Telangana High Court
Bairam Muralidhar vs The State Of Telangana on 1 February, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.742 OF 2023
Between:
Bairam Muralidhar ... Appellant
And
The State of Telangana
ACB, Nizamabad Range, rep. by
Special Public Prosecutor ..Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :01.02.2024
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.742 of 2023
% Dated 01.02.2024
# Bairam Muralidhar ... Appellant
And
$ The State of Telangana
ACB, Nizamabad Range, rep. by
Special Public Prosecutor Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.Yadaviri Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala,
Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2022 Live Law (SC) 192
2
MANU/TL/1334/2022
3
2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 624
4
1984 AIR 1453
5
( 2010) 15 SCC 1
6
(2012) 8 SCC 527
7
(2015) 3 SCC 220
8
(2019) 14 SCC 311
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.742 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for demanding bribe of
Rs.5,000/- for doing official favour of facilitating PW1 to go back
to Dubai without implicating him in the kidnapping case. Further,
the bribe was demanded to reduce the gravity of case against his
son who was involved in crime No.21/2006 of Kamareddy Police
Station for kidnapping.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 01.02.2006, a
complaint was lodged against the son of the defacto complainant
(PW1) by one Radhakrishna Murthy alleging that his daughter was
kidnapped. On the basis of the said complaint, the appellant who
was working as Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the son of PW1 on
07.02.2006. Nearly 2 ½ months thereafter on 22.04.2006, PW1
returned to India and went to the Police Station. One of the
Constable who was not examined in the Court asked for bribe of
Rs.6,000/- for not adding the name of PW1 in the charge sheet to
be filed against his son. Thereafter, the appellant demanded
Rs.5,000/- on 26.04.2006 and asked PW1 to pay the said amount
by 04.05.2006. Aggrieved by the said demand of bribe, PW1 and
PW2 who is the cousin of PW1, gave a complaint Ex.P1 on
01.05.2006 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB,
Nizamabad. PW1 was asked to appear before the DSP along with
the proposed bribe amount on 04.05.2006. On 04.05.2006 after
verifying the antecedents of appellant, the crime was registered.
PW2 accompanied PW1 to the office of DSP on the date of trap.
PW3 an independent mediator and another person were asked to
act as mediators to the trap. In the office of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, the first
Mediators report which was marked as Ex.P5 was drafted after
completing the formalities, before proceeding to trap the appellant.
What all transpired in the office of the DSP, was incorporated in
the mediator's report Ex.P5.
3. On the same day at 4.30 P.M., the trap party members, PW1
to PW3, DSP and others went to the Police Station where the
appellant was working as SI. The DSP instructed PWs.1 and 2 to
go into the Police Station and give bribe amount to the accused on
demand. Accordingly, PW1 and PW2 went into the Police Station.
However, they were asked to meet the appellant at the R & B
Guest House in Kamareddy in the evening at 10.00 P.M. The trap
party again reached the guest house premises at 10 PM. PWs.1
and 2 went inside and on demand PW1 handed over the tainted
bribe amount to appellant. After passing of the amount, PW2 went
outside and gave pre-arranged signal. The trap party entered into
the police station accosted the appellant and conducted test on
the hands of the appellant. The test on the hands of the appellant
proved positive. The CD file relating to Crime No.21/2006 of
Kamareddy Police which was registered under Section 366-A of
Indian Penal Code, against the son of PW1 was seized. Having
completed the post trap proceedings, mediators report was
drafted.
4. Thereafter, the case was investigated and charge sheet was
filed. The learned Special Judge having concluded examination of
witnesses found the appellant guilty of demanding and accepting
the bribe amount and accordingly convicted him.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant would submit that even according to the prosecution
case, the case against PW1's son was investigated and charge
sheet was filed on 20.03.2006. Therefore as on the date of
demand i.e. 26.04.2006, there was no official favour pending and
the question of implicating PW1 in the case does not arise.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that at the earliest
point of time in the 'panchanama' when the second mediators
report was drafted in the guest house, the appellant had stated
that money was thrusted into his pocket and he never demanded
any amount. The said version of the appellant was in fact stated
by PWs.1 and 2 during the course of trial. However, they were
treated hostile to the prosecution case. Mere recovery of amount
from the appellant is not sufficient to convict the accused, unless
the 'demand' and 'acceptance' are proved beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution. Since the demand and acceptance have
not been proved on account of hostility of PWs.1 and 2, further
there was no official favour pending, the appellant has to be
acquitted. He relied on the Judgments of Honourable Supreme
Court in K.Shanthamma v. The State of Telangana in
Crl.A.No.261 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.7182 of
2019) 1 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that unless
the demand of illegal gratification was proved, the offence under
Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
cannot be made out. He also relied on the Judgment of this Court
in Gulam Mohammad v. The Inspector of Police, Anti
Corruption Bureau in Crl.A.No.1094 of 2007 2 and N.Rajendra
Prasad v. The State of A.P. in Crl.A.No.31 of 2008 3. In both
2022 Live Law (SC) 192
MANU/TL/1334/2022
2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 624
the cases, on facts and also for the reason of the hostility of the
defacto complainant, this Court had found that no offence was
made out.
7. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of ACB would submit that though the
witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution case, the
circumstances in the case have to be considered. When the
circumstances are viewed in the case, it clearly makes out an
offence of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. There
is no reason as to why PW1 would go to the guest house unless
called by the appellant. Further, no person would dare to thrust
the amount in the pocket of Police Officer and implicate him
falsely in a criminal case. Since the amount was recovered from
the pocket of the appellant, the element of demand and
acceptance are proved. Accordingly, conviction cannot be
interfered with.
8. He relied on the Judgments rendered by the Honourable
Supreme Court in;
i) State of U.P. v. Dr.G.K.Ghosh 4;
ii) C.M.Sharma v. State of A.P. 5;
1984 AIR 1453
( 2010) 15 SCC 1
iii) Syed Ahmed v. State of Karnataka 6;
iv) Vinod Kumar v. State f Punjab 7;
v) Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) 8
9. P.W.1 was examined in chief, wherein he stated that the
appellant had demanded Rs.6,000/- not to involve P.W.1 in the
case and to file charge sheet against P.W.1's son by diluting the
case. The said demand was made on 24.04.2006 and 26.04.2006.
The amount of bribe was reduced to Rs.5,000/- by the appellant
and asked to pay the amount on 04.05.2006. However, during the
course of cross-examination, he stated that on 22.04.2006 he
consulted his Advocate and came to know that charge sheet was
already filed and also admitted that there was no possibility of
making modification in the charge sheet and there was no scope
for P.W.1 to be added as an accused. P.W.1 spoke contrary to the
contents of pre and post trap proceedings during cross
examination. He further stated that he thrust the amount in the
left side shirt pocket of the appellant. However, PW1 was treated
as hostile to the prosecution case and Public Prosecutor cross-
examined the witnesses. He denied the suggestions of the Public
Prosecutor in the cross-examination regarding the correctness of
(2012) 8 SCC 527
(2015) 3 SCC 220
(2019) 14 SCC 311
the trap laid and the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the
appellant.
10. P.W.2, accompanying witness did not support the
prosecution case in the chief examination and stated that he
accompanied P.W.1 to the guest house and P.W.1 thrust the
amount in the shirt pocket of the appellant.
11. From the record, it is apparent that the charge sheet was
filed on 20.03.2006 itself and it was to the knowledge of P.Ws.1
and 2 that charge sheet was filed. P.W.1 further admitted that his
counsel had informed that there was no scope of involving P.W.1
in the case or diluting the case against his son. The very genesis of
complaint being lodged is not to implicate P.W.1 and dilute the
case against the son of PW.1. When both favours cannot be done
even according to the knowledge of P.W.1 on 22.04.2006, it
creates any amount of doubt regarding PW1 approaching the
appellant and the demand made on 24.04.2006 and 26.04.2006.
P.W.1 later denied the contents of the complaint. He is a self-
condemned witness who has given different versions during
investigation and trial.
12. The Court can rely upon the documentary evidence filed in
the case to infer the complicity of the appellant by ignoring the
hostility of P.W.1 to arrive at a conclusion of guilt or otherwise of
the appellant. The record speaks that nearly five weeks prior to
the alleged demand of bribe, charge sheet was filed. The
investigating officer becomes functus officio when charge sheet is
filed after investigation, unless there would be further
investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C, which is not the case
of the prosecution. The said circumstance creates any amount of
doubt regarding the version given by P.W.1 at the time of lodging
complaint being correct, since PW1 has knowledge about the
charge sheet and the incapacity of the appellant to do any official
favor.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments held that
mere recovery of the amount from the accused officer divorced
from the circumstances of the case cannot be made basis to
convict the accused officer. As discussed above, in the facts of the
present case, it gives rise to any amount of doubt regarding the
allegation of demand being correct. The subsequent recovery
cannot be made basis to assume that demand was made by the
accused officer. The prosecution failed to prove the demand
allegedly made by the appellant.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Shanthamma
v. The State of Telangana's case (supra), held that when the
demand of illegal gratification is not proved by the prosecution
which is sine quo non for establishing an offence under Section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution fails.
15. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.95 of
2015 dated 22.08.2023 is hereby set aside. Since the appellant is
on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
16. Criminal Appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 01.02.2024
Note: L.R copy to be marked.
Kvs
