Telangana High Court
Sri Kayithi Manohar Reddy vs The State Of A.P., Thru A.C.B., ... on 24 June, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 22 OF 2010
Between:
Sri Kayithi Manohar Reddy
... Appellant/
Accused
And
The State of A.P. rep. by the Inspector of
Police, ACB, Nizamabad Range,
Nizamabad, Rep. by Spl.Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 24.06.2024
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. 22 OF 2010
% Dated 24.06.2024
# Sri Kayithi Manohar Reddy
... Appellant/
Accused
And
$ The State of A.P. rep. by the Inspector of
Police, ACB, Nizamabad Range,
Nizamabad, Rep. by Spl.Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Hyderabad.
... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.Hariprasad Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Spl.Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 450
2
(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
3
2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 883 (SC)
4
2013 (3) ALT (CRL.)(SC) 316 (D.B.)
5
(2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 55
6
AIR 1970 Supreme Court 450
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.22 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused Officer,
questioning the conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for SPE
& ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.22/2005 vide
Judgement dated 31.12.2009, and sentencing him to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C.Act,
1988; and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) r/w.Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the Special Public
Prosecutor representing ACB.
3. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 who is the defacto
complainant was driver of an Auto. The Government allotted Fair
Price Shop in the name of his wife. Rice was delivered to daily wage
labour under the 'Food for work' Scheme. In the said connection,
Rs.6,800/- was due towards commission from the government for
distributing the rice according to the scheme. The Accused Officer
who was the Deputy MRO informed PW1 about the said commission
amount that his wife would get. PW1 and his wife PW2 met the
Accused Officer and asked for the amount. The Accused Officer
demanded 25% of the commission amount of Rs.6,800/- which is
Rs.1,700/-. Aggrieved by the said demand on 30.11.2003, PW1
approached the DSP, ACB - PW8 and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. Having
received the complaint, trap was arranged on 02.12.2003.
4. Both PW1-Defacto Complainant and his wife-PW2 went to the
office of ACB on 02.12.2003. Apart from PW1 and PW2, PW8-DSP,
PW10-Inspector along with PW3-independent witness and others,
formed part of the trap party. The Pre Trap Proceedings were drafted
in the office of DSP which is Ex.P4. Having concluded the pre-trap
proceedings, the trap party proceeded to the office of the Accused
Officer. Both PWs.1 and 2 entered into the office and came to know
that the accused officer was on tour. Both of them came out and
informed the DSP-PW8 about the absence of the accused officer. The
trap party left and after having lunch came back around 3.30 p.m. to
the office of the Accused Officer and waited.
5. The Accused Officer came to the office on a motorcycle and
having parked the vehicle went to his table. PWs.1 and 2 met the
accused and enquired about the amount that would be paid to them
for which the accused officer demanded bribe. Bribe amount was
handed over and the accused counted the amount with both hands
and kept the same in his left side shirt pocket. Then, PW2 was asked
to sign in the acquaintance register and in the meantime, PW1 went
out and signalled to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance
of bribe by the accused officer. The trap party entered into the office.
6. The DSP questioned the Accused officer about the bribe amount
and even prior to that tested both the hands in the presence of
mediators with Sodium Carbonate powder solution. Phenolphthalein
powder was smeared on the currency notes. To verify whether the
said notes were handled by the accused, test was conducted. The
Sodium Carbonate solution test turned positive on both hands of the
accused officer. Thereafter, the accused handed over the bribe
amount from his shirt pocket. The accused was examined during post
trap proceedings. The complainant and others were also examined.
The relevant documents pertaining to the work, commission bills etc.
were seized during the said Proceedings. After conclusion of the Post
Trap proceedings, investigation was handed over to PW10.
Investigating Officer-PW10, having examined the relevant witnesses
and collecting documents and after obtaining sanction from the
competent authority filed charge sheet.
7. The Special Judge framed charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)
of the P.C.Act. On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 10 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. M.Os.1 to 8 were also
placed on record by the prosecution. DW1 who was Fair Price Shop
dealer was examined in defence.
8. The learned Special Judge found that the evidence of PW1 and
also the other circumstances relied on by the prosecution are
convincing and accordingly convicted the appellant.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the learned Special Judge committed an error in convicting the
accused when the complainant-PW1 and his wife both turned hostile
to the prosecution case. The very case of the prosecution regarding
the demand and acceptance was not spoken to by PWs.1 and 2, as
such, the question of convicting the accused does not arise. Further,
DW1 who was present when the incident had taken place had clearly
stated that the amount was given towards repayment of loan. In the
background of the witnesses turning hostile and the defence of the
accused being probable, the conviction has to be reversed. At the
earliest point of time, even according to the mediator-PW3 and DSP-
PW8, and also as seen from the Ex.P10-Post Trap Proceedings, the
demand of bribe was denied by the accused.
10. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in State of Kerala and another v. C.P.Rao 1
wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court held that mere recovery of
the bribe amount itself is not sufficient to prove charge of bribery and
unless demand is proved, conviction cannot be sustained.
11. In Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra 2 the Honourable
Supreme Court held in the circumstances of the case that the
statement made during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
convincing and accordingly acquitted the accused.
12. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police
and another 3 the Honourable Three Judge bench of the Supreme
Court held that proof of demand is indispensible essentiality to prove
the offence under Section 7, 13 (1)(d) of the P.C.Act. In the absence of
proof of such demand, the recovery of currency from possession of the
accused would not establish the offence of bribery.
13. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam 4 the Honourable Supreme
Court held that the circumstances in a criminal case has to be
established beyond reasonable doubt.
(2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 450
(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 883 (SC)
2013 (3) ALT (CRL.)(SC) 316 (D.B.)
14. Learned Counsel also relied on the Judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court in B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 5;
Lachman Dass v. State of Punjab 6 wherein the Honourable
Supreme Court while dealing with trap cases held that the defence of
an accused has to be tested on the basis of probability and
uncorroborated testimony of the complainant cannot form basis to
convict the accused.
15. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing
on behalf of the ACB would submit that whatever was stated by PW1
during chief-examination corroborates with the version of demand
and acceptance of bribe by the accused. The cross-examination was
deferred and later, PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution case during
cross examination and stated that the amount was returned to the
accused which was taken as loan. The witness was won over and
thereafter has turned hostile. In the said circumstances, when PW1
had specifically stated regarding the demand of bribe and the recovery
on the trap date would suffice to make out an offence of bribery
against the accused. Since the hostility was on account of PW1 being
won over by the accused, the portion of his statement involving the
accused in the case should be considered and accordingly, appeal has
to be dismissed.
(2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 55
AIR 1970 Supreme Court 450
16. PW1 has stated during chief-examination, initially, that there
was demand and acceptance of bribe. However, the accompanying
witness-PW2 who is wife of PW1 has completely turned hostile to the
prosecution case and did not state anything about any kind of
demand and acceptance. However, PW1 though in the chief-
examination stated against the accused, however, during cross-
examination supported the version of accused that the amount was
given towards repayment of loan. Apparently, PW1 is a self-
condemned witness. He has given two different versions before the
Court. One version corroborating with the complaint and one version
denying demand, which denial statement was also made before the
Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. PW1 admitted that he
was examined by the Magistrate on 23.12.2003 i.e. 20 days after the
trap. During the statement before the Magistrate, he stated that the
amount paid to accused was towards repayment of loan taken by him.
17. PW1 is the witness who has no respect for truth. Before the
Magistrate, 20 days after the trap, he stated that the bribe amount
was paid towards loan. He further stated in his cross-examination
that the ACB authorities had threatened him to speak about the
version of demand of bribe by accused before chief-examination
commenced in the Special Court. A self contradictory witness who
states different versions at different times, his evidence cannot be
relied upon selectively and in such circumstances. The Court has to
look into other evidence that has been placed before the Court to infer
demand and acceptance of bribe.
18. The other corroborating accompanying witness regarding the
demand and acceptance is PW2 and she has turned hostile to the
prosecution case. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, he
stated that in fact he was running the Fair Price Shop which was in
the name of PW2 and on 02.10.2003, proceedings were issued by the
R.D.O. cancelling the dealership of his wife. The reason was the
allegation of misappropriation of the rice around 13.15 Quintals for
which show cause notice was also issued in July, 2003. There
appears to be anger on account of cancellation of licence of fair price
shop, which adversely affects PWs.1 and 2's income.
19. The Honourable Supreme Court in Punjab Raos's case (supra
2) held that if the defence taken by the accused during trial appears
to be probable, the same can be considered. The version of all the
accused is consistent stating that the amount on the trap date was
towards repayment of the loan amount which was supported by both
PWs.1 and 2 and also DW1-independent witness. Further the Fair
Price Shop dealership in the name of PW2 was cancelled on the
allegation of misappropriation of rice. As seen from the evidence, there
is no other witness apart from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding
the demand. In fact, the contents of Ex.P1 were disowned by PW1
during trial. There is absolutely no evidence in the case which
establishes by admissible evidence and proof beyond reasonable
doubt the factum of demand by the accused. The Honourable
Supreme Court in State of Kerala and another v. C.P.Rao (supra
1), P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police and
another (supra 3), B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra
5), held that in the absence of proof of demand, the subsequent
evidence of recovery cannot form basis to prove the offence of bribery
against the accused. The only evidence that is relied on by the
prosecution is the recovery and the unreliable evidence of PW1
regarding demand.
20. In the said circumstances, since the factum of demand is not
proved by the prosecution, mere recovery of the amount from the
accused on the date of trap cannot form basis to sustain the
conviction recorded by the trial Judge.
21. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and allowed, setting aside the
conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.22 of 2005 dt.31.12.2009,
under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. Since the
appellant/accused officer is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.06.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.tk
