Telangana High Court
P. Madhava Rao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl. Pp Hyd.,For ... on 30 April, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.56 OF 2011
Between:
P.Madhava Rao ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P,
rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Hyderabad Range. ..Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :30.04.2024
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.56 of 2011
% Dated 30.04.2024
# P.Madhava Rao ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P,
rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Hyderabad Range.
Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri D.Sangeetha Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.56 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years under both counts,
vide judgment in C.C.No.32 of 2008 dated 11.01.2011
passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB
Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same,
present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the
appellant was working as Village Secretary. P.W.1/Defacto
complainant was a mason resident of Thatikole village,
Devarkonda Mandal. P.W.1 and his family members owned
58 acres of joint family property. The said land was
surveyed by a private surveyor and the family members
partitioned the land among themselves. An application was
made to the MRO for the purpose of mutating the names of
PW.1 and his family members in the revenue records and to
issue pattadar pass books and title deeds for the said
partitioned land. The said application was filed in the month
of August, 2006. The MRO having received the application
informed that the application of P.W.1 would be dealt with
by the Village Secretary who is the appellant herein. On the
instructions of the MRO, P.W.1 met the appellant and when
requested to issue pass books in the name of P.W.1 and
other family members with respect to their portions of the
land, appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- for issuing
passbooks. Though, P.W.1 met the appellant several times,
the appellant insisted to pay the bribe amount, failing
which, their work would not be attended.
3. On 02.02.2007 again P.W.1 met the appellant in his
office in Deverakonda. The appellant insisted for paying
Rs.10,000/-. However, reduced the bribe amount to
Rs.8,000/-. P.W.1 went to the DSP, ACB with the grievance
of appellant's demand for bribe and lodged Ex.P1 complaint
on 03.02.2007. Having received the complaint, DSP asked
P.W.1 to come on 05.02.2007 on which date trap was
arranged.
4. The DSP summoned independent mediator P.W.2 and
another to witness the trap proceedings. In the presence of
the independent mediators, other trap party members and
P.W.1, the pre trap formalities were undertaken. What all
transpired during the pre-trap proceedings were drafted as
Ex.P4. The trap party proceeded to Devarakonda and went
to the office of the MRO. While the other party members
stayed outside, P.W.1 went inside the office. It was informed
that the appellant would come around 3.30 p.m. The trap
party went out, had lunch and came back to the MRO office
at 4.00 p.m. P.W.1 went inside the office. On seeing P.W.1,
appellant demanded bribe amount. P.W.1 questioned about
the pass books and the appellant promised to deliver the
same within two days and asked P.W.1 to handover the
amount of Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, the said amount was
given to the appellant. P.W.1 then came out of the office and
signaled to the trap party indicating passing of bribe
amount to the appellant.
5. Having seen the signal, the trap party entered into the
office and questioned the appellant. The bribe amount was
found in the hand of the appellant when the trap party
entered into the office. On seeing the trap party, the
appellant dropped the currency notes on the floor. His
hands were tested for the presence of phenolphthalein
powder with sodium carbonate solution. Phenolphthalein
powder was smeared to the currency notes during pre-trap
proceedings. The colour on the right hand of the appellant
turned positive. When questioned regarding the demand of
bribe, the appellant stated that he had never demanded any
bribe. The amount which was on the floor was collected and
picked up by the mediator. It was further informed by
appellant that the work of the complainant was completed
and the passbooks were handed over to P.W.4 two months
prior. The work was kept pending for signature of MRO for
completing the other formalities.
6. Having recorded the version given by the complainant,
appellant and what all transpired during post-trap
proceedings, Ex.P27 was drafted. Before concluding the trap
proceedings, Almirah of P.W.4 was opened in her absence
and collected pass books Exs.P7 to P24.
7. Investigation was handed over to the Inspector/P.W.8,
who concluded investigation and filed charge sheet.
8. The evidence produced by the prosecution and defense
was considered by the learned Special Judge and found that
the appellant was guilty of demanding and accepting bribe.
Accordingly, he was convicted as stated supra.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that even according to the prosecution case, the
work of the appellant was already complete and the
passbooks of P.W.1 and others were handed over to P.W.4.
P.W.4 stated during her chief examination before the Court
that the appellant had followed due procedure before
preparing the passbooks and also conducted panchanama
in the village. The said proceedings were handed over to
P.W.4 and relevant entries were made by her. All the
passbooks and title deeds under Exs.P7 to P24 pertaining to
P.W.1 and his family members were already prepared and
they were in PW4's possession. Since P.W.4 could not make
necessary entries in the revenue records, work was kept
pending. In the absence of P.W.4, the passbooks were seized
on the date of trap from the almirah belonging to P.W.4.
10. Learned counsel further submits that when two
months prior to the date of trap the entire record was
handed over to P.W.4, the question of pending work with the
appellant does not arise. When it is admitted that the entire
work of the appellant was complete and the records were
handed over to P.W.4, the allegation of demand itself is
doubtful. In fact, the appellant was falsely implicated since
there was a quarrel on the date when the panchanama was
drafted by the appellant in the village regarding partition of
the lands. The said quarrel was spoken to by D.W.1. Since
the circumstances of the case are contrary to the facts
wherein there was no official favour which was pending to
be done by the appellant and supported by P.Ws.4, 5 and
DW.1, who are responsible public servants, prosecution has
failed to prove the case against the appellant.
11. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the ACB would submit that money was held in
the hands of the appellant when the trap party entered. On
seeing the trap party, it is the case of the prosecution that
the amount was thrown on the floor. Admittedly, application
was given to the MRO for the purpose of preparing
passbooks. It is the duty of the appellant to prepare the
passbooks after following the procedure. Since the appellant
was the person who was officially involved in preparing the
passbooks, the version of P.W.1 regarding demand and
acceptance of bribe was convincing.
12. Admittedly, the application for making entries in
revenue records and preparing passbooks was made
sometime in August, 2006. P.W.1 was going around the
office and met the appellant for the preparation of the
passbooks several times. One specific date of demand as
02.02.2007 was stated, however P.W.1 stated that he has
met the appellant several times when the application was
submitted in the month of August, 2006. The argument of
the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no official
favour which was pending with the appellant cannot be
accepted. Admittedly, it was the appellant who was
responsible and duty bound to prepare appropriate
proceedings and also prepare the passbooks. The factum of
going to the village on the basis of the application filed by
P.W.1 and conducting proceedings is not disputed. Further,
it is also not disputed that the proceedings were prepared
including the passbooks and handed over to P.W.4.
13. The official work of the appellant, though completed
and passbooks handed over to P.W.4, the said information
was not passed on to P.W.1 when P.W.1 met the appellant.
It is not the case of the appellant that the preparation of the
passbooks and pending for making entries by P.W.4 and
signature of MRO was known to P.W.1. It was the appellant
who had gone to the village, conducted proceedings and to
the knowledge of P.W.1, the work was still pending with the
appellant. In the absence of any proof that P.W.1 had
knowledge about the preparation of the passbooks by the
appellant and the said passbooks being handed over to
P.W.4, it cannot be said that the demand made by the
appellant cannot be believed. The request of P.W.1 for
preparation of pass books was pending for nearly six
months. Part of the process was completed by the appellant.
As already discussed, according to the knowledge of P.W.1,
it was the appellant who was responsible for handing over
the passbook. If P.W.1 had knowledge about the completion
of work by the appellant, the defence version of false
implication could be believed. However, in the present facts,
when it is the duty of the appellant to prepare the
passbooks and for such preparation, there was demand,
only for the reason of appellant completing his part of the
duty and handing over to P.W.1 which is not to the
knowledge of P.W.1, defence version cannot be believed.
Admittedly the appellant had gone to the village for
conducting panchanama and making enquiries regarding
partition, on the basis of application by PW1 to the MRO for
issuance of passbooks.
14. The circumstances of recovering notes from the floor is
of no consequence. Admittedly, when the trap party entered,
the appellant was holding the notes in his hands and on
seeing the trap party, he dropped the notes on the floor.
Recovery of tainted currency notes from the floor has been
clearly explained by the prosecution. As discussed,
prosecution has proved their case of demand and
acceptance by the appellant.
15. Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant is on
bail, the trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the
appellant and send him to prison to serve out the remaining
period of sentence. The remand period if any shall be given
set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 30.04.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o.kvs
