Telangana High Court
Smt Tangella Rama Devi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.150 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The present Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the
judgment dated 05.02.2013 in C.C.No.44 of 2010 on the file of
the learned II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at
Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").
2. Heard Mr. Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel
for the appellant, Mr. Sridhar Chikyala, learned Standing
Counsel and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and Mr. Vizarath
Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
State. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2004, one Smt
Ravula Ramadevi/de facto complainant gave a complaint to DSP
ACB stating that on 20.11.2004, she gave an application to MRO,
Julapally for issuance of the Widow confirmation Certificate.
Then he instructed her to obtain an endorsement from the Village
Panchayat Secretary and Revenue Inspector. On 21.10.2004, she
went to the MRO, Julapally and enquired about the Village
Panchayat Secretary. Again she went to the house of one T.
Ramadevi/accused at her native place i.e., Peddapally.
The de facto complainant showed the endorsement of Patwari and
requested the accused to make an endorsement. On such
request, it is alleged that the said T. Ramadevi asked the de facto
complainant to pay Rs.1,500/- towards bribe to endorse on the
material paper. On 31.10.2004, the accused again asked the
de facto complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1,200/- on the date
of endorsement and the rest of the amount later. As the de facto
complainant was not willing to pay the said money, upon
obtaining permission from the competent authority, the present
complaint was registered by the DSP ACB as Crime No.9/ACB-
KNR/2004 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (for short, "the PC Act").
4. Basing on the material available on record and upon
hearing the preliminary arguments advanced by the prosecution
and the accused, charges were framed against the
appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7,
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act on 27.11.2007, read over and
explained to her. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The trial Court vide impugned judgment, sentenced the
appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 7
of the PC Act, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six
months. The appellant was further directed to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
the PC Act, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six
months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently. Assailing the same, the present Revision.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial
Court without appreciating the evidence available on record in
proper perspective passed the impugned judgment. To
substantiate his contention, he relied upon the decision passed
by the composite High Court for the States of Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh in K. Giri Vs. State, ACB, Hyderabad Range,
Hyderabad 1 and seeks to set aside the impugned judgment.
7. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the trial Court,
upon careful scrutiny of the material available on record in
proper perspective passed the impugned judgment and the
interference of this Court is unwarranted. Therefore, he seeks to
dismiss the Revision.
2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 821 (A)
8. On behalf of the prosecution, the trial Court examined
PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 9. On behalf
of the defence, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Ex D1 was
marked. The trial Court upon careful scrutiny of the material
available on record observed that PW1, in her evidence stated
that she gave 12 x Rs.100/- = Rs.1,200/- denominations to the
accused. But the counsel for the accused stated that as per Exs.
P4 and P5, the amount handed over is 2 x Rs.500/- and 2 x
Rs.100/- notes, but not as stated by PW1 and thus her evidence
cannot be believed. It is pertinent to note that PW1 gave
complaint on 03.11.2004 and she deposed before the trial Court
on 09.02.2011 i.e, nearly after six years from the date of filing of
the complaint. Merely, because PW1 failed to state about the
denominations correctly, it cannot be presumed that she deposed
falsely before the trial Court only to implicate the accused.
9. The currency seized from the accused and PW1 tallied with
the denominations noted under Ex P4 pre trap panchanama.
Therefore, relying upon the decision reported in Manik Shrirang
Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharastra 2 the trial Court observed that
the prosecution amply established the recovery of amount from
the possession of the accused and inferred that there is a
1989 CRl.L.J. 2268
demand of bribe. Normally bribe cannot be taken openly and the
offence is purported to have been committed in secrecy.
Otherwise, accused might have instructed PW1 to come to the
office on the next day instead of asking her to come home after
half-an-hour. Once, the prosecution established that gratification
in any form cash or kind had been paid or accepted by a public
servant, the Court is under legal compulsion to presume that the
said gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward to
do any official act.
10. Moreover, PW6 stated that during his tenure, there was no
adverse remark or complaint against the accused and she was
sincere and honest at work. If at all the accused was so sincere,
she ought to have made the endorsement on Ex P2 on the same
day i.e., on 21.10.2004 itself along with the Village Panchayat
Secretary or on 31.10.2004. But she failed to do so. Therefore,
the trial Court found the sole evidence of accused reliable,
acceptable, trustworthy and the trial Court had safely come to
the conclusion that the accused demanded bribe for making an
endorsement on Ex P2 and made the endorsement only after
receiving the bribe. Therefore, the trial Court found the accused
guilty for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act.
11. A perusal of the record shows that this Court vide order
dated 19.02.2013 suspended the execution of sentence of
imprisonment passed against the appellant and ordered to
continue her on bail on the same terms and conditions as
imposed by the trial Court, pending Appeal. Thereafter, the
matter underwent several adjournments.
12. In the case on hand, the trial Court held that the appellant
was guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which finding, in my considered view, does
not call for any interference.
13. Having regard to the submissions made by all the learned
counsel, upon considering the fact that the appellant suffered
mental agony and hardship during the course of litigation before
the trial Court and as eleven long years have elapsed from the
date of filing this Appeal, this Court in inclined to take a lenient
view insofar as the sentence is concerned and reduce the
sentence imposed against her to the period of imprisonment
already undergone by her.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. However,
the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- to
the credit of the C.C.No.44 of 2010 on the file of the learned II
Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Hyderabad
within one month from today.
15. If the appellant fails to comply the aforesaid order, she shall
suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
E.V. VENUGOPAL, J
Date: 26.03.2024
ESP
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.150 OF 2013
Dated: 26.03.2024
ESP
