Telangana High Court
P. Parthasaradhi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 March, 2024
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.14 OF 2008
Between:
P.Parthasaradhi ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P,
rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor,
ACB. ..Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :27.03.2024
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.14 of 2008
% Dated 27.03.2024
# P.Parthasaradhi ... Appellant
And
$ The State of Telangana
rep. by Spl.Public Prosecutor, ACB Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri C.Sharan Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Vidyasagar Rao Chitneni
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2015 (10) SCC 152
2
(2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 574
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.14 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant/A1 is aggrieved by the conviction recorded by
the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court
at Hyderabad for the under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of the Act of 1988 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(for short "the Act of 1988") and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts, vide
judgment in CC No.49 of 2004 dated 20.12.2007, the present
appeal is filed. A2 was also tried along with the appellant/A1 and
convicted. However, due to his death, the appeal filed by A2 was
dismissed as abated.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was
working as Mandal Revenue Officer, Penubally Mandal, Khammam
District. The father of P.W.1/defacto complainant died in the year
1999. P.W.1 was going around the office for three years to mutate
his name in the revenue records in the place of his father. The
application was also filed. However, he approached A1 on
07.08.2002 requesting him to process his application for mutating
his name in the revenue records. The appellant demanded bribe of
Rs.5,000/- to mutate his name in the revenue records. On the next
day, i.e., on 08.08.2002 P.W.1 again met the appellant and he
asked P.W.1 to file another application Ex.P1 for mutation. Since he
was not inclined to give bribe, PW1 approached the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, ACB on 12.08.2002 and filed complaint
Ex.P2 in the ACB office. The DSP informed that the ACB personnel
will visit Khammam on 16.08.2002 for taking appropriate action.
3. The DSP along with independent mediators went to Khammam
and pre-trap proceedings were conducted in Sridhar Lodge near
Khammam Bus Stand. The said pre-trap proceedings were drafted,
which is Ex.P5. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings, the
trap party started to the office of the appellant and reached at 5.00
p.m. P.W.1 went into the office and found that the appellant was
not present and waited for him in his office room. Thereafter, A1
entered into the room and asked P.W.1 to wait outside. Meanwhile,
the appellant called A2 and after A2 arriving into the room, P.W.1
was called inside. A1 instructed A2 to take the money from P.W.1.
A2 took P.W.1 to a room by the side of appellant's room and there
A2 accepted money from PW1. The passbooks were also handed
over to A2. P.W.1 came out of the office and gave signal to the trap
party indicating the acceptance of bribe. The DSP and other trap
party members entered into the room and on questioning A1, he
denied having received any bribe amount. Then P.W.1 was called
inside the office and when questioned, P.W.1 stated to the DSP that
at the instance of the appellant, he handed over the amount to A2.
A2 was caught and test on his hands proved positive. Bribe money
was recovered from A2. However, test on the hands of the appellant
remained negative.
4. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked
Exs.P1 to P13 on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the
appellant, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. Learned Special Judge
found both the appellant/A1 and A2 guilty and accordingly
convicted them.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that as on the date of alleged demand which is 07.08.2002, no
application of P.W.1 was pending with the appellant. Even the
Investigating Officer stated that they could not trace the said
application and none of the officials in MRO office stated that any
such application of P.W.1 was pending. P.W.1 also did not give any
date or copy of such application, he had earlier claimed to have
filed. When the application itself was made on 08.08.2002, the
question of demanding bribe on 07.08.2002 does not arise. As on
the said date, there was no official favour which was pending with
the appellant. Further, the appellant had stated during the post
trap proceedings that he did not accept or demand any bribe from
P.W.1. The tests on the hands of the appellant remained negative.
In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any proof
of alleged demand made by A1. The appellant as MRO booked two
criminal complaints under Exs.D1 and D2 against son-in-law of
P.W.1 and he was prosecuted in both the cases. For the said
reason, P.W.1 was holding grudge against the appellant. He relied
on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P( F.B) 1 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that proof of demand is sine qua non
for convicting a person under Section 7 of the Act and mere
recovery of the amount is of no consequence. Similar view was
(2015 (10) SCC 152
taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Shanthamma
v. State of Telangana 2.
6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor argued
that the Trial Court has considered the evidence in its correct
perspective. Both demand and acceptance were proved. Though
recovery was made from A2, it is mentioned in the complaint that
the appellant demanded the amount. Accordingly the findings of the
trial Court needs no interference.
7. The case of P.W.1 is that he had been going around the office
nearly three years for mutating his name in the revenue records.
Though he stated that he had filed an application earlier, no
specific date or any copy of such application was produced.
Further, the Investigating Officer during his examination before the
Court stated that his enquiries did not reveal that any application
was earlier made by P.W.1 in the office of MRO.
8. P.W.1 is the only witness to state about demand being made
by the appellant on both the dates when he allegedly met the
appellant. Though it was alleged that demand was made on
(2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 574
07.08.2002, there was no application which was pending with the
appellant. However, application was made on 08.08.2002 but the
alleged demand made on 08.08.2002 is not mentioned in Ex.P2
complaint. As on the trap date, the DSP had not asked any of the
trap party members to accompany P.W.1 to witness what transpires
in between P.W.1 and the appellant. Even according to the
prosecution case, the amount was recovered from A2 and the
application and documents of P.W.1 were also recovered at the
instance of A2. The test on the hands of the appellant had remained
negative. There is no other witness who stated that P.W.1 met the
appellant on the trap date.
9. According to P.W.4, A2 was working as Village Secretary and
he did not receive Ex.P1 which was given by P.W.1 on 08.08.2002
and endorsed by appellant. As already stated, except the evidence of
P.W.1, none of the witnesses have seen P.W.1 meeting the appellant
in the office on the trap date. The immediate response to the
question of DSP regarding any demand and acceptance of bribe,
appellant denied having received any bribe and his hands were also
tested negative. In the above circumstances, there arises any
amount of doubt regarding the alleged demand made by the
appellant. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the allegation of
demand by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from the
statement of P.W.1, there is no corroborating evidence by the
prosecution to prove that there was a demand. In the absence of
any corroboration either by oral or documentary evidence or
circumstances such as handling the bribe amount or recovery from
the appellant, the factum of demand is suspicious in the present
facts of the case. This Court finds that the prosecution has failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded
the bribe amount. Admittedly, the said amount was recovered from
A2 at A2's instance and also the documents pertaining to PW.1
were recovered from A2. Furthermore, the appellant had filed two
criminal cases against the son-in-law of PW1, for which reason,
false implication cannot be ruled out. In the said circumstances,
benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
10. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in CC No.49 of 2004
dated 20.12.2007 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. Since
the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
11. Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel thereto,
miscellaneous petitions, if, pending, shall stands closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 27.03.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o.kvs
