Telangana High Court
Sri Soma Raghavender, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl.Pp For Acb., ... on 23 April, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.24 OF 2010
Between:
Soma Raghavender ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P,
rep. by DSP, ACB, Warangal Range
..Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :23.04.2024
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.24 of 2010
% Dated 23.04.2024
# Soma Raghavender ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P,
rep. by DSP, ACB, Warangal Range Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.Hariprasad Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.24 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at
Hyderabad for the offences 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.14 of 2005 dated 29.12.2009, the present
appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is that he
was sub-contractor of P.W.4, who secured the contract for laying
road from Ramagudem to Pandavarigudem with the R & B
Department. The agreement in between P.W.4 and R & B is Ex.P9.
The said work had to be completed within 2 months from the date
of agreement. P.W.4 was unable to execute the work and handed it
over to P.W.1. Accordingly, P.W.1 completed work within stipulated
time having invested money for completion of the work. The
appellant was the concerned Assistant Engineer who recoded
measurements in the M Book. P.W.1 was given an amount of
Rs.2.00 lakhs and also 34 tons of rice towards part payment of the
contract. According to P.W.1, he was yet to receive an amount of
Rs.1.00 lakh and 19 tons of rice.
3. For the reason of settling his outstanding payment from the
department, P.W.1 approached the appellant on 20.07.2003
requesting him to prepare the bills for the remaining amount. The
appellant demanded Rs.30,000/- towards bribe and when
requested, the said amount was reduced to Rs.20,000/-.
4. P.W.1 then decided to approach ACB authorities with the
grievance of the demand of bribe by the appellant. P.W.2 is the
scribe of the complaint Ex.P1. The said complaint was handed over
to the DSP, ACB on 18.08.2003 and the trap was arranged on
20.08.2003. In the meanwhile, according to the prosecution case,
the antecedents of the appellant were enquired into and also the
correctness of the complaint. Permission from the competent
authority was also taken before laying trap. The DSP and Inspector
(died prior to commencement of trial) along with defacto
complainant and other independent witnesses gathered in the guest
house and pre-trap proceedings were conducted. Having concluded
the pre-trap proceedings, Ex.P3 first mediator's report was drafted.
After the pre-trap proceedings, P.W.1 called the appellant over
phone and the appellant informed that he would come to P.W.1's
house. Accordingly, around 11.50 a.m, the appellant went to the
house of P.W.1. After entering into the house of P.W.1, P.W.1 asked
about the outstanding payment whether it was ready. In turn, the
appellant asked for the bribe which was paid to him. The appellant
counted the amount and kept in his back pant pocket. P.W.1
offered tea to the appellant and came out and relayed signal to the
trap party. The trap party entered into the house of P.W.1 and
questioned the appellant regarding the bribe. The appellant
informed the trap party that Rs.20,000/- was asked as hand loan.
Accordingly, P.W.1 promised that he would provide either on
19.08.2003 or 20.08.2003 and the amount received was the loan
amount.
5. The said amount was seized by the DSP, ACB. From the
house of P.W.1, the trap party went to the house of the appellant as
the appellant informed that the concerned M Books and other
documents were in his house. Two M books, which are pertaining to
the complainant and rough book of appellant, were seized from the
house of the appellant. Ex.P10 was drafted for the seizure of the
documents.
6. Investigation was handed over by the DSP to the Inspector.
Having concluded investigation, the Inspector filed charge sheet for
the aforesaid offences.
7. Learned Special Judge, having framed charges, examined
P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 on behalf of the prosecution.
Exs.D1 to D3 were marked during the course of cross-examination
of prosecution witnesses. Learned Special Judge found the
appellant guilty and accordingly convicted him.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that there was no work which was pending with the appellant.
According to P.W.7, who was the Executive Engineer, R & B, he
stated in his chief-examination that the bill was prepared by the
appellant and also recorded measurements in Exs.P6 and P7
measurement books. After the appellant measured the work, P.W.7
checked the measurements and forwarded it to the Executive
Engineer. In the cross-examination, P.W.7 stated that unless the
contractor lifts the rice component, appellant cannot prepare the
abstract to be submitted. As per the record, as on August, 2003,
Contractor (P.W.4) did not lift the rice component and only in the
month of September, 2003, he lifted the rice component. Basing on
the admission of P.W.7, it is not disputed by the prosecution that
no work was pending with the appellant. Further, the appellant had
spontaneously stated before the DSP during the post-trap
proceedings that he wanted loan of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the
said amount was provided on the date of trap. Even the Bank
account was searched and according to the investigation, there
were less than Rs.1,000/- in his bank account. The reason for
falsely implicating the appellant is due to the action of the appellant
in removing the shop of P.W.1 which was illegally encroached and
erected, along with other shops. Holding grudge against the
appellant, under the garb of providing loan, the appellant was
falsely trapped.
9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the ACB would submit that the version of the
appellant runs contrary to probability. If at all P.W.1 developed
grudge against the appellant, the question of providing loan amount
would not arise. Only for the reason of giving explanation during
the post-trap proceedings that Rs.20,000/- was taken as loan, such
explanation cannot disprove the case of the prosecution that the
amount was towards bribe.
10. P.W.1 had admittedly undertaken contract work as a sub-
contractor which was awarded to P.W.4. Earlier bills were cleared. It
is not in dispute that the work was completed, but the total
outstanding was not settled. Though it is argued by the learned
counsel that, according to P.W.7, initially rice component has to be
lifted and thereafter, the bill would be settled, the same in any
manner will not disprove the case of the prosecution that the work
of finalizing the bill was still pending. According to P.W.7, the said
work was completed and Rs.1.00 lakh cash component was yet to
be paid to P.W.4.
11. The appellant had accepted the receipt of amount of
Rs.20,000/-, however, stated that the said amount was towards
loan that was asked by the appellant and P.W.1 agreed to provide
the said loan. The said defence runs contrary to the facts of the
case. Even according to the appellant, P.W.1 had illegally
encroached into the government land and constructed shop. His
shop along with other shops was demolished by the appellant. In
the event of the appellant demolishing the shop of P.W.1, again the
question of asking loan from P.W.1 is highly improbable. The
burden that is shifted on to the accused under Section 20 of the Act
can be discharged by preponderance of probability. Though, an
explanation was given at the earliest point of time during the post
trap proceedings that the amount was towards loan, however, the
circumstances in the present case regarding the appellant
projecting that P.W.1 was holding grudge for demolishing his shop
is not convincing. No promissory note was executed nor any receipt.
The reason for which the loan was sought is not explained. The
answer given to the DSP at the earliest point of time that bribe
amount was towards loan, without any other convincing evidence is
not sufficient to discharge the burden shifted onto the accused to
explain the allegation of bribe.
12. Since the prosecution succeeded in proving that there was
pending work, which is clearance of the final bill and the amount of
Rs 20,000/- was paid by P.W.1 towards bribe on the date of trap,
the appeal fails.
13. In the result, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The trial Court is
directed to cause the appearance of the appellant and send him to
prison to serve out the remaining period of imprisonment. The
remand period, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 23.04.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Date: 23.04.2024
kvs
