Telangana High Court
Dr. M. Suresh Kumar, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl Pp Hyd., For ... on 22 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 543 OF 2007
Between:
Dr. M.Suresh Kumar
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
And
State rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Warangal Range, Warangal, Through
Spl.P.P.for ACB cases, High Court,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.07.2024
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. 543 OF 2007
% Dated 22.07.2024
# Dr.M.Suresh Kumar
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
And
$ State rep. by Inspector of Police, ACB,
Warangal Range, Warangal, Through
Spl.P.P.for ACB cases, High Court,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri D.Purnachandra Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.543 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7
& 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the
allegation of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from
the defacto complainant-PW1.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
worked as staff nurse at Government Civil Hospital, Jammikunta,
Karimnagar District from 1997-2000. At request, she was
transferred to Ursu Karimabad Maternity Hospital and her transfer
proceedings were issued on 30.08.2000 vide Ex.P1. PW.1 was
relieved on 07.09.2000 and she requested the appellant/accused
who was working as Medical officer at Jammikunta to provide Last
Pay Certificate and Service Register. Inspite of several reminders,
the appellant did not hand over the service register of the accused
to the Ursu Karimabad Maternity Hospital nor issue Last Pay
Certificate.
3. She had complained to the office bearers of the Union.
Further, she went and met the appellant in May, 2001 and
requested to send the Last Pay Certificate and Service Register. The
appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- to do so. On 17.06.2001, PW1
again went to the appellant's house and requested to send the Last
Pay Certificate and Service Register for which the appellant asked
to pay the bribe amount on 19.06.2001. Unwilling to pay the bribe
amount, Ex.P2-written complaint was lodged by PW1 with the DSP,
ACB on 17.062001. The DSP-PW.9 arranged for the trap on
19.06.2001. On the trap day PW1-complainant, DSP, Independent
Mediator-PW2 and others formed the trap party. The trap party
underwent the procedure before proceeding to the trap. What all
transpired in the ACB office was reduced into writing which is
Ex.P19. Having concluded the pre trap proceedings, around 7.30
a.m., the trap party went near the house of the appellant. PW1 got
down from the car and went to Accused officer's house while other
trap party members stayed at distance. PW1 opened the door and
asked PW1 regarding the bribe amount. When PW1 stated that she
has amount with her, the appellant asked her to place the amount
in the table drawer. PW1 kept the amount on the papers which
were in the table drawer and then PW1 requested the appellant to
send Last Pay Certificate and Service Register. The appellant said
that he was on leave and would resume charge on 27.06.2001 and
then he would do the needful. PW1 came out and relayed the signal
to the trap party to indicate demand and acceptance of bribe by the
appellant. DSP along with other members entered into the house
and introduced himself. Accused Officer was asked to rinse both his
hand fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution to verify whether he
had handled the bribe amount, since the bribe amount was
smeared with phenolphthalein powder. If one handles the amount,
phenolphthalein would be transferred on to the fingers of the
person handling the amount. If the hands are rinsed in Sodium
Carbonate solution, the solution would turn pink, indicating
handling of bribe amount. Both the hand fingers of the accused
turned positive. At the instance of the appellant, amount was seized
from the Almirah in the bed room.
4. The appellant was questioned regarding the bribe amount.
The appellant explained that PW1 met her and requested to issue
Last Pay Certificate and appellant informed that she can come on
27.06.2001 after he resumes charge and then collect Last Pay
Certificate. PW1 offered currency of Rs.10,000/- and requested to
issue Last Pay Certificate, but the appellant refused to receive the
amount. PW1 then pulled out the right side drawer of the table
situated in the drawing room and kept the amount, inspite of his
refusal and left hurriedly. The accused secured the amount in the
Almirah to return the said amount to PW1.
5. The test resultant solutions were sealed. Statement of the
appellant and the complainant were recorded in the Post Trap
Proceedings. Having concluded all the formalities during Post Trap
Proceedings, the same was reduced into writing which is Ex.P21.
6. The investigation was then handed over to PW.10-Inspector
who obtained sanction from the competent authority and filed
charge sheet. The prosecution produced PWs.1 to 11 on their behalf
and also marked Exs.P1 to P24 during trial. The appellant
examined DWs.1 to 6 witnesses and marked Ex.D1-copy of
explanation of the Accused.
7. The learned Special Judge, having considered the evidence on
record, found that the appellant had in fact demanded and
accepted the bribe amount from PW1 and accordingly convicted the
appellant.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that PW1 did not hand over the charge after she was transferred.
For the said reason, the question of issuing Last Pay Certificate or
sending Service Register does not arise. The reason for false
implication is that the appellant had issued several memos which
are Exs.P4, P5, P9 and P11 and in response to the said Memos,
PW1 had given explanation under Exs.P3, P6, P7, P8 and P10. All
the said documents are on record. Further, PW1 admitted that she
did not handover the charge of stocks to anyone. In the absence of
handing over the charge, the question of issuing Last Pay
Certificate does not arise.
9. Learned Counsel further argued that even on the date of trap,
the spontaneous explanation given by the appellant was that
though appellant refused, the complainant-PW1 had kept the
amount in the table drawer and left hurriedly. He secured the said
amount to return and placed it in Almirah in bed room. In the
background of the issues that were in between PW1 and the
appellant and coupled with the trap day events, it clearly goes to
show that the appellant was falsely implicated.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits
that though PW1 was transferred in the month of August, 2000,
however, till the date of trap which is in June, 2001, neither the
Last Pay Certificate was issued nor the Service Register was sent.
That itself would indicate that the appellant had demanded the
bribe and refused to give certificate unless bribe was paid. PW1 had
specifically stated regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe
and the amount was also seized from the Almirah in the bed room.
If at all the amount was placed in the table drawer, without
demand, the question of appellant handling the amount and
keeping it inside the bed room does not arise. The said
circumstance clearly indicates that there was demand and
acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
11. PW1 admitted that the hospital at Jammikunta was
emergency hospital and round the clock she had to attend duty and
unless permission is given, she cannot leave the head quarters.
PW1 further admitted that appellant had given several memos for
the reason of PW1 not residing in the head quarters. In fact four
memos under Exs.P4, P5, P9 and P11 were issued to PW1 and she
had explained stating that her children were residing in Warangal
for which reason she could not be in head quarters. The
explanations were also marked as Exs.P3, P6, P7, P8 and P10.
Further, she also admitted that she did not handover the charge of
the stores till the date of trap. In the said background of the
appellant issuing memos for not discharging her duties and also
not handing over charge, whether there was demand for bribe for
providing Last Pay Certificate and sending Service Register has to
be considered.
12. PW.4 and PW.8 are the prosecution witnesses to whom PW1
complained for not issuing Last Pay Certificate. PW8 and PW4 who
are union members met the appellant asking him as to why the
Last Pay Certificate and Service Register was not sent. It is the
version of PW8 and PW4 that the appellant informed that PW1 had
not handed over the charge and once the charge is handed over, the
certificate would be issued. Though, both PW4 and PW8 were
treated hostile, their evidence regarding PW1 not handing over
charge is not disputed by the prosecution. Admittedly, charge was
never handed over by PW1 till the date of trap, even according to
the prosecution. When it is the case of prosecution that charge was
not handed over, the question of issuing Last Pay Certificate and
demanding bribe for issuing Last Pay Certificate does not arise. The
version of the appellant that he has been falsely implicated is
probable when assessed with the background of the appellant
issuing memos previously and further PW1 not handing over
charge. The appellant on the date of trap, when DSP entered into
the house of the appellant and questioned him, appellant stated
that PW1 met him and requested to issue Last Pay Certificate. He
informed PW1 that once she hands over charge, she can collect Last
Pay Certificate on 27.06.2001, since he was on leave. Appellant
further stated that when he refused to receive any amount, PW1
forcibly pulled out the drawer and kept the amount in the room and
left hurriedly. The appellant had secured the amount with an
intention to return the amount to PW1.
13. All the circumstances as projected by the prosecution and on
the basis of defence which is backed by documentary evidence are
viewed collectively the version given by the appellant is more
probable. The explanation offered by the appellant, immediately
during Post Trap Proceedings, is proof enough to draw the
conclusion of false implication.
14. PWs.4 and 8 who are the prosecution witnesses have spoken
about confronting the appellant regarding the Last Pay Certificate
and PW1 undertaking to hand over charge whereafter Last Pay
Certificate would be given. Strained relation between PW1 and
appellant cannot be lost sight of. Court cannot be selective while
adjudicating and rely only on the demand and acceptance, while
ignoring the other circumstances and background of the case. As
already discussed, the charge was not handed over by PW1 and the
circumstances of the case when considered as a whole, the accused
had discharged his burden of proving his case convincingly.
15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the
conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for SPE and ACB
Cases in CC.No.14/2003, dated 02.05.2007, and the
appellant/accused is acquitted. Since the appellant/accused in on
bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.07.2024
tk
