Telangana High Court
Sri Basireddy Ravinder Reddy Died Per Lr ... vs State Of Ap.,Rep Inspector Of Police, ... on 24 July, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1094 OF 2012
Between:
1. Sri Basireddy Ravinder Reddy (died)
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
2. Smt.Basireddy Padma ...Appellant/
And
State of A.P., rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, CIU, Hyderabad, Rep. by
Spl.Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 24.07.2024
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. 1094 OF 2012
% Dated 24.07.2024
# 1. Sri Basireddy Ravinder Reddy (died)
... Appellant/
Accused Officer
2. 2. Smt.Basireddy Padma ...Appellant/
And
$ State of A.P., rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, CIU, Hyderabad, Rep. by
Spl.Public Prosecutor, High Court,
Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri C.Sharan Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2020) 7 SCC
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1094 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under sections
7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevetion of Corruption Act, 1988,
on the allegation of accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The appellant died during the course of pendency of the
appeal and accordingly permission was sought by the legal heirs
who are the wife and daughter to prosecute the appeal. Permission
was granted.
3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant/PW1
was a motor mechanic. One A.Praveen used to give him a two
wheeler for repair. However, the Inspector (not prosecuted) along
with the appellant who was Constable went to PW.1's mechanic
shop of 19.04.2008 and informed that the two wheeler which was
given by Praveen was stolen vehicle. An amount of Rs.1,500/- was
taken from PW1 and the Inspector also threatened him saying that
PW1 knew about the commission of theft of the vehicle. PW1
pleaded with the Inspector and the appellant saying that he does
not know anything about the factum of theft of two wheeler by
Praveen. The telephone numbers of the Inspector and the
appellant were given to PW1 and asked him to appear in Police
Station on 22.04.2008.
4. PW1 along with PW4 who is his friend went to the Police
Station on 22.04.2008 on which date it is alleged that inspector
made the demand for Rs.10,000/-, failing which, Inspector
threatened that case would also be registered against PW1. PW1
requested that he could not arrange for such huge amount.
Appellant then met Inspector and informed PW.1 that was reduced
by Rs.5,000/-. PW1 thereafter borrowed an amount of Rs.2,500/-
from PW.4. However, on the suggestion made by PW4, they went
to TV9 news channel net work. PW5 was the head of the team
which was running a programme namely 'NIGHA' (surveillance).
Then, PW5 deputed one of his camera men, PW2 namely
Muralidhar, who fixed Spy Cameras on the person of PWs.2 and
PW4.
5. PWs.1, 2 and 4 then went to the Central Crime Station
(CCS), Saroornagar Police Station on 24.04.2008 where the
Inspector and appellant were present. The amount of Rs.2,500/-
was paid by PW1. However, there was demand for remaining
amount of Rs.1,000/- out of the total bribe of Rs.5,000/- as
demanded by the Inspector and informed by the appellant herein.
6. PW1 then decided to lodge a complaint with ACB. The
complaint-Ex.P1 was drafted by PW5 to the dictation of PW1 and
handed over to the DSP-PW9. The DSP informed that the trap
would be arranged on 26.04.2008. On the said day, PW1, PW2,
PW5, PW9 and others formed the trap party and they assembled
in the office of the DSP/PW9. The formalities before proceeding to
the trap were all followed and what all transpired was reduced
into writing as pre trap proceedings which is Ex.P5.
7. Around 11.00 a.m., the trap party went to the police station.
While other members of the trap party waited at a distance, PW1
and PW2 entered into the police station. The Inspector was talking
with the staff in the police station and he directed PWs.1 and 2 to
meet the appellant. Then the appellant received the amount
counted it and placed it in his pocket. PW1 signalled to the trap
party indicating the demand and acceptance of bribe. PW9 and
others then went near the appellant and questioned the appellant
regarding the bribe amount. His fingers of both hands were tested
for the presence of Phenolphthalein powder, which Powder was
smeared to the currency notes. Phenolphthalein powder when
mixed with Sodium Carbonate solution would turn into pink
colour. When Sodium Carbonate test was conducted on both the
hand fingers of the accused, they turned positive.
8. The DSP questioned PWs.1 and 2 and their versions were
recorded in Ex.P6 which is Post-trap proceedings. The seizure of
documents etc. and what all transpired during the course of Post
trap proceedings were also mentioned in Ex.P6.
9. The investigation was thereafter handed over by PW9 to
PW10-Inspector. Having examined witnesses, collecting spy cam
footage which was converted into Compact Disks and taking
sanction orders to prosecute the appellant, charge sheet was filed
by PW.10.
10. It needs to be mentioned that though ACB sought sanction
for prosecuting the Inspector who was arrayed as A1 in the FIR,
the Government declined sanction to prosecute the Inspector and
sanction was only granted to prosecute the appellant-Constable.
11. The learned Special Judge having framed charges for the
offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the to the Prevention of
Corruption Act, examined PWs.1 to 10 witnesses on behalf of
prosecution and also marked Exs.P1 to P12. The resultant
solutions, tainted currency etc. which are M.Os.1 to 8 were also
brought on record. The accused marked portions of 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW2 as Exs.D1 to D5. The learned Special Judge
found that though the Inspector was not prosecuted the
prosecution had clearly made out its case against the
appellant/constable and accordingly convicted him.
12. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the recordings which happened on 24.04.2008 and
26.04.2008 with the help of spy cameras were converted into
Compact Disks which are marked as Exs.P2 and P3. There is no
certification as required under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence
Act, for which reason the said CDs cannot be looked into.
13. Learned Counsel relied on the Full Judge Bench of
Honourable Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others 1.
14. Counsel further argued that even according to PW.1, the
inspector was the person who demanded the amount from PW1
according to PW.1. However the appellant acted as an agent or
mediator between the Inspector and PW1. Inspector reduced the
bribe amount to Rs.5,000/-. Since there is no direct demand by
the appellant, the question of convicting him on the basis of
recovery on the trap date is bad in law. Counsel further argued
that mere recovery of the amount without proof of there being a
demand made by the appellant, the conviction has to be set aside.
(2020) 7 SCC
15. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the ACB would submit that though the Inspector
was not prosecuted it will have no impact on the prosecution of
the appellant. Even going by the evidence on record and the video
recordings would reflect that demand was made and accepted by
him. In the said circumstances, argument of the counsel regarding
there being no demand is wholly incorrect.
16. There is no dispute with respect to the proposition laid down
by the Honourable Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao's case
regarding the requirement of 65-B certificate. However, since the
Court below did not rely upon the recordings under Exs.P2 and
P3, no further discussion is required.
17. Ex.P1 is the complaint which was given at the earliest point
of time. Having gone through the complaint, which contents are
admitted by PW.1, on the first visit, as narrated in the complaint,
on 19.04.2008, it is stated that Police from Saroornagar had
forcibly taken Rs.1,500/- from him. However, it is not mentioned
that the appellant had forced him in any manner. Further, the
Inspector Prasad had given his number and the appellant's
number and he was asked to appear in the Police Station on
22.04.2008. Even on 22.04.2008, it is stated that the Inspector
Prasad had threatened PW.1 when he met him and did not show
sympathy, though PW1 pleaded that he had nothing to do with
theft committed by the said Praveen. Inspector asked him to pay
Rs.10,000/- as bribe. Thereafter, Inspector-Prasad informed PW1
to meet the appellant and discuss about the remaining issues.
PW1, then pleaded with the appellant about his incapacity to pay
the amount. Then the appellant went inside, talked to the
Inspector Prasad and informed PW1 that the bribe was reduced to
Rs.5,000/-. PW1 pleaded that he did not have money for which
reason a bond was taken from PW4, friend of PW.1 and informed
that the bribe should be paid on 24.04.2008. On 24.04.2008 PW.1
and PW.4 met PW5 who arranged for spy cameras with help of the
cameraman PW2, to record proceedings when they meet the
Inspector and the appellant. It is further stated by PW1 that on
24.04.2008, he met the Inspector Prasad and gave him Rs.2,500/-
through the appellant. PW1 was informed that in all Rs.4,000/-
was received and the remaining Rs.1,000/- has to be paid on
26.04.2008. The said demand was made by both Prasad and the
appellant.
18. Aggrieved by the said demand of bribe, PWs.1 and 4 then
approached the ACB authorities and lodged the complaint. On the
date of trap, according to PW2 as admitted in his cross-
examination he was not sure who among the Inspector or
appellant the bribe had to be paid. PW1 in his chief-examination
stated that when he entered into the Police station, he found the
Inspector talking outside the station with his staff. Then the
Inspector instructed PW1 to approach the appellant. When he
went inside and met appellant, the appellant enquired regarding
the amount. Then PW1 was taken outside the police station by
appellant near parking area and PW.1 paid the amount to the
appellant.
19. According to PW2, on 24.04.2008 and also on 26.04.2008
the happenings were video recorded. However it is strange that
the conversation with the Prasad-Inspector could not be recorded
and only the conversation with the appellant was recorded. It is
admitted by PW2 that the conversation with Prasad-Inspector was
not recorded due to technical failure in the camera. As seen from
the version of PWs.1, 2 and 4, PW1 met the Inspector first and
then the appellant on both the days. However, the recordings,
strangely, were only the conversaion with the appellant and not
with the Inspector. That itself shows that the evidence of video
recording was tampered during investigation and placed on record
as Exs.P2 and P3.
20. Two crucial aspects have to be proved by the prosecution.
Firstly, the demand has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
and only then, the Court can rely on the factum of recovery of the
amount from the accused. As already discussed on 19.04.2008, it
is stated that Rs.1,500/- was forcibly taken without mentioning
the name of appellant. On 22.04.2008, Inspector Prasad
threatened PW1 and the appellant was present. On the same day
though demand for Rs.10,000/- was made by the Inspector
Prasad, the appellant met him and thereafter the amount was
reduced to Rs.5,000/- by the Inspector which was conveyed by the
appellant to PW1. On 24.04.2008 also PW1 met the Inspector and
according to him, the amount of Rs.2,500/- was paid to the
Inspector through the appellant.
21. It is not the case of PW1 that the appellant had demanded
any amount separately or over and above the amount demanded
by the Inspector-Prasad. In fact, when Prasad-Inspector made a
demand for Rs.10,000/-, the appellant convinced Inspector and
saw to that the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.5,000/-. Even on
the date of trap, PW1 met Prasad-Inspector who asked him to
meet the appellant. According to PW1 on all the days including the
trap day, the bribe was intended to be paid to Prasad-Inspector
and since Prasad had asked PW1 to pay the said bribe amount to
the appellant, it was handed over to the appellant.
22. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as
under;
"7. Public Servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official act__ Wherever
being or expecting to bear a Public Servant, accepts or
obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from
any person, any gratification whatever, other than legal
remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do any official act or for showing or
forbearing to show in the exercise of his official
functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for
rendering or attempting to render any service or
disservice to any person with the Central Government or
any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of
any State or with any Local Authority, Corporation or
Government Company referred to in clause (c) of Section
2, or with any Public Servant whether named or
otherwise shall be punishable with imprisonment which
shall not be less than six months but which may extend
to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
23. The ingredients of the offence are;
i) The accused being a public servant accepts, obtains
or agrees to accept or makes attempt to obtain illegal
gratification from any person
ii) for himself or any other person and such
gratification is not remuneration to which the accused
is entitled to;
iii) The accused accepted such gratification as a motive
or reward for
a) Doing an official act or to show favour or disfavour
to someone in exercise of his official duties
b) Or render any service or disservice to any person
with the Central Government or State Government.
24. The sin-qua-non for attracting an offence of bribery
punishable under Section 7 is the voluntary act of demand and
accepting the same for doing any official act in exercise of his
official functions to do any favour or disfavour.
25. Admittedly, the demand was made by Inspector-Prasad. It is
not the case of the prosecution that the appellant has the official
capacity of doing any favour as in the present case to either drop
any criminal proceedings against the complainant-PW1 or involve
him in any case. In such circumstances, when the appellant was
not in a position or had the capacity to do any official favour, the
offence under section 7 would not attract. As already discussed
the demand was made by Inspector-Prasad who according to the
prosecution had the powers to either involve or not involve PW1 in
the criminal case of theft along with one Praveen.
26. The prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had
any capacity to do any favour or disfavour to PW1. Further, the
demand was made by Inspector-Prasad and the appellant was
acting in accordance with the directions of the said Inspector. At
the cost of repetition it is not the case of prosecution that any part
of the amount was either meant for the appellant or that the
appellant had asked for any amount from PW1.
27. Accordingly, Criminal appeal is allowed and the
appellant/accused is acquitted. The conviction recorded by the
First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil
Court, in CC.No.39/2009, dated 19.10.2012, is hereby set aside.
Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.07.2024
tk
