Telangana High Court
S.Ravinder vs State, Rep.By Inspector Of Police.,Acb ... on 6 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.963 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under
Section 7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.3,000/- from the
defacto complainant/PW.1.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died and
the legal heirs filed application to prosecute the appeal. The said
permission was granted.
3. Heard Sri T.L.Nayan Kumar, learned Counsel for the
appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
4. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant-PW1 is that he
was running a tailor shop at Vanasthalipuram. For taking benefit
of loan in pursuance of 'Rajiv Yuva Shakthi' scheme launched by
the Government, application was made by PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3.
Their request was accepted by the Branch manager, Canara Bank,
Vanasthalipuram-PW5. The said applications were given in the
camp conducted by the bank at Vanasthalipuram. On 15.11.2005,
the sanction of release of subsidy to beneficiaries i.e. PWs.1 to 3
was accorded and letter-Ex.P20 was sent to KSTEP (Keesara
Society for Training and Employment Promotion), R.R.District. The
said applications were forwarded from L.B.Nagar Municipality to
the District Collector, R.R.District for sanction of loan.
5. The appellant was attending in the section of KSTEP. PWs.1
to 3 requested the appellant to process the applications, however,
he did not process the file. PW.1 met the appellant on 30.01.2006
at the Collector's office and a demand for Rs.1,000/- was made for
three applications of PWs.1 to 3. PW.1 informed the appellant that
he would discuss with PWs.2 and 3 and get back to him. On
31.01.2006, the appellant telephoned PW.1 and asked him to
come to Canara Bank with demanded amount of Rs.3,000/-.
However, since they could not secure the amount, the appellant
informed PW.1 to come with the amount on 02.02.2006 to Canara
Bank, Vanasthalipuram, where the appellant promised that he
would handover the processing letters.
6. On 02.02.2006 also PW.1 informed that they could not
gather the amount. However, on account of the constant demand
made by the appellant, Ex.P1-complaint was lodged with the DSP-
PW.9 by PW.1. The trap was arranged on 04.02.2006 by the DSP,
after receiving the complaint.
7. On 04.02.2006, the trap party members gathered at the DSP
office. The formalities before proceeding to trap were all
undertaken in the office and the same was reduced into writing
vide Ex.P.10. According to PW.1, the appellant asked him to meet
at Rythu Bazar, Kothapet. The trap party reached Rythu bazaar
area around 5.30 p.m.. The appellant called PW.1 and enquired
him about his exact location. Around 6.30 p.m. the appellant went
to Rythu Bazar and having contacted PW.1 asked him to pay the
bribe amount. Then the appellant took out the proceedings from
his scooter dicky and gave it to PW.1. Having taken the amount,
the appellant put it in the left side pant pocket. Signal was
conveyed to the trap party members by PW.1 regarding demand
and acceptance of bribe by appellant.
8. The trap party apprehended the appellant and took him to
RamiReddy Chicken Centre. Post Trap Proceedings were
conducted and concluded in the chicken centre. During the post
trap proceedings, test was conducted on both hand fingers of the
appellant to ascertain whether he handled the bribe amount. Test
proved positive. Post trap proceedings were drafted which is
Ex.P12. The proceedings of PWs.1 to 3 i.e. Ex.P3, P6 to P8 were all
seized from the possession of appellant. Investigation was handed
over to PW.10-Inspector, who thereafter transferred the
investigation to PW.11. PW.11-Inspector filed the charge sheet.
9. Learned Special Judge having framed charges against the
appellant for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, examined PWs.1 to 11 and
marked Exs.P1 to P25 on behalf of prosecution. The appellant
examined DWs.1 to 3 and marked Ex.X1 during the course of
trial. M.Os.1 to 8 were also brought on record by the prosecution
during the course of trial.
10. Learned Special Judge on the basis of the evidence adduced
during trial, concluded that there was demand and acceptance of
bribe by the appellant and accordingly convicted him.
11. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that there was no official favour which was pending with the
accused. In fact, the original proceedings under Ex.P3 of PWs.1 to
3 were received by Bank Manager-PW.5 on 03.02.2006, itself,
which is one day prior to the trap. In the said circumstances,
when the job of appellant was already done, the question of
demanding bribe does not arise. In fact, the appellant examined
DW.2 who was the owner of the chicken centre. He stated that the
bribe amount was thrust into the left side pant pocket of the
appellant by PW.1 and he ran away. Immediately, several persons
who are from ACB caught hold of the appellant. The motive as
stated by DW1 who is the watchman of the flats where the
appellant was staying and also DW.3 who was working along with
appellant. PWs.1 to 3 went to appellant's house and quarrelled
with the appellant in the last week of October, 2005 according to
DW.1. Further, DW.3 also stated that PWs.1 to 3 quarrelled with
the appellant when they met him in the office and while PWs.1 to
3 were trying to meddle with the office files, appellant admonished
them. The false implication is apparent from the evidence of
DWs.1 and 3. On the date of trap, the amount was thrust into the
pocket of appellant according to Dw.2. In the said circumstances,
the conviction by Court below has to be set aside.
12. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.735 of 2006 and argued that when the
prosecution failed to prove that official work was pending with the
accused therein, acquittal was recorded. He also relied on the
Judgment of this Court in Crl.A.No.1289 of 2008 and batch and
argued that the defence of the accused can be established by
preponderance of probability.
13. Learned Counsel also relied on the Judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court in Punjabrao vs. State of Maharashtra 1
wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that the explanation
offered during 313 Cr.P.C. proceedings if found to be reasonable,
the same can be relied on.
14. Lastly, the counsel relied on the Judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court in C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court
of Kerala 2 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that
mere recovery of amount will not suffice to prove the case against
the accused in the absence of demand of bribe.
15. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
submitted that the applications of PWs.1 to 3 were pending with
the appellant. In fact, the said version that no work was pending
is incorrect. The demand was made and pursuant to which the
bribe was accepted on the date of trap. In the said circumstances,
presumption arises and the burden shifts on to the appellant to
explain the recovery. Since the appellant failed to prove his case,
the conviction recorded by the Special Judge is in accordance with
law.
(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779
16. It is not in dispute that the applications for loan were made
during November, 2005 and PW.5 who is the Branch Manager had
sanctioned release of subsidy to beneficiaries including PWs.1 to
3. Only for the reason of PW.5 stating that the original
proceedings under Ex.P3 were received by him on 03.02.2006 will
not in any manner cast any doubt regarding the demand that was
made by the appellant. In fact, PWs.1 to 3 met the appellant
several times. Even according to the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 met
him in his office and proof of meeting the appellant is stated by
the appellant's witness DW.1 and DW.3.
17. As on the date of trap it was the appellant who called PW.1
to Rythu Bazar area. There was no necessity for the appellant to
call him to Rythu Bazar to handover the sanctioned copies. Only
when there was demand by the appellant on the date of trap in
Rythu Bazar area, the amount was passed on by PW.1. The said
passing of amount was witnessed by PW.4-independent witness,
PW.9- the DSP and other trap party members. It is also mentioned
in Ex.P12-post trap proceedings that the entire trap party saw the
amount being accepted by the appellant who held the amount in
his hands for some time and thereafter placed it in his pant
pocket. There is no reason as to why the independent mediator-
PW.4 and DSP would speak false against the appellant. The said
taking of bribe, holding in his hands for some time and placing it
in his pocket was visible to the entire trap party. In fact, PWs.2
and 3 also stated about the demand made by the appellant
regarding bribe. As already discussed, PWs.1 to 3 meeting the
appellant is not disputed.
18. The version that there was no pending work has to be
assessed and whether it was to the knowledge of PWs.1 to 3. The
District Collector had sanctioned the proceedings on 29.01.2006
itself in favour of PWs.1 to 3 and 43 others. The said information
was not known to PW.1 to PW.3. Except making a suggestion that
PW.1 knew about the sanction proceedings, nothing was brought
on record or elicited from the witnesses of the KSTEP employees or
the District Collector's office or the bank officials for the Court to
conclude that PWs.1 to 3 had any knowledge about the
proceedings being sanctioned. PWs.1 to 3 were in fact going
around the appellant for his help. Even on the trap date, the copy
of proceedings was with the appellant who handed them over to
PW.1 and accepted the bribe amount. If at all, there was no
demand by the appellant, the question of appellant asking PW.1 to
come to Rythu Bazar for handing over the proceedings and
thereafter accepting bribe does not arise.
19. For the aforesaid reasons discussed, there are no grounds to
interfere with the finding of the Court below.
20. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.08.2024
tk
