Telangana High Court
Muddasani Padmanabha Reddy, ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Spl.P.P., Acb ... on 2 July, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.936 OF 2010
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 one
year under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.23 of 2005 dated
29.07.2010 passed by the Principal 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 P.W.1, who is the
defacto complainant constructed a house in the year 2002 and
applied for issuance of door number and for assessment tax, to the
municipal officer. For the said reason, P.W.1 met the appellant
herein who is arrayed as A1 and asked for allotting door number.
The appellant demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- towards bribe,
however, Rs.500/- was paid. On 04.10.2002, the appellant
inspected the house and took measurements. On 07.10.2002,
P.W.1 met the appellant and the appellant demanded remaining
amount of Rs.1,000/-. P.W.1 again met the appellant on
24.10.2002 and requested to complete the assessment. However,
the appellant insisted for payment of Rs.1,000/- on 25.10.2002. On
the same day i.e., on 24.10.2002, P.W.1 went to the ACB office and
lodged Telugu written complaint Ex.P1. The DSP, Sri Umakanth
Reddy (died) received the complaint and arranged for a trap on
25.12.2002.
3. On the said day, i.e., 25.12.2002, at 10.00 a.m, the trap party
members, including complainant, independent mediators, P.W.2
and DSP were present. The procedure before proceeding to trap was
followed. P.W.1 was questioned regarding the complaint. Thereafter,
bribe amount was smeared with phenolphthalein powder. It was
explained that if the appellant demands and receives the tainted
currency notes, it would be known when sodium carbonate solution
test is conducted. A person handling the phenolphthalein smeared
amount rinses his hands in the sodium carbonate solution, it would
turn into pink colour. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings,
what all transpired in the ACB office was reduced into writing which
is Ex.P5.
4. From the ACB office, the trap party went to the office of the
appellant. P.W.1 and another independent mediator namely Ratna
Kumar entered into the office of the appellant. On seeing P.W.1, the
appellant asked for the bribe amount. A2, (acquitted accused) was
sitting opposite to the appellant. The appellant directed P.W.1 to
handover the amount to A2, who was working as bill collector. After
A2 received the amount, A2 took signature of P.W.1 on the office
copy of assessment Ex.P3 and handed over the original assessment
order Ex.P2. Then, said Ratna Kumar went out and conveyed signal
to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by the
appellant. The trap party while entering into the office, A2 was
going out of the room of the appellant. He was stopped by the DSP
and taken back into the chambers of the appellant. Test on the
hands of A2 turned positive and when enquired, A2 informed that
on the instructions of the appellant, he had taken the amount and
threw the amount in the side room. The currency notes were found
in the side room. The said currency notes were then seized along
with Exs.P3 and P4. The attendance register was also seized.
Having concluded the post trap proceedings, Ex.P8 was drafted.
5. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.5, who
concluded investigation and filed charge sheet against the appellant
as A1 and bill collector as A2 for the offences under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act.
6. Charges under both the penal provisions were framed against
A1 and A2.
7. The prosecution, on their behalf produced witnesses P.Ws.1 to
5 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. The material objects MOs.1 to 8 were
also brought on record. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were
examined, however, Exs.D1 to D3 which are entries in the GD
register were marked.
8. Learned Special Judge found favour with the prosecution case
regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant,
however acquitted A2.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would
submit that the reason for giving complaint is for allotting the
house number and the assessment to be done. However, as seen
from Exs.P2 and P3, the house number was also allotted and the
tax was assessed. In fact, said assessment is also to the knowledge
of P.W.1 on 07.10.2002 itself as admitted by him during cross-
examination. In the said circumstances, the question of demanding
any bribe does not arise. Further, the amount was recovered at the
instance of A2 and that too from the adjoining room. No explanation
is given as to how the tainted currency notes were recovered from
the adjoining room except P.W.2's evidence which stated that A2
had informed the trap party that the amount was thrown in the
adjoining room. On account of the said discrepancies, the demand
aspect becomes doubtful. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is to be
extended to the appellant.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
ACB would submit that Ex.P2 was handed over after the amount
was paid to the appellant. If at all there was no demand and
assessment was also made, the question of P.W.1 approaching ACB
would not arise. In the back ground of the complaint and
subsequent recovery as on the date of the trap, though at the
instance of A2, demand and acceptance is proved. P.W.1 had
deposed regarding handing over of the bribe, consequent to the
demand. In the said circumstances, it is abundantly clear that
there was a demand and the said amount was accepted by the
appellant herein through A2. Accordingly, there are no grounds to
interfere with the finding of the Court below.
11. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that by 07.10.2002,
he was aware that his house was assessed for imposing tax. P.W.3,
who was working as the Senior Assistant in the Municipal Office
deposed that Ex.P2 is demand notice and Ex.P3 is the copy of
original demand notice. The duty of the appellant as Revenue
Inspector is to visit the house and assess the tax. There is no
necessity for house owner to file any application for either assessing
the tax or for issuing door number. P.W.3 further stated that notice
would be sent to the concerned owners in the routine manner.
12. As seen from the evidence, when the complaint was made to
ACB, house number was already allotted and tax assessment done.
The department issues or sends such tax notices in the routine
manner as stated by P.W.3. Any compliant that demand was made
for the purpose of allotting the house number and assessing tax
appears to be incorrect in the back ground of the said work already
being done and it was to the knowledge of P.W.1, nearly 18 days
prior to the trap. Such circumstances create any amount of doubt
regarding demand made by the appellant being correct.
13. On the date of trap, Ratna Kumar, who is accompanying
witness and not examined by the prosecution went along with
P.W.1 into the room of the appellant. According to Ratna Kumar,
after the demand of bribe by the appellant and acceptance by A2,
he came out and gave signal to the trap party. Admittedly, P.W.1
was inside the room and also A2. According to P.W.2, independent
mediator, while they were entering into the room of the appellant,
they observed that A2 was going out of the chambers and he was
stopped and taken into the chambers of the appellant. Neither
P.W.1 nor P.W.2 stated before the Court that they have informed
the DSP or any member of the trap party that the amount was
accepted by A2. However, P.W.5 stated that reason for stopping A2
is that the said Ratna Kumar informed the DSP that the amount
was taken by A2 while the trap party was entering into the office.
14. Even according to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 5, A2 never
left the room, however, while he was about to leave, he was taken
back into the room. In the said circumstances, it is not explained by
either P.W.1, P.W.2 or P.W.5/Investigating officer as to how the
amount was found in the adjoining room. P.W.1 stayed in the room
till the trap party arrived. It is not his case that A2 left the room
before the trap party arrived. Similar is the evidence of
P.W.2/independent mediator and P.W.5/Investigating Officer. In the
said circumstances, when there is no explanation as to when the
amount was either thrown or placed in the adjoining room and how
it was done, the prosecution appears to be suppressing the actual
facts of the case. In the present facts of the case, when the work of
allotting the house number and assessment was already complete
and to the knowledge of the complainant P.W.1, 18 days prior to the
trap, the demand aspect becomes doubtful. The said Ratna Kumar,
who accompanied P.W.1 into the room was not examined and no
reasons are given by the prosecution. The tainted currency was
found in the adjoining room and prosecution has failed to explain
as to how the notes were placed in the adjoining room and when.
The said discrepancies create any amount of doubt regarding the
version of the prosecution being correct. It is apparent that the
actual version is suppressed by the prosecution. In the present
facts of the case, demand appears to be highly improbable and not
believable.
15. In the result, the judgment in C.C.No.23 of 2005 dated
29.07.2010 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since
the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 02.07.2024
kvs
