Marripally Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2825 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

         CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.3104, 3105 and 3112 of 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT:

        Criminal Appeal No.3104 of 2018, Criminal Appeal No.3105

of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No.3112 of 2018 are filed by accused

officer Nos.1 to 3 respectively.


2.      All these three Criminal Appeals are arising out of the

judgment dated 20.11.2018, passed by the Special Judge for Trial

of SPE & A.C.B Cases at Karimnagar, in Calendar Case No.75 of

2015, whereby the learned Judge found accused officer Nos.1 and

2 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)

read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(for short, 'the Act'), convicted them under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year

each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence

punishable under Section 7 of the Act, in default of payment of

fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each; and

further sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one

year each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence
                                  2




punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

Act, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of three months each. Accused officer

No.3 was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 12

of the Act, convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C., and was

sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a         period of six

months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default of payment of

fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Both the

substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against accused

officer Nos.1 and 2 were directed to run concurrently.


3.    The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that during the trap,

accused officer No.1 was working as Sub- Inspector of Police,

accused officer No.2 was working as Police Constable (No.2349)

and accused officer No.3 was working as Police Constable

(No.2307) in Choppadandi Police Station, and they come under

the category of public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c)

of the Act. According to the prosecution, PW.1-Jakkula Saraiah,

PW2-Lanka Anjaiah and PW.6-Merugu Jannaiah and some other

villagers of Arnakonda formed a Society namely Rajanala Sangam
                                 3




and they have been doing Sheep and Goat business by

transporting them in vehicles to nearby areas of Karimnagar,

Gangadhara, Jammikunta, Rajarampally and Husnabad etc. by

selling them in the sandy markets since 20 years. While they were

transporting sheeps and goats in the vehicles to the markets,

accused officer No.1, being the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Choppadandi Police Station, used to stop the vehicles, harass

them for mamools and when they refused, he used to threaten

them to book false cases. Though they appraised accused officer

No.1 that they are poor and getting petty income, accused officer

No.1 did not heed their words and continued to harass them for

mamools. As PW.1 and other members of Rajanala Sangam failed

to give mamools, on 26.03.2001, accused officer No.1 stopped their

vehicles bearing Nos.AP-15-Y-8147 and AP-15-Y-9557 and some

other vehicles at Choppadandi Sandy Market and imposed fine of

Rs.100/- on each of the vehicle and while imposing fine, accused

officer No.1 further threatened that if they did not oblige his

demands for mamools, he will continue to impose fine in similar

manner.
                                 4




4.    It is further alleged that 15 days prior to the trap, PW.1

along with other members of the Sangam approached accused

officer No.1 in Choppadandi Police Station to discuss the matter,

on that, accused officer No.1 demanded them to pay Rs.40,000/-

per year towards mamools and on repeated requests made by

them, accused officer No.1 reduced the amount to Rs.30,000/- for

which they agreed and returned back. As there was some delay

in arranging mamools to accused officer No.1, accused officer

No.2, who was working as gunman to accused officer No.1, used

to make phone calls to them daily and harass them for mamools.

On 13.04.2011 at about 1:00 P.M., PW.1 along with PW.2 & PW.6

again met accused officer No.1 in the Police Station and on seeing

them, accused officer No.1 demanded for mamool. When they

expressed their inability, accused officer No.1 reduced the bribe

amount from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.15,000/-, for which the members of

the Sangam agreed and left the Police Station stating that they

would meet him on the next day. When they came out of the

Police Station, accused officer No.2 demanded them to pay

Rs.1,000/- as bribe, for allowing them to meet accused officer
                                 5




No.1, and the same was also agreed by them.            Since the

harassment of the accused officers was increasing day by day,

PW.1 along with others approached the Anti Corruption Bureau

(ACB) and lodged a complaint against all the accused on

13.04.2011

at 3:00 P.M. On receiving the said complaint, the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, conducted discreet

enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the complaint and

reputation of the accused officers and after obtaining permission

from the competent authority, registered the complaint as a case

in Crime No.5/ACB-KNR/2010 under Section 7 of the Act on

15.04.2011 and took up investigation.

5. It is alleged that during the course of investigation, the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar Range,

secured mediators i.e., PW.3 - G. Srinivas and LW.4 - U. Naresh

Kumar and conducted pre-tap proceedings in the office of the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Karimnagar Range; that

on the same day i.e., on 15.04.2011 at about 8:30 AM, PW.1 and

others participated in the trap proceedings; the Deputy

Superintendent of Police introduced PW.1 to the mediators and

vice-versa and gave a copy of the complaint to the mediators and

that in the presence of the mediators, PW.1 administered

Phenolphthalein powder over currency notes of Rs.15,000/- and

Rs.1,000/- and made it into two wads i.e., Rs.15,000/- in one wad

and Rs.1,000/- in another wad and kept them in the shirt pocket

of PW.1. Later, the Deputy Superintendent of Police called PW.2

inside the room and introduced him to the mediators and taken

him as accompanying witness to watch the proceedings and to

give signal to the trap party. Thereafter, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police demonstrated phenolphthalein test and

explained the significance of the test to the trap party members

and completed the pre-trap proceedings by 9:30 A.M on

15.04.2011.

6. After completion of the pre-trap proceedings, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police along with PW.1, mediators and his staff

proceeded to Choppadandi Police Station in a TATA Sumo and

two Motor Cycles and further PWs.1 and 2 followed them on

Honda Activa and they reached near Choppadandi Police Station

at 10:40 AM. The Deputy Superintendent of Police stopped the

vehicles at a distance of 500 yards from Choppadandi Police

Station and reiterated earlier instructions to PWs.1 and 2 and

directed them to go to the Police Station. Later, PWs.1 and 2

entered into the Police Station at 11:00 AM, and all the trap party

members took their position around the Police Station and at 11:15

AM, PW.2- accompanying witness came out and relayed signal by

wiping his face with handkerchief indicating demand and

acceptance of bribe by the accused persons. On observing the said

signal, the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with the trap

party members rushed into Choppadandi Police Station and

found accused officer No.1 in his seat and also observed some

persons standing in the hall of the building. On seeing them,

accused officer Nos.2 and 3 thrown away some currency notes on

the ground in the grass from their pockets and ran towards

backside of the police station, but the ACB officials chased and

caught hold of accused No.3 at locker room and accused No.2

behind the Police Station near the toilets. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police kept an Inspector - Srinivas Rao under

surveillance of accused officer No.1 and ascertained the details of

accused officer No.2.

7. Later, the Deputy Superintendent of Police prepared

sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers,

conducted phenolphthalein test to the fingers of both hands of the

accused officer No.2, upon which, both the right hand and left

hand washes turned into pink colour. Thereafter, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police questioned accused officer No.2 about

the demand and acceptance of bribe, recorded his version and

seized the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/-, which was seized from

the ground in the grass near toilets. Furthermore, on verification

of the numbers of the said amount with the numbers already

mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings, both of them were tallied.

Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with an

Inspector and mediators apprehended accused officer No.3,

conducted phenolphthalein test to the fingers of both the hands of

accused officer No.3 and they turned into pink colour. On

questioning about the tainted amount, accused officer No.3

produced Rs.15,000/- from his left side pant pocket. The

mediators verified the currency note numbers with the numbers

already mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings and both the

numbers were tallied.

8. Later, the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with the

trap party entered into the Chambers of accused officer No.1,

conducted phenolphthalein test to the hand fingers of accused

officer No.1, but they did not turn into pink colour. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police questioned accused officer No.1 with

regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe and recorded his

version. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police recorded

the version of PW.1 and also the accompanying witness. Later,

the Deputy Superintendent of Police seized the Relief Book and

Traffic Police Challan Book in the Police Station in the presence of

mediators under the cover of Ex-P.14. Though the Deputy

Superintendent of Police conducted searches in the houses of the

accused officers, no incriminating material was found in their

houses. Thereafter, he arrested accused officer Nos.1 to 3 and

completed the trap proceedings.

9. The Deputy Superintendent of Police examined PWs.1, 2, 5

and 7 and handed over the investigation to PW.19, who examined

PWs.6,8,10,11,12,13 and 14 and filed a requisition before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court,

Karimnagar, to record the statements of PWs.1 and 2 under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW.19 secured the call data details in respect

of Mobile phones of PWs.1 and 6. He also secured the call data

details of accused officer No.2 for the period from 01.02.2011 to

16.04.2011 and on examination of the calls, it was revealed that

there was demand and acceptance of bribe amount. On transfer

of PW.19, another ACB Inspector - PW.20 took up investigation

and he submitted Draft Final Report to the Director, ACB and

soon after receipt of the sanction proceedings, he filed charge

sheet against accused officer Nos.1 to 3.

10. The case was taken cognizance against accused officer

Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the offence

punishable under Section 12 of the Act against accused officer

No.3.

11. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to 20 were examined

and Exs.P.1 to P.35 were marked, besides M.Os.1 to 18. On behalf

of the defence, though DW.1 was examined, no documents were

marked.

12. After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused officer

Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but no

incriminating material was found against him.

13. The accused officers filed a detailed written statement

denying all the allegations leveled against them and stating that

they have been falsely implicated in the case and that they never

demanded any mamool/bribe as alleged by the prosecution.

14. The trial Court has framed the following points for

determination:

i) Whether AO1 demanded and accepted Rs.15,000/- from PW1 through AO3 as gratification (mamool) other than legal remuneration, as a motive from not booking any cases against vehicles of Rajanala Sangam run by PW.1, PW.2, PW.5 and other members of the Society?

ii) Whether AO3 demanded and accepted Rs.1,000/- from PW.1 as a gratification other than legal remuneration for allowing him to meet AO1 in his chambers of Choppadandi Police Station?

iii) Whether official favour for not booking criminal cases against the vehicles of Rajanala Sangam Society Members is pending with accused as on the date of the trap?

iv) Whether AO3 collected bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from PW.1 on the instructions of AO1, thereby he aided and abutted AO1 in commission of the offences U/s.7 & 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 ?

v) Whether AO1 while discharging his duties as Sub Inspector of Police and AO2 and AO3 as Police Constables in Choppadandi Police Station abused their positions as Public Servants, obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means, thereby committed misconduct ?

vi) Whether prosecution proved the guilt for the offences u/s. 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against AO1 and AO2 and u/s. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO3, beyond reasonable doubt ?

15. The trial Court, after hearing both sides and considering the

entire material on record, came to the conclusion that the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced them

as stated supra.

16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that

though all the material witnesses have turned hostile, the trial

Court has convicted accused officer Nos.1 and 2 for the offences

punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2)

of the Act and accused officer No.3 for the offence under Section 7

of the Act, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. It is further

contended that even as per Section 7 of the Act, the trial Court has

to consider as to whether the accused officers have demanded

illegal gratification from PW.1 or not ? and whether PW.1 has

offered the amount as bribe and the same was accepted by the

accused officers or not ? In the absence of any evidence as to the

demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the trial Court

ought not to have granted moral conviction. It is further

contended that the allegation made against accused officer No.1 is

that he has demanded Rs.15,000/ - as bribe, but, no amount was

seized from him; that even when phenolphthalein test was

conducted, the hand fingers of accused officer No.1 did not turn

into pink colour; despite the same, the trial Court has convicted

accused officer No.1. Learned counsel further contended that

accused officer Nos.2 and 3 are innocent and they are falsely

implicated in the case. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed

this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed

against the appellant - accused officer Nos.1 to 3 vide the

impugned judgment and acquit the appellants/accused officer

Nos. 1 to 3.

17. On the other hand, Sri Sridhar Chikyala, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor for ACB, contended that though the material

witnesses i.e., accompanying witness and mediators did not

support the case of the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted

the accused officers based on the evidence of the Trap Laying

Officer and Investigating Officer. It is further stated that accused

officer No.1 had obtained illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/-

through accused officer No.3 and accused officer No.2 had

obtained Rs. 1,000/- towards bribe, and therefore, the trial Court

has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused officer Nos.1 to 3,

and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment

and prayed to dismiss the criminal appeals.

18. Admittedly, at the time of the alleged occurrence, accused

officer No.1 was working as Sub Inspector of Police and accused

officer Nos.2 and 3 were working as Police Constables in

Choppadandi Police Station and they come under the category of

public servants, as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. PWs.1, 2

and 6 and some other villagers of Arnakonda Village formed a

Society namely Rajanala Sangam, for carrying goats and sheeps

(cattle) business by carrying the same in vehicles and selling the

same in Karimnagar, Gangadhara, Jammikunta and other

neighbouring towns, since long time.

19. The case of the prosecution is that while P.W.1 and other

members of Rajanala Sangam were transporting sheeps and goats

in the vehicles for selling the same at various places, accused

officer No.1 demanded and accepted Rs.15,000/- from PW.1

through accused officer No.3 for not booking any cases against the

vehicles being run by P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 and other members of

Rajanala Sangam and that accused officer No.2 demanded and

accepted Rs.1,000/-, as illegal gratification. It is the further case of

the prosecution that accused officer No.1 being the Sub-Inspector

of Police and accused officer Nos.2 and 3 being the Police

Constables, abused their position as public servants, and

demanded and accepted illegal gratification, and thereby

committed misconduct. Therefore, the accused officers have

committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)

read with Section 13(2) of the Act and Section 12 of the Act.

20. Now, the points for determination in the present appeals

are:

"Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable

under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act

and Section 12 of the Act ? and

Whether the trial Court was proper in convicting the

accused for the alleged offences?

21. In order to determine the above points, it is necessary to re-

appreciate the evidence on record.

22. Jakkula Saraiah (P.W.1) is the de facto complainant; Lanka

Anjaiah (P.W.2) is the accompanying witness; Gurram Srinivas

(P.W.3), who is the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, is one of the

mediators for the pre and post trap proceedings and Uddanda

Naresh Kumar (P.W.4), who is the Veterinary Assistant, is another

mediator for the pre and post trap proceedings.

23. However, P.Ws.1 to 4 did not support the case of the

prosecution and turned hostile. Therefore, it is clear that none of

the witnesses have spoken about the demand and acceptance of

bribe by the accused officers on the date of trap proceedings.

24. Muche Madhusudhan Reddy (P.W.5), the Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police, was the Guard Incharge of Choppadandi

Police Station on the date of trap. Though he spoke about

occurrence of the trap in the Choppadandi Police Station, he did

not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

25. M.Jannaiah (P.W.6), one of the elders of Rajanala Sangam,

was examined to speak about the harassment made by the

accused for mamools. But, he also turned hostile.

26. Goli Srinivaas Reddy (P.W.7), who is the Police Constable

in Choppadandi Police Station, was on guard duty on the date of

trap. Though he was examined to speak about the occurrence, he

did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

27. Puli Anjaiah (P.W.8), driver of the auto trolley, was

examined to speak about the harassment made by accused officer

No.1 for mamools. However, he did not support the case of the

prosecution and turned hostile.

28. Likewise, R. Srinivas (P.W.9), T.Komuraiah (P.W.10),

S.Rajaiah (P.W.11), J. Prabhakar (P.W.12) and B. Mallesham

(P.W.13), who are the drivers of the autos and trolleys, were

examined to speak about the harassment made by accused officer

No.1, but, they also did not support the case of the prosecution

and turned hostile.

29. The other witnesses i.e., Bandari Krishna Goud (P.W.14),

who is the Circle Inspector of Choppadandi Police Station, stated

that accused officer Nos.1 to 3 were trapped by ACB on 15.04.2011

on demand and acceptance of mamools from P.W.1 for not

imposing fines on autos and trolleys.

30. V. Chiranjeevi (P.W.15), who is an Engineer in BSNL,

deposed about CDR details in respect of mobile phone numbers of

P.Ws.1 and 6.

31. B. Shiva Shankar (P.W.16), who is Section Officer, deposed

about issuance of sanction order - Ex.P.31 in respect of accused

officer No.1 and Ex.P.32 in respect of accused officer No.2 by then

Principal Secretary to the Government - Sri T. Pandadas and he

identified the signatures of Sri T. Pandadas in Exs.P.31 and P.32.

32. P. Jaipal (P.W.17), Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar, has deposed about the receipt of complaint,

registration of FIR, laying of trap and apprehension of accused

officer Nos. 1 to 3 on the date of trap at Choppadandi Police

Station and seizure of tainted amounts of Rs.15,000/- from

accused officer No.2 and Rs.1,000/- from accused officer No.3

during post trap proceedings.

33. Chinna Ramaiah (P.W.18), who is the Nodal Officer of

Bharathi Airtel Limited, deposed about furnishing ownership

particulars and call details in respect of mobile phone number

pertaining to accused officer No.2.

34. P. Sambaiah (P.W.19), who is the Inspector of Police, ACB,

Karimnagar Range, stated that he accompanied the Deputy

Superintendent of Police in the trap proceedings and after the

trap, he conducted investigation in this case, examined witnesses

and collected material.

35. V.V. Ramana Murthy (P.W.20), who is the Inspector of

Police, ACB, is the final Investigating Officer. He submitted draft

final report to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, after

completion of entire investigation and stated about filing of

charge sheet against the accused soon after receipt of sanction

proceedings in respect of accused officer Nos.1 and 2.

36. On behalf of the accused, one G. Srinivas of Vedurugatta

Village was examined as D.W.1. He deposed that on 15.04.2011 at

10:00 A.M., he went to Choppadandi Police Station to enquire

about the complaint lodged against his cousin brother in respect

of a civil dispute. At that time, accused officer No.1 was in the

reception area and talking with some persons by sitting in a chair

and in the meanwhile, the ACB officials entered into the police

station and conducted some enquiry.

37. Accused Officer No.1 has filed a written statement denying

the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe and stating that

he never demanded any mamool from P.W.1 nor directed accused

officer No.3 to collect the alleged tainted amount as bribe on the

day of trap. The specific plea taken by the accused officer No.1 is

that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in 1996 and was

discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of all his superior

officers and that he had put in unblemished service of 15 years. It

is further stated that he was falsely implicated in the case, as after

assuming charge at Chopadandi Police Station, he has evinced

maximum efforts to control the traffic problem in Choppadandi,

more particularly, near the vicinity of the police station where

some other public offices are also located. It is further stated that

the vehicles belonging to the said Rajanala Sangam were causing

severe traffic problems, as the members of the said Sangam were

parking their vehicles and doing sandy business in busy area, as

such, he severely warned them not to stop their vehicles and not

to do business in busy area. Even, he convened a meeting prior to

13.04.2011 and the same was attended by P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and other

members of Rajanala Sangam, and the then Sarpanch and Ward

Members of the Grampanchayat, Choppadandi. In the said

meeting, it was proposed to Rajanala Sangam to shift their sandy

market to the Shambunigudi area of Choppadandi. As the said

proposal was not acceptable to the Rajanala Sangam, they falsely

implicated the accused officer No.1 in the crime. It is further

stated that the accused officer No.1 never demanded any

mamools from P.W.1 much less Rajanala Sangam and he never

directed the accused officer No.3 to collect any amount from

P.W.1.

38. Accused officer No.2 and accused officer No.3 also filed

their written statements in similar lines as that of accused officer

No.1. It is the specific contention of the accused officer No.2 that

on date of trap i.e., on 15.04.2011, while he was coming into the

police station from back side, P.W.1 thrusted the alleged tainted

amount into his left side shirt pocket in spite of his resistance with

both the hands, as such, he took amount and thrown it away and

in the meanwhile, P.W.17 along with his trap party members

accosted him near the toilets of the police station. When

questioned by P.W.17, he spontaneously stated to him as to what

had happened prior to accosting him by P.W.17 and the trap

party, and the same was corroborated by P.Ws.3 and 4.

39. Accused officer No.3 specifically stated in his written

statement that on 15.04.2011, while he was coming into the hall of

the Police Station, P.W.1 tried to give the alleged tainted amount

of Rs.15,000/-, but he refused to take the same. Then, P.W.1

thrusted the amount into his left side pant pocket in spite of his

resistance with both the hands and when he was about to return

back, both P.Ws.1 and 2 went out and within no time, the ACB

officials rushed into the Police Station and accosted him. When

questioned by P.W.17, he has spontaneously represented to him

as to what happened prior to the accosting him by the ACB

officials. To circumvent the above spontaneous representation,

P.W.17 got drafted the Second Mediators Report under Ex.P.14

with all false recitals against the actual events that have occurred,

which is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 - the

mediators.

40. A perusal of the entire record discloses that none of the

witnesses have spoken about the demand and acceptance of

illegal gratification/bribe amount by accused officer Nos.1 to 3.

41. In this context, it is apt to refer to the relevant provisions of

the Act.

Section 7 of the Act reads as under:

7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.--Any public servant who,--

(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or

(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or

(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.--For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.

Explanation 2.--For the purpose of this section,--

(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;

(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."

42. As per the above Section, any public servant who obtains or

accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any

person while performing public duty shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years

but which may extend upto seven years and shall also be liable to

fine.

43. Explanation I of the said provision clearly discloses that

obtaining, accepting, or attempting to obtain undue advantage

shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a

public duty by public servant is not or has not been improper.

44. Explanation II of the said provision clearly discloses that

the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain"

shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or

"accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself

or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant

or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or

by any other corrupt or illegal means.

45. In the present case, there is no evidence on record from the

material witnesses that the accused officer Nos.1 to 3 have

demanded for bribe and accepted illegal gratification by misusing

their official position.

46. Section 12 of the Act reads under:

"12. Punishment for abetment of offences.--Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

47. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act reads as under:

"1. A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-

(d) if he,--

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest."

48. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act discloses that a public servant is

said to have committed the offence of criminal misconduct if he

by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other

person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing

his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any

other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while

holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any

valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public

interest.

49. Section 13(2) of the Act reads as under:

"(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

50. As per the above provision, any person who commits

criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a

term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend

to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

51. As stated supra, there is no evidence on record to show that

accused officer Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offence of criminal

misconduct by abusing their position as public servants.

52. In criminal cases, the burden is always on the prosecution

to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and till

then, the accused shall be presumed to be innocent.

53. A perusal of the impugned judgment clearly discloses that

the reasoning given by the trial Court in convicting the accused is

not satisfactory or convincing. This is not a case of circumstantial

evidence. The case is relating to direct evidence.

54. As per the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the

material witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused for demand

and acceptance illegal gratification as stated supra. But, they

turned hostile. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the mediators, who are cited to

speak about the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, but, they also

turned hostile. P.W.5, who is the witness to speak about the place

of trap, also turned hostile. The other material witnesses i.e.,

P.Ws. 6 to 13 are supposed to speak about the demand made by

accused officer No.1 as far as mamools are concerned from

Rajanala Sangam is concerned. Though all the witnesses relate to

Rajanala Sangam, none of them have spoken about the demand

made by accused officer No.1 for mamools for the purpose of

transporting sheeps and goats in the vehicles.

55. Except the evidence of the Investigating Officers of the

ACB, there is no other evidence on record. The trial Court has

relied upon the 164 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses and

corroborated them with the evidence of the Investigating Officers

and has given moral conviction to accused officer Nos.1 to 3.

56. In the absence of any evidence as to the demand or

acceptance of bribe, the appellants cannot be convicted.

57. The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is a weak

piece of evidence and solely relying on the 164 Cr.P.C. statement,

the Court cannot convict the accused and if at all the Court feels

that the witnesses, who have given statements under Section 164

Cr.P.C., resiled from their statements, the utmost remedy

available to the trial Court is to punish the witnesses for the

offences of perjury.

58. Admittedly, in the instant case, the trial Court has taken

into consideration the fact that the witnesses have committed an

offence under Section 340 Cr.P.C and thought of taking further

action against them by 20.12.2018. But, once there is no evidence

on record before the trial Court, the question of convicting the

accused in a criminal trial is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Furthermore, the call details of accused officer No.1 discloses that

on the date of offence he was not at all in Choppadandi and he

was at a different location.

59. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the

considerable opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed

against the appellants-accused officer Nos.1 to 3 are liable to be

set aside and the appellants are entitled for acquittal for the

offences with which they are charged.

60. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the

judgment dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of

SPE & A.C.B. Cases, Karimnagar, in Calendar Case No.75 of 2015,

is hereby set aside. The accused officer Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted

of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section

13(2) of the Act and accused officer No.3 is acquitted of the

offence under Section 12 of the Act. Their bail bonds shall stand

cancelled. MO Nos.1 and 2 shall be confiscated to State and MO

Nos.3 to 18 shall be destroyed after completion of appeal period.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 03..10..2023 va