Telangana High Court
Sri K.Manmohan Reddy, Nimboli Adda, ... vs State Of A.P,Rep. Inspector Of Police, ... on 26 April, 2024
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.283 OF 2011
Between:
K.Manmohan Reddy ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P,
rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Hyderabad Range. ..Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :26.04.2024
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.283 of 2011
% Dated 26.04.2024
#K.Manmohan Reddy ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P,
rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Hyderabad Range. Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.Viswanth
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Spl.Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
1995 CRI.L.J 3978
2
2001 AIR SCW 2415
3
2010(1) ALD (Crl.) 342 (AP)
4
(2022) 4 SCC 574
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.283 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is questioning the correctness of the
conviction by the First Additional Special Judge for SPE &
ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the offences under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of three years under both counts, vide judgment in
C.C.No.10 of 2006 dated 03.03.2011.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the
defacto complainant, who was working as Medical Officer at
Primary Health Centre (PHC), Burgula village, Mahabubnagar
District. At the relevant time, the appellant was the District
Medical and Health Officer (DM & HO). For attending 31 gram
panchayats, P.W.1 was allotted vehicle by the department
which was on hire. The hire charges of the vehicle was
Rs.9,000/- excluding petrol charges. The maximum limit for
petrol was Rs.3,000/- per month. As there was no budget
during the year 2004, the hire charges and petrol charges
were not allotted from April, 2004 to December, 2004. The
appellant allegedly made phone call to P.W.1 stating that
budget was released for the said period and asked P.W.1 to
claim the said amount subject to paying bribe of Rs.1,000/-
per month from the petrol charges totaling Rs.6,000/-. P.W.1
expressed her inability to pay the bribe amount for which the
appellant threatened that he would withdraw the vehicle.
Though several times, P.W.1 made a request to give time for
payment, the appellant insisted that the amount should be
paid immediately. On 27.01.2005, the appellant rang up the
residence of P.W.1 and when the mother of P.W.1 answered
the phone, the appellant threatened that the bribe amount
should be paid on or before 31.01.2005.
3. According to the prosecution case, P.W.1 approached the
DSP, ACB and lodged Ex.P1 complaint dated 29.01.2005
regarding harassment of the appellant for bribe amount. The
trap was arranged on 31.01.2005. P.W.1 went to the office of
the DSP along with bribe amount. There, in the presence of
trap party members which included independent mediators,
proceedings were conducted. The said pre-trap proceedings
were drafted as Ex.P4. P.W.1 informed the DSP that the
appellant was in the habit of taking bribes in a cover and
accordingly, DSP provided a brown envelope to P.W.1. The said
cover was also smeared with phenolphthalein powder along
with currency notes kept in it. P.W.1, then informed that the
appellant would be available in his house, accordingly, the
trap party proceeded to the house of the appellant. Around
3.30 p.m, the trap party reached the residence of the
appellant. P.W.1 entered into the house and the appellant was
sitting in the first room. The appellant then demanded for the
bribe amount and accordingly, cover was handed over to the
appellant. P.W.1 came out and gave signal to the trap party
indicating acceptance of bribe.
4. Having received the signal, the trap party entered into the
house of the appellant and the appellant was questioned
regarding the bribe amount. The appellant informed that he
did not receive any amount. Then, P.W.1 was called inside the
house and questioned regarding the tainted currency. P.W.1
then informed that the appellant received the amount with his
right hand and kept the same in the right side table drawer.
Then P.W.2/independent mediator was asked to remove the
cover from the upper drawer of the table. Accordingly, cover
was taken out by P.W.2 and after verifying the details of the
currency notes, post trap proceedings were concluded. Ex.P5
is the post trap proceedings.
5. Investigation was concluded and having taken sanction
for prosecution, the Investigating Officer/P.W.8 filed charge
sheet.
6. Learned Special Judge framed charges against the
appellant and examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to
P10 on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 10 were also
brought on record. In defence, D.W.1 was examined.
7. Learned Special Judge found that in pursuance of the
demand made by the appellant, the amount was accepted on
the date of trap and accordingly convicted the appellant.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that false complaint was filed by P.W.1 since she was
very irregular to her duties at Burgula and was residing at
Hyderabad most of the times. Notice was issued by the
appellant seeking her explanation and not satisfied with her
explanation, the appellant passed an order withholding HRA.
Her irregular functioning is stated by D.W.1, who is P.W.1's
colleague and also published in newspaper.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that even according to
the investigation, the budget which was released was
disbursed in the month of December, 2004, as such, the
question of demanding the bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- for
release of the amount is unbelievable.
10. The appellant further denied having received any amount
on the date of trap itself and where the cover was available,
was informed by P.W.1 to the trap party. The recovery is not at
the instance of the appellant but at the instance of P.W.1.
11. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M.K.Harshan v. State of
Kerala 1. On facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the
evidence of complainant was not corroborated and suffered
from infirmities. Plea of the accused that amount was planted
in his drawer without his knowledge was accepted.
12. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan and another 2, the
three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court found favour
with the defence version of planting bribe by the prosecution
witness. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this
Court in the case of T.Ramesh Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 3 and also in the case of K.Shanthamma v. State of
Telangana 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that both
demand of illegal gratification and acceptance there of has to
be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of proving
1995 CRI.L.J 3978
2001 AIR SCW 2415
2010(1) ALD (Crl.) 342 (AP)
(2022) 4 SCC 574
demand, the subsequent recovery of tainted currency will be of
no consequence.
13. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
submits that the colour test on the right hand proved positive
insofar as appellant is concerned. That itself would support
the version of the prosecution that he had demanded and
accepted money and kept it in the drawer. There was no
necessity for P.W.1, who is the subordinate of the appellant to
falsely involve him in a criminal case. Since the reasons given
by the learned Special Judge are probable, appeal may be
dismissed.
14. The reason given by P.W.1 for demand of bribe is with
regard to release of budget for the car allotted. The appellant
allegedly threatened that if Rs.6,000/- was not given at the
rate of Rs.1,000/- per month for six months, vehicle facility
would also be withdrawn. It is admitted by the Investigating
Officer that his investigation disclosed that the budget was
already released and the appellant was no way concerned
either with the preparation of the bill or payment of hire
charges.
15. It is the specific case of the appellant that as on the date
of trap or prior to it, there was never any demand for bribe. On
the date of trap, PW.2 and the Investigating Officer/P.W.6, the
appellant denied having demanded or accepted any bribe
amount. Further, appellant stated during post trap
proceedings under Ex.P5 that P.W.1 came inside the house
and on seeing her, he offered her a chair. Then, the appellant
went inside the room to wear his shoe and came back into the
front room after a while. The appellant was about to ask the
reason for P.W.1's visit and she immediately got up and went
outside. Thereafter, the trap party arrived. The said answer
was recorded in the post trap proceedings and also accepted
by the DSP and the mediator.
16. The case of the appellant is that he had issued notice to
P.W.1 vide Rc.No.6235/B1/2004, dated 30.11.2004, which is
part of Ex.P2 file. The said notice, contents are extracted
which would be relevant:
"I am to submit, Dr.P.Vijaya Kumari, Medical Officer
working at PHC, Burgula since 01.03.1995. She is most
irregular in attending her duties. She is not writing OP and
not conducting Antinatal Clinic in her Sub-Centres. She
will attend PHC once in a week and marks 'T' in the
Attendance Register without performing tour. She reluctant
to submit her tour programme. During my visit to PHC on
05.11.2004 and 20.11.2004, she was absent for duty.
Several instructions have been issued to rectify her defects,
but all are in vain. She keeps all the records such as
MBBS, Sukhibava and Stores in her custody and not
maintaining properly. She is not maintaining bonafide
headquarters and operating from Shamshabad for which
her HRA has been stopped with effect from 01.10.2004 vide
this office Rc No.13211/E1/04 dated: 05.10.2004. Copy
enclosed.
Further, it is submitted that, the infrastructure of the PHC
building is very sufficient and Theatre facility is available
for conducting of Tubectomy operations, but she is un-
willing for opening Theatre at PHC, for which rural people
are suffering and facing difficulty to come over to
Shadnagar for Tubectomy operations. She is not
performing institutional deliveries.
Due to her irregular duties, number of complaints are
receiving from the public as well as press during my visit to
PHC, Burgula, over all her performance in all the National
Programmes are very poor.
In view of the above circumstances and being a long
standing she may be shifted from this place apart from
initiating disciplinary action against her by posting a
suitable substitute at an early date.
This may be treated as most urgent."
17. The said fact of issuing notice and receiving notice is also
not in dispute. It is apparent that P.W.1 had a motive for false
implication. The following circumstances have to be assessed
and considered collectively:
i) Issuance of notice to P.W.1 by the appellant on
30.11.2004 regarding her irregular duty and also initiating
disciplinary action;
ii) The allegation that to release the funds, demand of
Rs.6,000/- was made is falsified by the evidence of the
Investigating Officer that the funds were already released by
the date of complaint and appellant has no say;
iii) On the date of trap, the appellant specifically stated
that after P.W.1 entered into the room, he went inside to wear
his shoes and came out. On questioning P.W.1, the reason for
her visit, P.W.1 went outside and immediately trap party
arrived.
iv) When questioned by DSP, the appellant denied having
received any bribe at the instance of P.w.1. The money was
recovered from the right side table drawer by P.W.2 mediator
after P.W.1 informed about the cover. The said fact is also not
disputed by P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.6/DSP.
18. When all the said circumstances in the case are
collectively viewed, the version of the appellant that the
amount was planted in the table drawer his absence, when he
went inside the house to wear shoes is probable and
convincing. At the earliest point of time, the appellant had
narrated the events that transpired after P.W.1 entered into
the house. The said narration is in consonance with his
defence of planting the amount in the table drawer particularly
in the back ground of the departmental action sought to be
initiated by the appellant and also the funds being already
disbursed.
19. In view of above discussion, the irresistible conclusion is
that the appellant was falsely implicated and the trap amount
was planted by P.W.1 in the absence of the appellant in his
house.
20. Accordingly, the conviction by the learned Special Judge
in C.C.No.10 of 2006 dated 03.03.2011 is hereby set aside and
the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his
bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
21. Criminal Appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 26.04.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
