The trap party entered into the house of the appellant and
conducted sodium carbonate solution test on the hands of the
appellant, which turned positive. The amount was recovered from
the table and the amount was wrapped in Urdu paper. The trap
proceedings were concluded and Exs.P2 to P4 M-books were seized
and also Exs.P8 to P10 estimates. Having completed the formalities,
Ex.P11 post trap proceedings were drafted.
5. P.W.6 handed over investigation to P.W.9, who investigated
and filed charge sheet for the said offences. The learned Special
Judge, having framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13 (2) of the Act, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1
to P14, which were produced by the prosecution and also marked
Exs.D1 to D10 in defence by the appellant. After conclusion, the
learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted as
stated above.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is
no proof that any work was entrusted to P.W.1 for execution. The
M-books which are Exs.P2 to P4 do not relate to the work in
question as admitted by P.W.4. The most important factor is that
P.W.1 who was Sarpanch of Kamole Grampanchayat during 1995 to
2006 was prohibited from drawing the Grampanchayat funds, since
P.W.1 did not execute the works. Ex.D10 which was issued on
06.02.1999 is a proceeding of District Panchayat Officer, according
to which, the Sarpanch/P.W.1 was prohibited from drawing the
Grampanchayat funds as P.W.1 did not execute any works. The
local MLA requested to authorize any officer to arrange for
execution of works in the Grampancayat. In the absence of any
documentary proof or any other oral evidence supporting the claim
of P.W.1 that he was entrusted with the Grampanchayat works, the
question of claiming the amount for execution of work does not
arise. P.W.1 had a criminal back ground and falsely implicated the
appellant. For the said reasons, counsel prayed for acquittal of the
appellant of the charges. In support of his contentions, he relied on
the judgments reported in the cases of; i) Mukhtiar Singh (since
deceased) through his L.R v. State of Punjab1, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused
therein since the amount was placed in card board box on table
instead of being kept with the complainant; ii) Bansari Dass v.
State of Haryana2, wherein it was held that mere proof of recovery
of bribe amount from accused is not sufficient to prove offence; iii)
N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu3; iv) T.Subramanian v.
AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3382
2010 Crl.L.J 2419
(2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 687
State of Tamil Nadu4 wherein it was held that mere recovery of
tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which such
money and other articles were found not sufficient to convict the
accused; Counsel also relied upon v) State of Punjab v.Madan
Mohan Lal Verma5; vi) State through Inspector of Police, A.P v.
K.Narasimhachary6 and vii) B.Doraswamy v. State of A.P7.
7. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits
that the learned Special Judge had given cogent reasons for
believing the version of P.W.1 regarding demand of bribe. Exs.P2 to
P4 contains the measurements and though it does not disclose
specifically to which works they relate to, however, there are records
of measurements of some works pertaining to Kumsara village,
Kamole. The said findings of the learned Special Judge are logical.
Since the amount was recovered at the instance of the appellant,
presumption has to be drawn. In support of his contention, he
relied on the judgments reported in the cases of: i) Sita Ram v. State
(2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases
2013 CRI.L.J 4050
(2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 364
2003(1) ALD (Crl.)656 (AP)
of Rajasthan8; ii) Maha Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)9; iii)
State of U.P v. Zakaullah10; iv) Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana11
and Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat12.
8. The basis for lodging the complaint is that P.W.1 executed
works in the Grampanchayat of Kamole and for the reason of
making entries in M books, the appellant had demanded bribe
amount. Firstly, the prosecution has to prove that the works were
in fact entrusted to P.W.1 for execution. None of the documents
produced by the prosecution remotely suggest that any work was
entrusted to P.W.1. Exs.P2 to P4 Measurements Books do not show
the details of works as claimed by P.W.1. P.W.4, who is the Deputy
Executive Engineer specifically, stated that Exs.P2 to P4 did not
pertain to any work that was executed by P.W.1 and there is no
description of the nature of work that was entrusted to P.W.1.
P.W.4 further stated that P.W.1 was entrusted with the work of
construction of new latrines and did not remember whether they
(1975) 2 Supreme Court Cases 227
(1976) 1 Supreme Court Cases 644
(1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 557
(1974) 4 Supreme Court Cases 560
(1976) 3 Supreme Court Cases 46
pertain to the year 1998. P.W.4 also stated that Rs.85,000/-
advance amount was drawn by P.W.1 for the said construction of
latrines work, which were not executed and it was ordered to
recover the said amount from P.W.1. According to Ex.D10, P.W.1
was prohibited from drawing Grampanchayat funds.
9. Admittedly, P.W.1 had committed irregularities in execution of
works, for which reason, the amount of Rs.85,000/- was sought to
be recovered from him. Further, Ex.D10 proceedings dated
06.02.1999 prohibited P.W.1 from drawing Grampanchayat funds
and the Extension Officer of Mudhol was requested to execute the
development works in Grampanchayat in the place of P.W.1.
Unless the prosecution proves that P.W.1 was entrusted with any
work and the measurements books Exs.P2 to P4 relate to the works
entrusted to him, it cannot be said that the appellant who was
working as Assistant Engineer would ask for bribe to make entries
in M Books when no work was entrusted to P.W.1. The question of
demanding money for making entries in M Books does not arise in
the scenario.
10. On the day of trap, the money was found on the table and
amount was wrapped in Urdu newspaper. P.W.2, who was the
independent mediator stated in his chief examination that when
they entered into the house, the appellant went inside the house
and in the absence of the appellant, P.W.1 wrapped the amount in a
Urdu Newspaper and kept it on the table. When the appellant came
inside the room, where P.Ws.1 and 2 are sitting, P.W.1 shook hands
with the appellant and thereafter, the signal was relayed to the trap
party indicating the acceptance of bribe. Though the independent
mediator P.W.2 was declared hostile to the prosecution case, the
said version can be believed in the back ground of the earliest
version stated by the appellant that "he did not do anything and
nothing had happened"(stated in Hindi and translated). The three
persons, who were present in the room are the appellant, P.Ws.1
and 2. Both the appellant and P.W.2 have stated that there was no
demand by the appellant, however, it was P.W.1 who wrapped the
amount and kept it on the table. Admittedly, the amount was
recovered from the table wrapped in Urdu newspaper.
11. At the cost of repetition, the very basis of the prosecution case
regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe is belied for the
reason of the prosecution failing to prove that any work was
entrusted to P.W.1 and that he has executed any such works.
12. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had
demanded any amount. Merely, for the reason of recovery of the
amount from the table in the house of the appellant, it cannot in
any manner attribute the demand and acceptance of bribe by the
appellant. For the foregoing reasons, the benefit of doubt is
extended to the appellant.
13. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in CC No.23 of 2002
dated 23.04.2007 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. Since
the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:22.09.2022
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.532 of 2007
Date: 22.09.2022.
kvs
