Telangana High Court
Kandukuri Anand Rao vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Spl. Pp For ... on 5 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1456 OF 2011
Between:
Kandukuri Ananda Rao ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P. rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Karimnagar Range ... Respondent/
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.07.2024
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. 1456 OF 2011
% Dated 05.07.2024
# Kandukuri Ananda Rao ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Karimnagar Range ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D.Purna Chandra Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Special Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2014 Crl.L.J 2433
2
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1456 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections
7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for
demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.1,000/- from
P.W.1/defacto complainant, vide judgment in C.C.No.91 of 2010
dated 16.12.2011 passed by the II Additional Special Judge for
SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.
2. According to the prosecution case, the amount of
Rs.1,000/- was demanded for processing the application of P.W.1
for the purpose of licence to run a fertilizer shop. According to
P.W.1, he was having a valid licence to run the shop till 2006.
Later, when he approached the appellant for renewal of the
licence, the appellant demanded Rs.5,000/-. Though, challans
were paid for running the shop, the licence was not renewed. On
20.09.2006, the appellant went to the shop and locked the shop
on the ground that he was not holding a valid licence, though
P.W.1 showed challans that were paid by him.
3. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.3,000/- bribe for
handing back the keys. Two days thereafter, P.W.1 went to the
office of the appellant and requested the appellant to return the
keys of his shop and promised to pay the bribe amount.
Appellant stated that P.W.1 should pay the challan and also pay
the bribe amount. Further, the filled in application should be
given. On the assurance of P.W.1 that bribe would be paid, keys
were returned to P.W.1. On 03.10.2006, P.W.1 paid the challans
and approached the appellant on 06.10.2006 with application.
The appellant demanded Rs.3,000/-. However, P.W.1 informed
that he was ready to pay Rs.1,000/- and handed over the
application form and challan.
4. Thereafter, P.W.1 approached ACB on 01.11.2006 and filed
Ex.P1 complaint regarding demand of bribe by the appellant. The
trap was arranged on the next day i.e., 02.11.2006. On the said
date, the trap party gathered in the office of DSP, ACB. Pre-trap
formalities were conducted in the presence of
P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/independent mediator, DSP/P.W.5
and others. From there, the trap party started to the office of the
appellant.
5. The trap-party reached the office around 9.30 a.m, P.W.1
went inside and found that the appellant was absent. He was
informed that the appellant would come back at 3.00 p.m. The
trap party went away and again came back around 3.00 p.m to
the office. P.W.1 entered into the office and he found that there
were farmers who were talking to the appellant. After the farmers
left, the appellant demanded bribe amount when P.W.1 met him.
Since there were attenders and farmers, P.W.1 took the appellant
outside and handed over the amount. After taking the bribe
amount, the appellant promised that the work of P.W.1 would be
complete. P.W.1 gave the signal to the trap party, then the DSP
and others entered into the office. According to P.W.2 and P.W.5,
the appellant on seeing the trap party took out the amount from
his pant pocket and threw on the floor. The fingers of both
hands were tested. Test of both hands proved positive. When
questioned regarding the bribe amount by the DSP, it was
informed by the appellant that an incomplete application was
given by P.W.1 and he did not demand any bribe. The amount
was recovered which was on the floor.
6. Post-trap proceedings were conducted and during the said
proceedings application form and challan of P.W.1 and other
documents were seized. Having recorded the version given by
P.W.1, the appellant and the details of the documents noted,
post-trap proceedings Ex.P12 was drafted.
7. Investigation was then handed over to P.W.6/Inspector, who
completed investigation and filed charge sheet for the offence
under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act.
Having considered the evidence on both sides, appellant was
convicted by Special Court.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that no official favour was pending with the appellant as on the
date of trap. It is for the Assistant Director of Agriculture, who is
competent to issue licence to P.W.1. In Ex.P2 application, there
are no details given regarding earlier licence nor the prosecution
has come up with any such proof of an expired licence. Nothing
was collected during the course of investigation to corroborate
the version of P.W.1. The appellant was acting as in-charge of the
area where P.W.1's shop was locked from 22.09.2006, as such,
the question of the appellant locking the shop on 20.09.2006
does not arise. The main reason for false implication is the
threat of P.W.1 by the appellant not to sell spurious seeds.
Learned counsel further argued that even on the date of trap, the
appellant explained that P.W.1 had paid challan for fertilizers and
seeds and submitted incomplete application. Further, he denied
having received any amount from P.W.1. The prosecution case
that the amount was found on the floor would only substantiate
the defence of the appellant that he had pushed away P.W.1
when he tried to thrust the amount in the pant pocket. In
support of his arguments, learned counsel relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.Jayaraj v. State
of Andhra Pradesh 1, wherein it is held that when there was no
other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove demand, the
recovery of amount from the accused cannot form basis to
convict the accused. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District
Inspector of Police 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere
recovery or acceptance of the amount dehors the proof of
demand, would not be sufficient to convict an accused under
Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor would
submit that false implication theory was developed later. It is not
in dispute that P.W.1 was running fertilizer shop. Further, it is
not in dispute that he had no licence. In the said circumstances,
Ex.P2 application was handed over and accordingly appellant
demanded and accepted bribe amount for processing the
2014 Crl.L.J 2433
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549
application. Further, the presumption arises in the present case
since it was proved by the prosecution that there was demand
and acceptance by the appellant. However, the burden was not
discharged by the appellant, as such, appeal has to be dismissed.
10. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 was running fertilizer shop.
The grievance of P.W.1 is that the appellant had forcibly locked
the shop and took away his keys. Only two days thereafter, the
keys were returned when P.W.1 promised to pay the bribe
amount. The defence of the appellant that he was in charge from
22.09.2006, as such, locking the shop of P.W.1 on 20.09.2006
runs contrary to his own defence that on account of the appellant
threatening P.W.1 not to sell spurious seeds, complaint was filed.
If at all the appellant did not have jurisdiction over the area in
which P.W.1 was running his shop, the question of threatening
also does not arise.
11. The complainant/P.W.1 stated that his shop was locked and
only two days thereafter, when he promised to pay the bribe
amount of Rs.3,000/-,keys were returned to him. The said aspect
of locking the premises, giving back the keys and reducing the
bribe amount from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.1,000/- was mentioned in
the complaint Ex.P1 dated 01.11.2006 and also stated during the
course of examination before the Court. As on the date of trap,
application of P.W.1 was seized from the possession of the
appellant. If at all the application was not filled up properly, the
same would have been returned by the appellant either on the
date of taking it or on the trap date. However, the application was
accepted by the appellant. Further, P.W.2 and also the DSP,
P.W.8 stated that when they entered into the office on seeing the
trap party, the appellant had thrown the amount on the floor.
The test on the hands of the appellant proved positive and also
the pant pocket when subjected to sodium carbonate solution
test. It is clear corroboration to the version of P.W.1 that the
amount was initially demanded and accepted by the appellant
and thereafter, when the appellant saw the trap party, the
amount was thrown on the floor.
12. The appellant had examined D.W.1, who was working as
Agriculture Extension Officer. He stated that he was present on
the date of the trap and stated that one person thrust the
amount into the pant pocket of the appellant and ran away.
Immediately, appellant took out the amount and threw it on the
ground. D.W.1's presence is not suggested during cross-
examination of P.W.1 or any other witness, for the first time, his
version is stated during defence evidence. In fact, in the
explanation given by the appellant during post trap proceedings,
he did not state that the amount was forcibly thrust into his pant
pocket.
13. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, the
Assistant Director of Agriculture was the person who can grant
licence. However, the appellant had accepted the application for
licence and retained with him till the date of trap. In the said
circumstances, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence
of the witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, DSP and accordingly there are no
grounds to interfere with the finding of the Court below.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the
appellant is on bail, Special 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 Cr.P.C.
[[[[[[[[
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.07.2024
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1456 of 2011
Date: 05.07.2024
kvs
