Telangana High Court
Sri E.Rukumangada Reddy A2 vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Spl Pp For ... on 14 August, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.545 OF 2012
Between:
E.Rukumangada Reddy ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P.
Rep. by Inspector of Police ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.584 OF 2012
Between:
P.Ramachander Rao ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P.
Rep. by Inspector of Police ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 14.08.2024
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 the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No. 545 OF 2012
% Dated 14.08.2024
# E.Rukumangada Reddy ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by Inspector of Police ... Respondent
+ CRL.A. No. 584 OF 2012
% Dated 14.08.2024
# P.Ramachander Rao ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by Inspector of Police ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
For Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava
Sri Chavali Ramanand Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala,
Special Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. SLP(Crl.) No.9091 of 2022
2. (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 574);
3. (2014) 13 SCC 55);
4. (2016) 12 SCC 150),
5. (2009) 3 SCC 779;
6.(2021) 3 SCC 687,
7. ( 2015 (10) SCC 152),
8. (1979) 4 SCC 725);
9. (2015) 15 SCC (Cri) 629;
10. (1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 172);
11. (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 350)
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 545 AND 584 OF 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal No.545 of 2012 is filed by A2 and Criminal
Appeal No.584 of 2012 is filed by A1. Both A1 and A2 were trapped
by ACB for demand and acceptance of Rs.6,000/- from
complainant/P.W.1. They are convicted for the offence under
Sections 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) of the 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.4 of 2006 dated 15.06.2012
passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeals are
filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A1 was working as
Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer and A2 was working as
Superintendent in the office of Pay and Accounts Office (PAO), Tilak
Road, Hyderabad. P.W.1/defacto complainant was working as
Honourary State Treasurer, Bharat Scouts and Guides, A.P.State
Association, Hyderabad. The said Society gets annual grant in aid
from the Director of School Education for meeting the expenditure
including salaries and other activities. During the year 2005, there
was two months delay for issuing grant in aid, for which reason,
salaries of the employees were not paid for the months of January
and February, 2005. Bills were submitted for about Rs.96.00 lakhs
by the Assistant Accounts Officer of Commissionerate of School
Education in the office of Pay and Accounts Office, however, they
were not passed and kept pending.
3. P.W.1 went to the office of PAO on 17.03.2005 and enquired
with A1 about the bills. A1 allegedly demanded Rs.6,000/- to pass
the bills. A2 was also present when the demand was made by A1
and he also demanded the said amount for processing the bills and
issuing cheque in his name as the Treasurer of Bharat Scouts and
Guides. Aggrieved by the said demand on the very same day, P.W.1
approached ACB and filed typed complaint at about 12.00 noon.
The said complaint was handed over to P.W.7/DSP who arranged to
trap appellants on the next day i.e., on 18.03.2005. P.W.7 sent for
independent witness P.W.2 and another to act as witnesses to the
trap proceedings. P.W's.1, 2, 7, 8 and others formed the trap party.
All the formalities required before proceeding to the trap were
followed and the said proceedings were drafted under Ex.P2.
4. Thereafter, the entire trap party went to the office of the PAO.
While P.W.2 was staying in the first floor, P.Ws.1, 7, 8 and other
trap party members went to the 5th floor of the building. There,
P.W.1 entered into the 5th floor of the building and came out within
few minutes and informed that he met A1 and according to his
direction, he had to meet A2, who was in the first floor of the same
building. Thereafter, all of them came down to the 1st floor. P.W.1
entered into the office in the first floor and handed over bribe
amount on demand by A2, came out and gave signal to trap party
indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by A2. Thereafter, the
trap party entered into the office and hands of A2 were tested with
sodium carbonate solution. The said test proved positive for
handling the phenolphthalein smeared bribe amount.
5. The trap party then went to the office of A1 to the 5th floor and
the originals of Exs.P3 and P4 were seized. A1 was brought to the
1st floor where A1 was present. Other documents were also seized
and since there appeared to be law and order problem and other
PAO office employees were gathering, P.W.7 took decision to
continue post trap proceedings in ACB office and accordingly all of
them left. Having concluded the post trap proceedings in ACB office,
which included recording statements of witnesses, accused,
complainant and what transpired, Ex.P8 second mediators' report
was drafted incorporating the same. The investigation was
thereafter handed over by P.W.7 to P.W.8, who concluded
investigation and filed charge sheet.
6. Learned Special Judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence
of P.W.1 and the recovery of the amount from A2 on the date of
trap. Further, learned Special Judge found that bills were pending
which had to be cleared and accordingly found favour with the
version of the prosecution that there was demand and acceptance of
bribe by the appellants and accordingly convicted them.
7. Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri Chavali Ramanand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the A2 would submit that the prosecution has failed to
prove that there was any official favour which was pending with A2.
In fact, P.W.1 himself admitted that PAO will not issue cheques to
the Bharat Scouts and Guides and they have to be routed through
Commissioner of School Education. Commissioner of School
Education will have three IAS cader officers, who manage day to
day affairs. The Commissioner of School Education will only have
direct contact with PAO and P.W.1 who was the honourary
treasurer of Bharat Scouts and Guides has no link with PAO office.
However, P.W.1 lodged the complaint with ACB stating that he met
the appellants in the PAO office, who demanded bribe. The said
version cannot be believed. In fact, on the date of trap A2 informed
the trap party that P.W.1 had forcibly thrust bribe amount into his
pocket and immediately trap party entered into the office. The other
employees of PAO had become hostile during the post trap
proceedings since they found that what the trap party was doing
was illegal and the appellants were falsely implicated. In fact,
D.Ws.1 to 3 witnesses, who are the listed witnesses of the
prosecution, were given up by the prosecution and examined by the
appellant in defence. Witnesses have stated that the bills are not
pending with the appellants, as such, the question of demand of
bribe does not arise.
8. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of this Court
in the case of A.V.Suresh Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by Special Public Prosecutors (Criminal Appeal No.476 of
2008 dated 26.07.2022) and Criminal Appeal No.1145 of 2013,
dated 24.07.2024 and argued that in the absence of any pending
work with the accused officer, conviction has to be set aside.
9. He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of A.P arising out
of SLP(Crl.) No.9091 of 2022 wherein it was found that when there
was grave suspicion regarding the version put forth by the
prosecution and also on the ground that the complainant therein
had the opportunity of planting tainted currency, reversed the
finding of conviction. He also relied on the following judgments: i)
K.Shanthamma v. State of Telangana (2022) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 574); ii) B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P (2014) 13 SCC 55); iii)
V.Sejappa v. State (2016) 12 SCC 150), iv) C.M.Girish Babu v.
CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779; v)
N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 3 SCC 687, (vi)
P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. DI Police, State of A.P ( 2015 (10)
SCC 152), vii) Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration)
(1979) 4 SCC 725); viii)T.K.Ramesh Kumar v. State through
Police Inspector, Bangalore (2015) 15 SCC (Cri) 629;
ix)Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) 4
Supreme Court Cases 172); x) Khaleel Ahmed v. State of
Karnataka (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 350) and argued that
unless the factum of demand is proved, the question of finding
accused officer guilty on the basis of recovery of the amount on the
trap date is improper and illegal.
10. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
submitted that admittedly bills were pending in the PAO office. Only
for the reason of the Commissioner of School Education officials not
making a complaint will not in any manner have an impact on the
version of P.W.1. Fact remains that the cheque has to be processed
by the PAO, which had to be given to Bharath Scouts and Guides.
Accordingly, for the reason of the salaries of the employees being
stopped for not processing the bills by the PAO, P.W.1 met
appellants and thereafter, complaint was filed. There is no reason
why the appellants would be falsely implicated by P.W.1. Learned
Special Public Prosecutor further argued that since the version of
A2 is that the amount was thrust into his pocket, the presumption
under Section 20 of the Act comes into play and the burden is on
the appellants to discharge their burden. The findings of the
learned Special Judge in the Court below are based on record.
11. P.W.1 during the course of his cross-examination admitted
and stated as follows:
"It is true the Pay and Accounts Office will not issue the
cheque directly to Bharath Scouts and Guides the cheque
will be routed out through Commissioner of School
Education as the Commissioner of School Education is the
Drawing Officer who submits the bills to Pay and Accounts
office. It is true the Commissioner of School Education and
Bharath Souts and Guides will have direct contact for
payment and Bharath Scouts and Guides will have no
direct link with Pay and Accounts Office. There are two
IAS officers who are called Administrative Committee
members and I have to work under them."
12. P.W.2, who is the independent mediator deposed in his cross-
examination as follows:
"It is true Ex.P3 and P4 bills were not pending at the table
of AO-2 by the date of trap. Ex.P3 and P4 bills were
brought by ACB officials and I do not know from where or
from which chambers the said bills were brought by them."
13. D.W.1, who was working as Superintendent of Pay and
Accounts Office was examined during investigation and given up.
However, he was examined as D.W.1 by the appellant. He deposed
as follows:
"I received two bills i.e., Ex.P3 and P4 with ID
Nos.04205852 and 04205864 respectively on 16.03.2005
along with other bills. On 17.03.2005 I verified them and
put up them with Superintendent AO-2. Superintendent
also passed them on 18.3.2005 and sent them to APAO
who is AO-1 in this case. APAO also passed on the same
day itself and sent to the Dy.PAO. Before that I received
bill bearing ID No.04196743 for Rs.64,50,000/- and was
passed the cheques were issued on 16.3.2005. Ex.D1 is
the concerned bill (already marked)."
14. As seen from the admission of the witnesses, firstly
P.W.1, who was the treasurer of Bharat Scouts and Guides
has nothing to do with the PAO office and the cheques would
be given by the Commissioner of School Education, who is the
drawing officer to Bharat Scouts and Guides. In fact,
Commissioner of School Education submits the bills to the Pay
and Accounts Office. Drawing Officer of the Commissioner of
School Education was not examined. According to P.W.5, the
cheques will be issued after the bills are passed and delivered
to any authorized representative of the Commissioner of
School Education and cheques will not be delivered to any
person of Bharat Scouts and Guides. It is not the case of the
prosecution that P.W.1 was in any way authorized by the
Commissioner of School Education to receive the cheque by
coordinating with the PAO Office. P.W.6, who worked as
Assistant Accounts Officer in the Directorate of School
Education stated that the school education department would
draw annual grant in aid for Bharat Scouts and Guides and
bills would be raised by the Director of School Education.
P.W.6 also stated that P.W.1 will not be issued any cheques by
the PAO Office. He did not state that P.W.1 was authorized to
receive any cheques on behalf of Directorate of School
Education. Apparently, the bills in question Exs.P3 and P4
were not pending with A1 and A2 on the date of trap.
Complaint was lodged on 17.03.2005. The DSP/P.W.7 deposed
as follows:
"There are three bills in this case. One bill for
Rs.64,50,000/- was submitted on 4.3.2005 which was
passed on 16.3.2005, with regard to the other two bills
Ex.P3 and P4 for some reason the Commissionerate of
School Education submitted the bills on two dates as
seen from the receipt of stamps. I did not ask P.W.1 after
seizure and verify Ex.P3 and P4 bills on the date of trap
with regard to the date of presentation of bills before the
PAO's office by the Commissioner of School Education
and the contents of the complaint and otherwise why he
made such false recitals in the complaint."
"It is true Ex.P3 and P4 bills were not pending with A2 by
the time of trap. As seen from Ex.P3 and P4 both these
bills were signed by A2 and A1 on 18.3.2005. Pw-1 did
not state to me that he had seen that AO-1 and 2 signed
on Ex.P3 and P4 in his presence on the date of trap. It is
true, since Ex.P3 and P4 are signed by A1 and A2 by the
time of trap there was no role to be played by them in
processing or passing of these bills."
"It is true, Pw-1 is not a Drawing officer of these three
bills. It is true Pw-1 was not given any written
authorization to pursue these bills."
15. Even P.W.7/Investigating Officer during his investigation did
not find that any of the bills were pending with A1 or A2. Further, it
is the case of A2 that without any demand P.W.1 had forcibly thrust
bribe amount into his pocket and immediately the trap party
entered. When questioned, A2 stated that he never demanded any
amount and amount was forcibly thrust into his pocket. P.W.2
independent mediator admitted said fact in his cross-examination:
"It is true AO-2 had stated during the proceedings drafted at
ACB office that he did not demand any bribe and he refused
thrice to receive the amount."
P.W.7/DSP deposed in his cross-examination as follows:
"It is true AO-2 stated that he did not demand any bribe and
he refused to receive the amount thrice."
16. According to A2, he informed the trap party that the amount
was forcibly thrust into his pocket though he refused thrice. It is
the case of the DSP that the other employees of the Pay and
Accounts Officer were hostile towards ACB authorities for not
proceeding correctly and not recording the version stated by A2.
The said fact is evident from the admission of P.W.2 and P.W.7. For
the reason of anger of employees of PAO, the post trap proceedings
had to be shifted to the ACB Office. The witnesses D.Ws.1 to 3 were
examined during the course of investigation by the ACB. However,
they were given up. The version of forcibly thrusting into the pocket
of A2, A2's refusal, the employees protesting the proceedings of the
ACB on the ground that they were not correctly recorded is
supported by the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3.
17. Firstly, the prosecution failed to prove that there was any
pending work with the appellants. Secondly, it is the evidence of
D.Ws.1 to 3 that the version given by A2 was not recorded in the
post-trap proceedings, for which reason, the other employees
protested and the trap proceedings have to be shifted to the office of
the DSP, ACB. There is no reason why the other employees would
protest against police proceedings, unless they were incorrectly
done to the prejudice of the appellants.
18. The prosecution has failed to prove that there was, any
demand made by the appellants or any pending work with A1 and
A2. P.W.1, who is no way concerned with the PAO office had gone to
ACB office and files a vague complaint stating that both A1 and A2
demanded bribe. The only reliance placed on by the trial Court is
the recovery aspect. As already held in several judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that unless the initial burden of proving the
demand is discharged by the prosecution, the question of placing
reliance on the subsequent recovery, to infer that there was demand
for bribe is incorrect. P.W.1 was neither authorized to deal with PAO
or has anything to do with the PAO's office. The Commissioner of
School Education was not examined. When it was for the
Commissioner of School Education to provide necessary funds,
P.W.1 without approaching the Directorate of School Education
going to the PAO office casts grave suspicion on the version of
P.W.1. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants.
19. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.4 of 2006
dated 15.06.2012 is hereby set aside and the appellants are
acquitted. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall
stand cancelled.
20. Criminal Appeals are allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 14.08.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
