Telangana High Court
Nemuri Narasingh Rao, vs State Of A.P., on 23 April, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1819 OF 2009
Between:
Nemuri Narasingha Rao ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P,
rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Hyderabad Range. ..Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :27.03.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No.1819 of 2009
% Dated 23.04.2024
# Nemuri Narasingha Rao ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P,
rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Hyderabad Range. Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
AIR 2002 Supreme Court 486
2
(1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 600
3
(2014) 13 SCC 55
4
(2013) 14 SCC 153
5
(2016) 1 SCC 713
6
AIR 1987 SC 2402
7
(2009) 3 SCC 779
8
(2006) 1 SCC 401
9
(2005) 8 SCC 364
10
(2015) 10 SCC 152
11
2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 969
12
2002(2) ALD (Crl.) 241 (AP)
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1819 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. Since the appellant died, the wife of the appellant filed
I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C to permit
her to prosecute the appeal. Permission granted and appeal
is heard.
2. The deceased/accused/public servant was convicted
for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in
C.C.No.9 of 2007 dated 14.12.2009 passed by the
Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal
is filed.
3. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is
that he is an Advocate by profession. Defence Housing Co-
operative Society at Sainikpuri used to allot plots to its
members. Only serving or Ex-service personnel of defence
forces are eligible for allotment of plots in the said society.
On enquiry, P.W.1 came to know that Ex-President and Ex-
Secretary of the society allotted plots to ineligible persons
and grabbed land meant for public use. To question the said
illegalities, he wanted to approach the concerned Courts, for
which reason, he approached Sub-Registrar Office for
obtaining certified copies of the documents of the properties
sold in the said society. The accused was working as clerk
in the said Sub-Registrar Office Malkajgiri, who provided
certified copies after applications were filed. For the four
applications, which were filed by P.W.1, the accused
demanded Rs.130/- each total of Rs.520/- for preparing
certified copies and handing over it to him. Since P.W.1 was
not inclined give bribe, he approached ACB authorities and
lodged complaint Ex.P4 on 23.02.2006. The DSP, then
asked the complainant to come on the next date i.e.,
24.02.2006.
4. On 24.02.2006, the trap was arranged. Pre-trap
proceedings were conducted in the DSP office room in the
ACB Office, in the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 accompanying
witness, who was working as constable and DSP,
independent mediators and others. Ex.P5 is pre-trap
mediator's report, which was drafted in the office of the DSP
after conclusion of the formalities that were followed prior to
proceeding to trap the accused.
5. The trap party proceeded to the office of the Sub-
Registrar at Malkajgiri around 1.00 p.m. P.W.1 was
accompanied by P.W.2 to witness what transpires in
between P.W.1 and the accused. The other trap party
members stood at a distance of nearly 300 yards from the
office. P.W.1 went inside the office and met the accused.
Accused demanded the said amount and accordingly
Rs.520/- trap amount was handed over to P.W.1. Having
handed over the said amount and taking certified copies,
P.W.1 came out and signaled to the trap party confirming
receipt of bribe amount by the accused.
6. The trap party entered into the office and questioned
the accused regarding bribe. Tests were conducted on the
hands of the accused to verify whether he handled the bribe
amount. Tests on both the hands turned positive. On
persistent questioning by the DSP regarding demand and
acceptance of the bribe amount, the accused opened his
table drawer and handed over the amount of Rs.520/- to
the DSP. Post trap formalities were followed and having
examined P.Ws.1 and 2, and accused during pre-trap
proceedings, relevant documents were also seized. What all
transpired during post-trap proceedings were drafted as
mediators report-II which is Ex.P9.
7. The DSP/P.W.6 after conclusion of post trap
proceedings handed over investigation to inspector/P.W.7
who was also part of the pre and post trap proceedings.
Having obtained sanction from the competent authority and
concluding investigation, P.W.7 filed charge sheet for the
offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) of
the Act.
8. Learned Special Judge framed charges for the said
offences and examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked
Exs.P1 to P14 on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 8 were
also brought on record. In defence, the accused during the
course of cross-examination of witnesses, marked Exs.D1 to
D3.
9. Learned Special Judge, having assessed the evidence
on record found that the defence taken by the accused that
the amount of Rs.20/- was folded in Rs.500/- note which
was handed over for the purpose of the four applications fee
of Rs.70/- totaling Rs.280/-, which had to be paid by P.W.1
having taken application forms from the accused when the
trap amount was handed over was not convincing.
10. The defence of the accused is that Rs.70/- was to be
paid for one application and in total Rs.280/- had to be
paid. Additional Rs.20/- towards non-judicial stamps had to
be affixed to the application. On the date of trap, after
receiving four certified copies, P.W.1 asked for four more
applications. The said applications were handed over to
P.W.1 and towards payment of Rs.280/- for the
applications, P.W.1 handed over Rs.500/- note and went
away staying that he would come back with Rs.80/-(Rs.20/-
for each application) non-judicial stamps to be affixed on
the applications and submit the same. Further, according to
the accused, there were nearly 40 applications which were
processed and certified copies were handed over to P.W.1
including 4 certified copies which were handed over on the
trap date.
11. Learned Special Judge did not find favour with the
defence taken by the accused and found that the version
was subsequently developed as defence. The said version
was not given at the earliest point of time during post-trap
proceedings. In the said circumstances, the Special Judge
found that the amount of Rs.520/- which was handed over
on the trap date was towards bribe for the purpose of
handing over four certified copies as mentioned in the
complaint and also during trial by P.W.1.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the accused would
submit that the approach of the learned Special Judge is
erroneous. Learned Special Judge ought to have considered
the evidence in the larger perspective. Admittedly, four
applications were taken on the date of trap while handing
over the bribe amount. Rs.20/- note was kept inside
Rs.500/- note and handed over. P.W.1 left the place stating
that he was getting Rs.20/- stamps to be affixed on the
applications and he would take change after coming back
with stamps. However, he went and signaled to the trap
party. The accused is at liberty to take defence even at the
stage of trial and also during Section 313 Cr.P.C
examination. Even the Court found that the defence is
probable, the same can be accepted and need not consider
whether the said version was given at the earliest point of
time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Panjabrao
v. State of Maharashtra 1 held that any defence taken
during trial and even at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C
examination was probable and believable, the said defence
can be accepted by the Court.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that when the
factum of demand is doubtful, the aspect of recovery cannot
be taken into consideration to convict the accused. In
support of his contention, he relied on the following
judgments: i) Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan v.
State of Maharashtra 2; ii) B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra
AIR 2002 Supreme Court 486
(1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 600
Pradesh 3; iii) State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal
Verma 4; iv) N.Sunkanna v. State of A.P 5; v)
G.V.Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi Administration) 6; vi)
C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala 7;
vii) T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu 8; viii) State
Through Inspector of Police, A.P v. K.Narasimhachary 9;
ix) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of
Police, State of A.P 10; x) Gundappa v. State 11 and xi)
Dr.A.Y.Prasad v. State 12.
14. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
for ACB would submit that Ex.P4 complaint corroborates
with the evidence of demand. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 were
(2014) 13 SCC 55
(2013) 14 SCC 153
(2016) 1 SCC 713
AIR 1987 SC 2402
(2009) 3 SCC 779
(2006) 1 SCC 401
(2005) 8 SCC 364
(2015) 10 SCC 152
2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 969
2002(2) ALD (Crl.) 241 (AP)
witnesses to the demand and acceptance of bribe. Though
P.W.2 was a constable, working under Deputy
Superintendent of Police, ACB, there was no necessity for
him to speak any falsehood. In fact, the accused accepted
the receipt of amount, for which reason, presumption arises
and the burden shifts on to the accused. The accused,
except making suggestions to witnesses, has not produced
any evidence in his support to convince the Court regarding
his defence version being correct. In the event of four
applications being received and amount of Rs.70/- had to
be paid for each of the application, there is no reason why
Rs.20/- note apart from Rs.500/- was accepted by the
accused when the total amount for applications fee would
be Rs.280/-. For the said reasons, since the finding of the
Special Judge is convincing, conviction may be confirmed.
15. P.W.1 admitted that he has earlier filed several
applications for certified copies. The accused delivers
encumbrance certificates, market value certificates and
marriage certificates also. Further, on the date of trap, he
has purchased four applications and for each application
Rs.70/- has to be paid along with Rs.20/- non judicial
stamps.
16. It is not the case of the prosecution that separately for
the four applications that were taken on the trap date by
P.W.1 any amount was paid other than Rs.520/- bribe
amount that was handed over to the accused. The defence
of the accused is that for every application Rs.70/- cash has
to be paid along with Rs.20/- non judicial stamps. The said
procedure is also admitted by P.W.1. P.W.1 also admitted
that even prior to the four certified copies that were received
on the date of trap, the accused had processed certified
copies for nearly 40 applications. The said copy applications
were made on 07.02.2006, 13.02.2006, 14.02.2006 and
15.02.2006 and certified copies were also delivered. 19
applications were marked as Ex.D1 through P.W.1 which
were processed. It is not the case that at any point of time
the accused had refused to handover certified copies unless
bribe of Rs.130/- was given towards each certified copy.
17. P.W.2 is an accompanying witness who stated about
the bribe amount being given and then the accused handing
over the certified copies. However, P.W.2 is silent about four
applications that were taken from the accused at the time of
handing over the bribe amount. The Investigating Officer
also pleads ignorance of the applications that were received
by P.W.1 on the trap date. P.W.2 is a constable in the ACB
and subordinate of the DSP and Inspector. The DSP has not
taken any steps to send either P.W.3 or the other
independent mediator along with P.W.1 to watch as to what
transpires in between P.W.1 and the accused. No
explanation is given by the Investigating Officer as to why
his subordinate police constable was sent along with P.W.1
when the independent mediators were available.
18. According to the cross-examination of P.W.1, he had
taken four fresh applications from the accused for the
purpose of obtaining certified copies. If at all the bribe was
handed over for the purpose of taking four certified copies, it
is the duty of the prosecution to explain as to why four
applications were taken and no money was passed on for
the purchase of applications. It is not specifically stated by
P.W.1 as to whether the amount was handed over after
receiving four applications or prior to it, but the fact
remains that no amount was paid towards four applications
and the non-judicial stamps of Rs.20/- of the application
were also not handed over. The said transaction creates any
amount of doubt regarding the bribe amount, whether it
was towards the alleged bribe amount or the fresh
applications which were received by P.W.1. The defence of
the accused that P.W.1 has received four applications
towards which Rs.280/- had to be paid and he had handed
over Rs.500/- note in which Rs.20/- was also placed and
went away informing accused that he would come back with
non-judicial stamps of Rs.20/- appears to be probable. The
circumstances create any amount of doubt regarding the
amount which was passed on the trap date being towards
bribe amount and not the application amount.
19. The prosecution has failed to convince as to why the
four applications were taken and no separate amount was
paid to P.W.1 on the date of trap. What was the necessity to
take four applications without paying the amount on the
trap date, when P.W.1 went to hand over the trap amount.
In the present circumstances, the prosecution failed to
prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The
recovery of amount from accused is of no consequence when
demand for bribe is not proved. In view of the same, benefit
of doubt is extended to the accused.
20. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.9 of
2007 dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Additional Special
Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is
hereby set aside.
21. Criminal Appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 23.04.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o.kvs
