Telangana High Court
K. Satyanarayana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1579 OF 2007
Between:
K.Satyanarayana
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
And
The State of A.P. rep. by the Inspector of
Police, ACB, Adilabad, Karimnagar Range
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., 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. 1579 OF 2007
% Dated 22.07.2024
# K.Satyanarayana
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by the Inspector of
Police, ACB, Adilabad, Karimnagar Range
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., 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
1
(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779
2
(1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 725
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1579 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused Officer,
questioning the conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for
SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad in C.C.No.4 of 2003, vide Judgment
dated 23.10.2007, for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)
r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing
him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months
for the charge under Section 7 of the Act and to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
r/w.13(2) of the Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/accused officer and
learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
3. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 is a resident of
Adilabad Town doing Real Estate business. He and his associates
setup a voluntary organization namely "Travellers Care" and got it
registered in the year 2000 before the Registrar of Societies at
Hyderabad. Ex.P1 is the copy of the registration certificate. PW.1
took the premises of one Gowri Shankar and Shyam of Adilabad for
running the said institution which is opposite to the Railway
station.
4. PW.1 presented an application Ex.P2 in the office of Assistant
Engineer, North Zone i.e. to the Assistant Engineer concerned
(A.O.). On receiving the said application, A.O. instructed PW.1 to
obtain demand drafts for Rs.2,000/- and for Rs.200/- and
accordingly, on 05.04.2001, PW1 went to the office of A1 and
handed over the demand drafts with covering letter dated
05.04.2001. After receiving the said demand drafts, A.O. instructed
PW.1 to come after 15 days. When PW.1 went to A.O, i.e. after 15
days, appellant allegedly demanded to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/-
as bribe. PW.1 informed A.O. that he will not pay any such bribe.
Thereafter, on 22.05.2001, PW.1 again went to the office of A.O and
on that A.O. reiterated his earlier demand and asked him to bring
the said amount within 2 or 3 days. Aggrieved by constant demand
for bribe, on 24.05.2001, PW.1 went to the officer of DSP, ACB,
Karimnagar and submitted a report (Ex.P4). The DSP asked PW1 to
come to their office on 25.05.2001 at about 8.00 A.M along with one
of his friend and the proposed bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-.
5. PW.5 who is the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar, registered the
complaint Ex.P4 vide Cr.No.5/2001. Trap was arranged on
25.05.2001. PW.1 went to the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar along with
his friend Suresh Kumar (PW.2). PW.5 (DSP) in the presence of
PW2, PW.1 mediators and others concluded the formalities before
going to the trap. All the events were drafted under Ex.P6-pre-trap
proceedings. The trap party members proceeded to the house of A.O
which is situated at Amid Pura, Adilabad, in a jeep and scooter and
reached there at 6.30 P.M. After reaching the house of A.O., PWs.1
& 2 who went on a scooter parked their vehicle in front of the house
of A.O. and that the trap party members parked their jeep at some
distance from the house of A.O. After 10 minutes of PWs.1 & 2
entering into the house of A.O., PW.2 came out and relayed the pre
arranged signal. On receiving the signal, PW.5 and the trap party
members rushed into the house of A.O. and found PW.1 talking
with A.O., standing in the 'Varanda' of the house. PW.5 asked PW.1
to wait outside the house and also disclosed his identity to A.O. and
questioned him regarding bribe. Then PW.5 got prepared sodium
carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked A.O. to rinse
his hand fingers separately in the said solutions. When the A.O.
dipped his hand fingers, both the said solutions turned into pink
color. PW.5 recovered the currency notes at the instance of A.O.
from the bed room. Thereafter, all the events that transpired was
reduced into writing under Ex.P7-post trap proceedings. PW5
handed over investigation to PW.7 who is the Inspector of Police,
ACB. After collection of evidence and after receipt of Ex.P15
sanction order, PW.7 filed charge sheet against the A.O. for the
offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. The learned Special Judge having framed charges, examined
PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P15 on behalf of the prosecution.
MOs.1 to 6 were also brought on record. The accused examined
DWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.X1 to X5 in support of his defence.
The learned Special Judge did not find favour with the accused's
defence that work was not pending with him, accordingly recorded
conviction.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly argued on
the ground that there was no official work which was pending
regarding the electricity connection to be given to PW1. Further, for
the reason of disconnecting the illegal connection to the shop of
PW1 by the accused and others, PW1 bore grudge against the
appellant and involved him in a false case. The counsel submitted
that the evidence of PW4 when considered with Exs.X1 to X4 would
reveal that the application for electricity connection under Ex.P2
though made on 15.03.2001, the required Demand Drafts were not
given until 05.04.2001, for which reason, there was no possibility of
providing new service connection before closure of financial year i.e.
31.03.2001.
8. Learned Counsel further submitted that in accordance with
the procedure, the Divisional Engineer has to allot the work orders
to PW4-Additional Divisional Engineer who in turn would assign
the work to the Assistant Engineers working under him. Since the
Demand Drafts were only provided on 05.04.2001, there was no
possibility of processing the application. In fact, the ACB got
confused that there was a work order in favour of PW1 and the
accused officer had delayed release of service connection. Since
there was no work order issued for execution by the appellant, the
question of there being any pending work does not arise. The
prosecution failed to prove that there was any demand, since no
work was pending and the recovery on the date of trap is of no
consequence, when demand was not proved.
9. Counsel further argued that even on the trap date though, it
was stated that there was no demand and the amount was thrust
into the hands of the accused, however, false recitals were made in
the Post Trap Proceedings-Ex.P7 and a different version was given
by the prosecution witnesses. Counsel relied on the Judgment of
Honourable Supreme Court in C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin,
High Court of Kerala 1 and Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi
Administration) 2 in support of his argument that recovery of the
amount divorced from the circumstances cannot form basis to
convict the accused unless the substantive case of the prosecution
is reliable.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that Exs.X1
to X4 were not seized during the course of investigation and they
were produced during trial. The said defence of there being no
pending work or that the application could not be processed for any
reason, was not stated at the earliest point of time during the Post
Trap Proceedings or during the investigation. Such defence was
taken for the first time in trial. The fact remains that the
application was made in March and Demand Drafts were filed in
the month of April, and connection was not given till the date of
trap which is 25.05.2001. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that
recovery of the amount was at the instance of the accused from the
bedroom, as such, the prosecution proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779
(1979) 4 Supreme Court Cases 725
11. It is the case of PW1 that though application was made and
the concerned fee was paid by way of Demand Drafts, the accused
had dodged the issue and refused to act until the demand of bribe
was fulfilled. The accused produced Exs.X1 to X4 to substantiate
that no work was pending with the accused. It is further his case
that the work of PW1 was not pending before him and in fact, the
allotment should be made to him by superior officer for giving
connection, which was not made at all.
12. Exs.X1 to X4 were summoned during the course of trial. At
the earliest point of time when the accused was questioned
regarding the demand of bribe, no such defence that no work was
pending with accused was not stated. Admittedly, the documents
were in possession of the Department until produced during the
evidence of PW4 on 16.08.2007. The authenticity of the documents
and entries made therein would become doubtful for the reason of
the said aspects not being stated by the accused till nearly after six
years of the trap. The application and the connected file of PW1 was
seized from the office at the instance of the accused. If at all the
work of PW1 was not entrusted to the accused and processing was
not done, the question of the application and file of PW1 being in
possession of the appellant does not arise. As already discussed
though, the entries under Exs.X1 to X4 support the version of the
accused however, such version was placed before the Court after
six years and entries in the documents being made subsequently
cannot be ruled out. It is not suggested to PW1 that his work was
not pending with accused.
13. On the trap date, the defence of the accused is that PW1
thrust the amount of bribe into the hands of accused and
immediately the trap party arrived. However, the evidence is
otherwise. According to PW2 and PW1, the amount was demanded
and accepted from PW1 and thereafter the appellant went inside
the house and placed the bribe amount in the dressing table
drawer. During the course of Post Trap proceedings and according
to the independent witness, when the trap party entered the house
accused was found in the Verandah, when questioned regarding the
amount, accused went inside the bed room and pointed out the
currency notes that were in dressing table. The said recovery is
contrary to the version of the accused that the amount was thrust
in the hands of PW1 and immediately, the trap party entered and
caught hold of the accused.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion there leaves no amount of
doubt regarding the pendency of work with PW1, the demand and
acceptance by the accused. There are no grounds to interfere with
the Judgment of Court below.
15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction
recorded by the trial Court is confirmed. The trial Court is directed
to cause appearance of the appellant/accused officer and send him
to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.07.2024
tk
