Telangana High Court
M.Madhava Rao, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Spl Pp., on 13 March, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1303 OF 2008
Between:
M.Madhava Rao ... Appellant
And
The State ACB, Karimnagar Range.
rep. by Special Public Prosecutor ..Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : .03.2024
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 their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.A. No.1303 of 2008
% Dated 13.03.2024
# M.Madhava Rao ... Appellant
And
$ The State ACB, Karimnagar Range.
rep. by Special Public Prosecutor ..Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Badeti Venkata Rathnam
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala,
Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2001 AIR SCW 2415
2
1995 CRI.L.J 3978
3
1992 CRI.L.J 608
4
2000 CRI.L.J 2273
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1303 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section
7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months and one year respectively vide judgment in
C.C.No.22 of 2004 dated 23.10.2008 passed by the Principal
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
2. Briefly, the case of P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant
is that he submitted Ex.P1 application for issuance of
authorization/licence to run a fair price shop. In October, 2002,
interviews were conducted and it was informed by the RDO that
agreement, challan etc., have to be submitted for the licence.
Accordingly, original challan and other documents were
submitted on 13.02.2003 by PW1. On 14.02.2003, P.W.1 met
the appellant who was working as Senior Assistant and
enquired about dealership licence, for which appellant
demanded Rs.5,000/- for processing the application and issuing
the licence. Again on 18.02.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant and
requested to issue dealership. However, the appellant insisted
for paying bribe amount, but reduced the bribe to Rs.4,500/-.
3. P.W.1 approached the ACB authorities and lodged
complaint on 19.02.2003. P.W.6/DSP asked the complainant to
come on the next day on which date trap would be arranged. On
20.02.2003, P.W.1 went to the ACB office where DSP, mediators
and other members of the trap party were present. The
formalities before proceeding to lay a trap were completed. The
pre-trap proceedings Ex.P12 was drafted in the office of ACB-
DSP.
4. The trap party members went to the office of the appellant
around 1.00 p.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into the office of the
appellant. On demand made, P.W.1 stated that he brought the
bribe amount. Appellant asked P.W.1 to keep the amount on the
register which was on the table. PW1 placed bribe amount on
the said register and P.W.2 accompanying witness who is
brother of P.W.1, went outside and signaled to the trap party
regarding acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
5. The trap party entered into the office room and questioned
regarding the bribe amount and the appellant stated that he did
not receive any amount. Tests were conducted on the hands of
the appellant and test on both the hands remained negative.
The shirt and pant pockets of the appellant were searched and
cash found in the pockets was verified, however the numbers of
currency notes did not tally. The trap party then searched the
registers on the table and found bribe amount in between the
files. The paper that came into contact with the currency notes
was tested. Further, on questioning, the appellant produced file
pertaining to P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P4. Having
concluded post trap proceedings, the events were narrated and
same was drafted as Ex.P15.
6. The Investigating Officer/P.W.7 examined witnesses and
after conclusion of investigation and securing sanction order,
filed charge sheet.
7. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined
and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. The appellant examined two
witnesses D.Ws.1 and 2 and also marked Ex.D1, which is the
copy of post trap proceedings Ex.P15.
8. Learned Special Judge, having considered the evidence on
record found that work was pending with the appellant and
both P.Ws.1 and 2 are witnesses to the demand and acceptance
of bribe. The consequent search and recovery of currency notes
was also proved and it is enough proof of the guilt of the
appellant. Accordingly, appellant was convicted.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that even according to the prosecution case, the appellant
stated at the earliest point of time that he was not aware about
any money being given to him by P.W.1. The test on both hands
was negative indicating that the money was not handled by the
appellant. The crucial aspect of a telephone call being made by
P.W.1 to P.W.5 was not considered during investigation nor
during trial. In the chief examination of P.W.5/Tahsildar, he
specifically stated that on the trap day around 1.00 p.m, the
appellant telephoned to his office from the RDO Office, which
was answered by him. The appellant informed PW5 that P.W.1
complied all the formalities and would send authorization from
RDO on 24.02.2003 to the office of P.W.5 and meanwhile
informed P.W.5 to accept the demand draft and release the
stocks to P.W.1. Admittedly, only one landline telephone was
available in the office of RDO and it was not in the room of the
appellant. Admittedly, the appellant had to go out of the office to
make a phone call to P.W.5 during which time, P.W.1 planted
the amount and placed in between the registers on the table of
the appellant. The said aspect of planting is strengthened by the
fact that the appellant did not have knowledge about currency
that was found in the registers on his table.
10. Counsel further submitted that P.W.2 accompanying
witness had specifically stated that D.W.2 was present in the
office when the trap had taken place and D.W.2 informed when
P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into the office and enquired about the
appellant with him, D.W.2 stated that appellant went to the
bath room and will be back in few minutes. After few minutes,
the appellant came back to the seat and discussed about fair
price shop dealership with PW1 and again appellant left his seat
and came back after some time. He then informed P.W.1 that he
contacted MRO office on phone and he would send the papers
and authorization on 24.02.2003. Immediately, the ACB
authorities had raided. D.W.2 was examined during prost trap
proceedings and also in the departmental enquiry that was
conducted against the appellant. The prosecution has failed to
explain as to how the telephone call would have been made by
the appellant while P.Ws.1 and 2 are in the office during trap
proceedings. All the circumstances would indicate that the
money was planted by P.Ws.1 and 2.
11. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan
and another 1, wherein it was held on facts that planting of bribe
amount was probable and accordingly found favour with the
accused.
12. In M.K.Harshan v. State of Kerala 2, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court accepted the plea of planting the amount also for the
reason of the hands of the accused turning negative for the tests
conducted.
13. In Ayyasami v. State of Tamil Nadu 3, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court found that there was no independent evidence about the
demand of bribe and held that on mere probabilities, conviction
cannot be based.
14. In Smt.Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra 4,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery from the
2001 AIR SCW 2415
1995 CRI.L.J 3978
1992 CRI.L.J 608
2000 CRI.L.J 2273
table drawer would not conclusively lead to the inference of
acceptance of bribe.
15. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
would submit that the file pertaining to P.W.1 was in fact
pending with the appellant and same is not disputed. Both
P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that the appellant demanded bribe
and asked bribe amount to be placed in between the register.
For the reason of denying acceptance of bribe, it cannot be said
that the appellant did not demand bribe since work was
pending with him and recovery was also made from the table of
the appellant.
16. Admittedly, according to the evidence of P.W.5, he stated
in his chief examination that he received phone call around
1.00 p.m. on trap day from the appellant asking him to
entertain the demand draft given by P.W.1 and release stocks in
favour of P.W.1. The telephone was not in the room of the
appellant. D.W.2, who was admittedly present in the office had
stated that when P.W.1 entered into office, the appellant was in
the bath room. After coming from the bath room, having spoken
to P.W.1, he went outside apparently for the reason of making
phone call and came back. There are two occasions on which
P.W.1 was present in the room of the appellant in the absence
of the appellant. Initially, when P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into office,
appellant was not present and subsequently, appellant went
outside to make a phone call to P.W.5 and then came back.
17. On the date of trap, the bribe amount was not recovered at
the instance of the appellant. On questioning by the DSP, the
appellant stated that he was not aware about any bribe money.
Accordingly, the pant and shirt pockets of the appellant were
checked and when the amount was not found, the table was
searched by the trap party. The amount was found by the trap
party in between the registers which were lying on the table of
the appellant. During post trap proceedings, the factum of the
appellant going out of the room and making phone call to P.W.5
was not mentioned. Even during the course of subsequent
investigation, though P.W.5 stated that around 1.00 p.m on
trap day when P.Ws.1 and 2 met the appellant, phone call was
made by the appellant to P.W.5, however, there was no
investigation regarding the phone call and the reason of
suppression of information regarding phone call by P.Ws.1 and
2. The presence of D.W.2 was also stated by P.W.2 in his cross-
examination. At the earliest point of time, during second
mediators' report, the appellant specifically stated that he was
not aware as to how the amount was found on his table in
between the registers. The money was not recovered at the
instance of the appellant.
18. There arises any amount of doubt regarding the
prosecution case mainly in the back ground of suppression of
the appellant going out and making phone call to PW.5 while
P.Ws.1 and 2 were present in the room. The said aspect is in
consonance with the defence taken by the appellant that money
was planted. Cumulatively, the facts in the present case do not
make out a case of demand of bribe by the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to
the appellant.
19. In the result, the judgment in C.C.No.22 of 2004 dated
23.10.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE &
ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is hereby set aside.
Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
20. Criminal Appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 13.03.2024
Note: L.R.copy to be marked.
B/o. kvs
