Telangana High Court
A. Kishan Rao, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl Pp Hyd.,For ... on 27 March, 2024
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1671 OF 2007
Between:
A.Kishan Rao ... 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.1671 of 2007
% Dated 27.03.2024
# A.Kishan Rao ... Appellant
And
$ The State of Telangana
rep. by Spl.Public Prosecutor, ACB Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri D.Laxminarayana
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala, Spl.PP for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2022 (3) ALT ( Crl.) 293
2
(2021 (3) AIR Kar R 650)
3
(AIR OnLine 2022 SC 1264)
4
(2023 (1) ALD (Crl.)821 (TS)
5
2023(1) ALD (Crl.) 638 (TS)
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1671 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant/A1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the
Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at
Hyderabad for the offences 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 six months and one year
respectively, vide judgment in CC No.42 of 2003 dated 28.11.2007,
the present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/defacto
complainant was working as an Attender in the office of the Deputy
Director, Social Welfare, Khammam. On 02.11.2000, P.W.1
submitted an application in the APGLI (Andhra Pradesh
Government Life Insurance Fund) for loan of Rs.5,000/- to get his
house repaired. The said application Ex.P1 was forwarded through
his office and after 15 days of the application, he met the appellant,
who was working as Senior Accountant in the District Insurance
Office of APGLI. The appellant instructed PW1 to get previous loan
details from his office. Accordingly, particulars were provided on
14.12.2000. On 27.12.2000, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the
appellant informed that he is eligible for Rs.2,100/- only. However,
P.W.1 insisted that he requires Rs.5,000/-, for which appellant
demanded Rs.500/- as bribe for sanctioning loan of Rs.5,000/-.
3. On 03.01.2001, P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB and lodged
Ex.P3 complaint. The DSP asked P.W.1 to come back on
05.01.2001 on which date trap was arranged. On the trap date,
independent mediator/P.W.8, DSP/P.W.11 and others were present
in the office of DSP. Formalities prior to proceeding to laying trap
were followed like smearing the bribe notes with phenolphthalein
powder. The said process is done by the agency to test whether the
currency notes were handled by the public servant. In the event of
touching the currency notes, particles of phenolphthalein powder
would be transferred onto the hands of the public servant and when
asked to rinse in sodium carbonate solution, the test would turn
pink indicating handling of the currency notes. Having completed
the procedure, what all transpired during pre-trap proceedings were
drafted under Ex.P11.
4. Around 11.00 a.m, the entire trap party went to the office of
APGLI. While the other trap party members waited outside, P.W.1
entered into the office. According to P.W.1, on seeing him, the
appellant asked for the bribe amount, which was put in the table
drawer by him. Again, the appellant asked P.W.1 to take out the
amount from the table drawer and took him to the verandah. There,
the appellant called A2 and asked P.W.1 to hand over the amount
to him. After A2 receiving the amount, P.W.1 went outside the office
and signaled the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of
bribe by the appellant.
5. The trap party entered into the office and questioned the
appellant regarding what transpired in between P.W.1 and himself
and also regarding the bribe amount. The said bribe amount was
recovered from A2. The tests on the hands of both A1 and A2
proved positive indicating handling the tainted currency notes. The
post trap proceedings regarding seizure and statements of
witnesses were recorded. The said post trap proceedings were
drafted as Ex.P13.
6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against both A1 and A2. Learned Special Judge, having examined
witnesses on behalf of the complainant-ACB and marking relevant
documents, found that A2 was not complicit of any demand and
acceptance of bribe, though the amount was recovered from him.
However, the appellant was the person in-charge and he demanded
the amount from PW1. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted
and A2 was acquitted.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would
submit that the version of P.W.1 cannot be believed since he was
eligible only for Rs.2,100/- as loan. The appellant was not
competent to grant loan over and above the permitted limit, which
is to the knowledge of P.W.1. Even at the earliest point of time,
when the DSP questioned the appellant, it was informed that P.W.1
was not eligible for loan. The appellant was not in a position to do
any favour, as such, the prosecution case cannot be believed. In
support of his contentions, he relied on the following judgments: i)
Smt S.Vaidehamma alias Vaidehi v. State ACB, TS 1; ii) The State
of Karnataka v. Ramesh Appanna Mareppagol 2; iii) Shiv Kumar
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 3; iv) Mohd. Fakruddin v. State of
Andhra Pradesh 4 and v) A.V.Surender Kumar v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 5.
8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
would submit that the appellant was the person who processed the
loan application believing his version that he would get enhanced
loan of Rs.5,000/-, bribe was paid which was demanded and
accepted on the trap date. In the said circumstances, when the
appellant has abused his position as a public servant to demand
bribe, the findings of the learned Special Judge is in accordance
with the facts and law. The findings of the learned Special Judge
which are reasonable cannot be interfered with.
(2022 (3) ALT ( Crl.) 293
(2021 (3) AIR Kar R 650)
(AIR OnLine 2022 SC 1264)
(2023 (1) ALD (Crl.)821 (TS)
2023(1) ALD (Crl.) 638 (TS)
9. P.W.1 is also public servant. He approached the insurance
department for loan, which loan application was forwarded through
his office. It cannot be said that he did not have knowledge about
the limitations of granting loan, which is subject to restrictions
imposed by the department while granting loan. Even according to
P.W1, he was informed on 27.12.2000 itself by the appellant that he
was eligible for loan of R.2,100/- only, after assessing his previous
loan history, salary etc. If P.W.1 did not have any eligibility for loan
over and above Rs.2,100/- which was calculated and informed,
there is no possibility of loan being given over and above Rs.2,100/.
10. On the date of trap, when the appellant was questioned by the
DSP, ACB after the trap party entered into the room having received
signal from P.W.1, the appellant stated that he informed P.W.1 that
he was eligible for a loan of only Rs.2,100/-, which was already
sanctioned. P.W.1 then opened the table drawer and kept some
currency requesting him to sanction Rs.6,000/- loan. The appellant
then stated that the loan was already sanctioned and there is no
question of further sanction of loan. He took out the currency notes
placed in the table drawer by P.W.1 and returned it to him.
However, the said amount was again handed over to A2 in the
verandah of the office by PW1.
11. P.W.3 was the then Assistant Director in the APGLI.
According to his statement, on 07.09.2000, the appellant was
entrusted with the processing of loan application of P.W.1. Ex.P8 is
the personal loan register pertaining to sanction of loan to P.W.1
and it discloses that an amount of Rs.2,100/- was granted at the
instance of appellant by P.W.3. During cross-examination, P.W.3
specifically stated that the ACB officials questioned him on the trap
date regarding the loan eligibility of P.W.1 and it was informed to
the trap party that P.W.1 was not eligible for more than Rs.2,100/-.
Further, as on 27.12.2000, appellant processed loan application
and calculated that P.W.1 was entitled for Rs.2,100/- and
forwarded the application to the concerned Superintendent for
further course of action.
12. It is not the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 was eligible for
loan over and above Rs.2,100/-. P.W.1 himself stated that after
calculating the eligibility of loan, appellant informed that he was
eligible only for Rs.2,100/-. In the said circumstances, when it is to
the knowledge of P.W.1 that there is no possibility of enhancing
loan, he being a public servant, it cannot be said that he was
misinformed or misled by the appellant. The very demand of bribe
becomes suspicious for the above reasons.
13. It is for the Courts to determine the allegation of demand and
acceptance by a public servant taking into consideration all the
factors surrounding the alleged demand of bribe. If it is not possible
for a public servant to extend any such favour or benefit, which is
to the knowledge of the complainant, the entire version of demand
becomes doubtful. Only for the reason of there being a complaint
and subsequent recovery of the amount, such complaint and
recovery cannot be made basis to come to a conclusion regarding
the guilt of the accused ignoring all the attending circumstances in
the case. It has to be tested by the Courts whether it is probable
that in a given case on the basis of the facts of that particular case,
the version of demanding and accepting bribe is probable and
acceptable.
14. P.W.1 was a public servant, who was informed and aware
about his eligibility of loan was to the maximum extent of R.2,100/-
and not beyond. Having such knowledge, the version of P.W.1 that
amount was demanded for grant of Rs.5,000/- loan cannot be
believed since it is not the case that P.W.1 was ignorant of his
ineligibility and in spite of such ineligibility, appellant was
competent in his position to grant loan of Rs.5,000/-.
15. The version given by the appellant on the date of trap is
supported by other prosecution witnesses. No evidence is placed by
the prosecution to even remotely suggest that P.W.1 was misled by
the appellant and P.W.1 believed that the appellant was competent
to grant loan of Rs.5,000/-.
16. Collectively, in the peculiar facts of the case, the aspect of
demand is highly doubtful and not proved by the prosecution.
17. The recovery of currency notes was from A2. Not a single
witness is examined to support the version of P.W.1 that initially,
the amount was received by the appellant and then PW1 taken into
the verandah and in the verandah, A2 was called and asked to
accept the amount from P.W.1. There is no witness corroborating
the version of P.W.1 on facts narrated by him on any aspects
spoken to him by regarding any of the events on the trap date. It
appears to be improbable that P.W.1 has entered into the office and
thereafter went to the verandah and not a single witness was
available to speak about such facts. The DSP has also not taken
any steps to ask the independent mediator/P.W.8 or another to
accompany P.W.1 to witness as to what transpires in between P.W.1
and the appellant.
18. As already discussed, the very version of the prosecution that
demand of bribe was for grant of Rs.5,000/- loan, cannot be
accepted. Benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
19. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in CC No.42 of 2003
dated 28.11.2007 is set aside and the accused is acquitted. Since
the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
20. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 27.03.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
