Telangana High Court
M.Vidyasagar vs The State, on 22 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 392 OF 2011
Between:
M.Vidya Sagar ... Appellant
And
The State rep. by ACB,
Hyderabad Range ... Respondent
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. 392 OF 2011
% Dated 22.07.2024
# M.Vidya Sagar ... Appellant
And
$ The State rep. by ACB,
Hyderabad Range ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Badeti Venkata Rathnam
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549
2. (2014 CRI.L.J 2433)
3. (1995 CRI.L.J 3978)
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.392 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the conviction by the Special Court 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.22 of 2007 dated
29.03.2011, the present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/defacto
complainant was a sub-contractor of electrical works. He took up
the said contract work of fixing electrical transformer and electrical
meters to the building 'Aditya Homes' at Nizamapet, Kukatpally.
The said work was completed in the month of February, 2006. After
completing the work, he met the appellant, who was Additional
Assistant Engineer, APCPDCL. After inspecting the work, the
appellant intimated to the ADE. However, after inspection, the
transformer was not charged (not given electric connection). P.W.1
went around the office of P.W.3/ADE, who informed P.W.1 that he
had already instructed the appellant to charge the transformer.
However, when P.W.1 met the appellant, demand for Rs.15,000/-
was made for charging the transformer. Again on 14.03.2006, P.W.1
met the appellant and the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.8,000/-.
Since connection was not given to the transformer and the
appellant insisted for payment of bribe, P.W.1 approached, P.W.6,
who is DSP, ACB and filed complaint. The DSP arranged to trap the
appellant on 16.03.2006.
3. On 16.03.2006, the trap party members including P.Ws.1, 2, 6
and others gathered in the office of the DSP and the formalities
before proceeding to lay trap were concluded. The said proceedings
were drafted as Ex.P5, pre-trap proceedings. Thereafter, the entire
trap party went to the office of the appellant. P.W.1 and another
constable namely Sudershan Reddy (not examined) went inside the
office around 12.45 p.m. Around 1.20 p.m, both P.W.1 and the said
Sudershan Reddy, constable relayed the signal to the trap party
indicating demand and acceptance of bribe. The DSP went inside
and questioned regarding bribe amount. Sodium carbonate solution
test was also conducted on the hands of the appellant to know
whether the phenolphthalein smeared bribe amount was handled
by the appellant. The test on both the hands proved positive. The
amount was produced by the appellant from the right side table
drawer. All the other formalities were concluded in the post-trap
proceedings and proceedings are drafted which is Ex.P8.
4. The DSP/P.W.6 handed over the investigation to the
Inspector/P.W.7 who concluded investigation and filed charge
sheet. Learned Special Judge, examined the evidence placed on
record by both the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to
P11 and also the defence witness D.W.1 and Ex.D1. The learned
Special Judge found that though P.W.1 turned hostile to the
prosecution case, however the other circumstances in the case was
proof enough to convict the appellant for the offence of bribery.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would
submit that no official work was pending with the appellant. Even
according to the official witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4, the work of
charging the transformer pursuant to application made by P.W.1
was not entrusted to him. Further, the only evidence of demand
which was spoken to by P.W.1 during investigation had turned
hostile to the prosecution case and supported the version of
defence. In the said circumstances, when the factum of demand is
not proved, mere recovery cannot form basis to convict the
appellant. The version of the appellant is in fact supported by the
admissions of the official witnesses and Ex.D1 whereby the
appellant was not person to charge the transformer, but it was the
ADE, who is the superior officer.
6. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District
Inspector of Police (AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549) and argued
that proving demand is on the prosecution and once the
prosecution fails to prove its case of demand, mere recovery of the
bribe amount cannot form basis to convict the appellant.
7. In the other case of B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P (2014 CRI.L.J
2433) cited by appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing
with case of hostility of the complainant and having found that the
demand was not proved, held that mere recovery is not sufficient to
convict the accused. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment in
the case of M.K.Harshan v. State of Kerala (1995 CRI.L.J 3978).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment found favour with
the plea of the accused that the tainted currency was planted in his
table drawer without his knowledge.
8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
submitted that the relevant file pertaining to P.W.1 was seized at
the instance of the appellant. Even on the trap date, his hands had
turned positive for handling the amount, as such, defence taken by
the appellant that amount was planted cannot be accepted. Since
the prosecution has proved its case of demand and acceptance, the
appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. During the
course of his chief examination, he stated that the appellant
inspected the work and instructed him to meet the ADE. The
ADE/P.W.3 then informed P.W.1 that he would ask appellant to
charge the transformer. Since the appellant and ADE were asking to
meet the other person for charging, he lodged a complaint with the
DSP, ACB. The complaint was drafted to the dictation of the
DSP/P.W.6. P.W.1 further stated that he along with another
constable went inside the office on the date of trap and P.W.1 was
asked by the DSP to place the bribe amount in the table drawer of
the appellant.
10. Since P.W.1 did not speak about appellant demanding any
bribe, the Court has to look into the other circumstances of the
case ignoring the hostility of the complainant to conclude whether
the case is made out against the appellant or not.
11. The only witness to the alleged demand made by the appellant
is P.W.1. He has turned hostile to the prosecution case. It is on
record that one Sudershan Reddy, constable also accompanied
P.W.1 into the office on the date of trap when the amount was
handed over to the appellant. However, for the reasons best known
to the prosecution, he was not examined before the Court nor cited
as a witness in the charge sheet. In the absence of proof of demand,
the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt, but the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand aspect.
12. Ex.D1, which was marked during the course of trial are the
rules whereby it is the Assistant Divisional Engineer/P.W.3 who is
competent to give connection/charge the transformer. Though it is
stated by P.W.3 that he has endorsed to the appellant that
transformer should be charged, however, during the course of
cross-examination, he admitted that in accordance with the
department manual only the ADE or the DE have powers to charge
the transformer. Further, it is not in dispute that the meters were
provided by the appellant in accordance with the rules and
procedure.
13. P.W.1/defacto complainant himself has refused to support the
version of the prosecution that there was demand for bribe.
Though, P.W.3 stated that he has endorsed on the file that the
transformer has to be charged, it is not specifically mentioned in
second page of Ex.P9 that direction was given to the appellant to
charge the transformer.
14. On the date of trap, the amount was recovered from table
drawer. According to P.W.1, he had planted the said amount in the
absence of the appellant after he went inside the house. According
to P.W.1's version after placing the amount, he shook hands with
the appellant and came out. The said version is relied on by the
defence to explain the test on both the hands of the appellant
turning positive.
15. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that initial burden of proving the demand is on the prosecution,
since, the prosecution failed to prove demand beyond reasonable
doubt, keeping in view the hostility of P.W.1 and not examining the
constable, who accompanied P.W.1 on the date of trap, benefit of
doubt is extended to the appellant.
16. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.22 of 2007,
dated 29.03.2011 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
17. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.07.2024
kvs
