Telangana High Court
Syed Allauddin Baber, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl. Pp Hyd., For ... on 5 July, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1234 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is questioning the judgment of the Special Court
whereby the Special Court has convicted the appellant for the
offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act vide judgment in C.C.No.72 of 2005 dated
27.09.2010, on the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe
from P.W.1. Petitioner in the I.P is the 1st respondent herein.
2. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. He retired from Air Force
and working as a clerk in a Bank. On 23.12.2003 at about 11.30
p.m, when he went to the Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station (MGBS) to
receive his friend, the appellant who was working as Head
Constable attached to the outpost enquired as to the purpose of
P.W.1 waiting in the Bus Station. Appellant allegedly stated that
P.W.1 had come to the Bus Station for call girls and forcibly took
P.W.1 to the outpost at MGBS. He then informed P.W.1 that he
would book a case against him and demanded Rs.500/- to be paid
out of which Rs.350/- will be towards compounding fee and
Rs.150/- for arranging a person to impersonate P.W.1 before the
concerned Court. Though P.W.1 protested, appellant took his
driving licence Ex.P1 and CAT Card/Ex.P2. On the next day i.e.,
24.12.2003, P.W.1 went to the outpost and enquired about
appellant with P.W.4, who is also a Head Constable. P.W.1 informed
P.W.4 regarding appellant taking Exs.P1 and P2. P.W.1 was
informed that no case was booked. Then, P.W.1 went to the house
of the appellant when the location of house of appellant was given
by P.W.4. When P.W.1 met and requested, appellant refused to
return Exs.P1 and P2 and insisted to pay an amount of Rs.500/-.
Aggrieved by the conduct of the appellant, P.W.1 went to the ACB
office and filed written complaint Ex.P3 on 29.12.2003 with the
Joint Director. The Joint Director entrusted the investigation to
P.W.10. P.W.10 conducted enquiries regarding antecedents of the
appellant and trap was arranged on 08.01.2004.
3. On the date of trap i.e., on 08.01.2004, the trap party
gathered in ACB office which included P.W.1/complainant,
P.W.2/mediator, Investigating Officer/P.W.10 and others. Having
concluded pre-trap proceedings in the ACB Office, Ex.P4
proceedings were drafted. The trap party, then proceeded to the
MGBS around 1.30 p.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the outpost and
found that the appellant was on duty. The appellant saw P.W.1 and
asked him to get inside the room. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into
the room and appellant demanded the bribe amount. P.W.1 handed
over the said amount. The appellant took with his right hand and
then placed it on the cot in the room. Then, Exs.P1 and P2 were
returned from the wooden box and handed over to P.W.1. Both
P.Ws.1 and 2 came out and conveyed the signal to the trap party
regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. P.W.10
and other trap party members entered into the room and
questioned about the bribe amount. The DSP asked the appellant to
rinse his fingers of both hands in a separate sodium carbonate
solution. The right hand solution turned positive for handling the
tainted currency notes. The amount was found on the cot and
seized at the instance of the appellant.
4. The relevant documents which are Order book and General
Diary, Exs.P6 and P7 were seized. The photo copy of general diary
of Police Station, Afzalgunj and photocopy of petty case register
including the long note book maintained were also collected. P.W.10
having completed investigation, filed charge sheet under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned
Special Judge took cognizance of the offence and having framed
charges for the said offences, examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked
Exs.P1 to P17 on behalf of the prosecution. The tainted currency
MO.1 and other material objects MO2 to MO8 were marked during
the course of trial.
5. Learned Special Judge found that there was demand by the
appellant, pursuant to which, amount was handed over on the trap
date. Learned Special Judge further found that though it was
argued regarding 6 days delay in lodging complaint and further
registration of the complaint after 9 days, in the facts and
circumstances, it was properly explained and convicted the
appellant.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that a false case was filed by the complainant/P.W.1 since the
appellant who was working in the Police Outpost had questioned
P.W.1 regarding his presence in the mid night in the Bus Station
and insulted him by asking whether he had come there for call
girls. The prosecution did not give the details of the person for
whom P.W.1 was waiting in the bus station. Learned counsel
further argued that P.W.1 being Ex-Service Man was insulted by the
question of appellant and implicated in a false case. The version of
the prosecution that the right hand only turned positive when test
was conducted, improbablises the version of P.W.1 that appellant
counted the notes and kept them on the cot. In fact, Exs.P1 and P2
were lost by P.w.1 and thereafter when found, the details were
entered in the outpost note book. Since complaint was falsely made
by P.W.1, which is apparent from the circumstances, the appellant
is entitled to be acquitted.
7. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor would
submit that there is no reason as to why P.W.1 would file a false
complaint against the police official. In fact, Exs.P1 and P2 were in
possession of the appellant till the date of trap. On the date of trap,
P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/independent mediator were witnesses to
the demand and acceptance of bribe. In the said circumstances, the
prosecution had proved the case against the appellant.
8. The appellant was working as the Head Constable, which is
not in dispute. Further, Exs.P1 and P2 being in possession of the
appellant is also not disputed.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is an
inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The alleged incident
happened on 23.12.2003, complaint was filed on 29.12.2003.
Though there is no mention in Ex.P3 complaint, P.W.1 stated in the
Court that he met the appellant on 24.12.2003. Though meeting the
appellant on 24.12.2003 is not mentioned in complaint, however,
the prosecution witness and the colleague of the appellant/P.W.4
had stated in the Court that P.W.1 met him and enquired about the
appellant and that appellant had taken Exs.P1 and P2 and whether
case was booked. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that
there was any improvement made by P.W.1. Admittedly, Ex.P10
long note register was maintained in the Outpost. In the said book,
it was mentioned under Ex.P10(a) that Exs.P1 and P2 were found. If
Exs.P1 and P2 were lost and found by the appellant, the question of
keeping the documents with him till the date of trap would not arise
though P.W.1 met him earlier to trap date. In the event of P.W.1
meeting the appellant and if Exs.P1 and P2 were lost, the same
would have been returned by the appellant. In the circumstances
narrated by P.W.1, it cannot be said that Exs.P1 and P2 were not
taken forcibly by the appellant. On the date of trap, the right hand
test turned positive and the left hand test remained negative. The
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is highly
improbable that the appellant would have counted the notes with
one hand, cannot be accepted. There are five notes, it is probable
that a person can check the number of notes with one hand and it
does not improbabilise the version of counting the amount and
keeping it on the cot.
10. The version of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Exs.P1 and P2, being found in
possession of the appellant, gives credibility to the case of the
prosecution that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe
from P.W.1. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of
the Special Court.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant
is on bail, the 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.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal fails and dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.07.2024
kvs
