Telangana High Court
Sri Maddu Veera Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 March, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.15 OF 2010
Between:
Maddu Veera Reddy ... Appellant
And
The State rep. by Public Prosecutor. ..Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 06.03.2024
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.15 of 2010
% Dated 06.03.2024
# Maddu Veera Reddy ... Appellant
And
$ The State rep.by Public Prosecutor ...Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Badeti Venkata Rathnam
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2014 Crl.L.J 2433
2
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549
3
AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2022
4
2016 Crl.L.J 1079
5
2015 Crl.L.J 1715
6
AIR 1977 Supreme Court 170
7
2022(4) SCC 574
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.15 OF 2010
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 two years and also fine of Rs.1000/- under both counts, in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
months vide judgment in C.C.No.38 of 2005 dated 29.12.2009
passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant
was working as a Constable in Chandhurthy Police Station,
Karimnagar District. P.W.1/Defacto complainant, his
father/P.W.2 and brother/P.W.3 were having disputes with
one Bhoomaiah, who is the uncle of P.W.1. A complaint was
lodged by P.Devaiah against P.Ws.1 to 3 for intervening in the
altercation that happened in between the said Devaiah and
Bhoomaiah. On the basis of the said incident that happened
on 10.12.2003, petty case was booked against P.Ws.1 to 3.
P.Ws.1 to 3 were appearing before the Court. On 21.01.2004,
when they appeared, it is alleged that the appellant demanded
to pay Rs.2,000/- to see to that nothing adverse would happen
in the case, failing which, they would have to face dire
consequences in the case. Aggrieved by the said threats and
demand of bribe, P.W.1 approached ACB authorities on
06.02.2004 and filed a complaint.
3. On the basis of the complaint, trap was arranged on
07.02.2004 on which date, the case of P.Ws.1 to 3 stands
posted before the Magistrate. On 07.02.2004 in the presence
of complainant, mediators and the DSP, pre-trap proceedings
were conducted under Ex.P5. Thereafter, trap party members
proceeded to the JFCM Court at Sircilla. P.Ws.1 to 3 went
inside the Court premises and came out around 12.15 p.m
along with the appellant. At that juncture, P.W.1 conveyed the
signal to the trap party regarding acceptance of bribe by the
appellant. Immediately, the trap party accosted the appellant
and conducted tests on the hands of the appellant, which
proved positive. Accordingly, proceedings were concluded and
Ex.P7 post trap proceedings were drafted near the Court
premises.
4. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked
Exs.P1 to P11 on behalf of the prosecution. D.Ws.1 to 3 were
examined on behalf of the defence/appellant and Exs.D1 to D4
were marked. Relevant GD entries on 21.01.2004 and
07.02.2004 were marked as Exs.X1 and X2 during trial.
5. Learned Special Judge found that the version of the
demand of bribe was believable though P.Ws.1 to 3 have
turned hostile to the prosecution case. On the basis of
recovery and also on the ground that though the appellant
stated that money was taken towards payment of fine on
behalf of P.Ws.1 to 3, since no such fine was imposed by the
JFCM Court, acceptance of money as bribe was believed by
the Special Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the trial Court had committed grave error in
convicting the appellant when the aspect of demand was not
proved. P.Ws.1 to 3 have turned hostile to the prosecution
case and specifically stated that the amount was given
towards payment of fine. Even in the post trap proceedings,
the immediate explanation of the appellant as recorded in
Ex.P7 post trap proceedings is that the amount was accepted
as payment of fine before the Court. According to appellant, he
further explained during post trap proceedings that in petty
cases, the amount would be collected from the accused and
paid in the Court and obtain receipts which is general
practice. Counsel further submitted that in the absence of
proof of demand, there cannot be any conviction on mere
recovery of the amount.
7. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 1, wherein it is held that when there was no other
evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove demand, the
recovery of amount from the accused cannot form basis to
convict the accused. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District
2014 Crl.L.J 2433
Inspector of Police 2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
mere recovery or acceptance of the amount dehors the proof of
demand, would not be sufficient to convict an accused under
Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In C.M.Girish Babu v. C.B.I, Cochin, High Court of Kerala 3,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the explanation of the
accused that the amount was received towards repayment of
loan can be believed and burden cast upon the accused is by
preponderance of probability. In Krishan Chander v. State of
Delhi 4, when the complainant had turned hostile and there
was no other evidence regarding the demand and acceptance
by the accused, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no case
was made out since demand was not proved. Similar view was
taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.Sukumaran v.
State of Kerala 5. He also relied on the judgment of the Ho'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State
AIR 2015 Supreme Court 3549
AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2022
2016 Crl.L.J 1079
2015 Crl.L.J 1715
of Orissa 6, wherein it is held that the prosecution has to stand
on his own legs and cannot derive any strength from the
weakness of the defence.
8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
argued that though at the earliest point of time, the version
given by the appellant was that he had taken the money for
payment of fine, it is on record that the Court has not imposed
any fine. In the said circumstances, the question of money
being accepted by the appellant does not arise. Since the very
basis for which the money was accepted, was found to be
false, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.
9. P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 is relative and P.W.3 is
the father of P.W.1. All three witnesses have turned hostile to
the prosecution case. They stated during the course of their
evidence during chief examination that the Magistrate
enquired with them when they were produced before
Magistrate, whether they would pay the fine amount and when
P.Ws.1 to 3 informed that they would pay fine, they were
AIR 1977 Supreme Court 170
asked to stay outside the Court. While they were standing
outside the Court, the appellant went there and P.Ws.1 to 3
asked the appellant to pay fine amount and handed over the
bribe amount which is Rs.1,500/-. All the three witnesses
were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public
Prosecutor. P.Ws.1 to 3 stuck to their version that the amount
of Rs.1,500/- (bribe amount) was handed over to the appellant
towards payment of fine in the Court, in the petty case, they
were charged for. It is admitted that the case was pending and
it is to the knowledge of P.Ws. 1 to 3 that they have to pay fine
amount in the said case.
10. The appellant when confronted immediately after the
trap, during post trap proceedings stated that he accepted the
money to pay the fine amount into the Court on behalf of
PWs.1 to 3 in petty case STC No.6 of 2004. When further
questioned by the Inspector whether the fine amount was
ordered by the Magistrate, the appellant replied that every
Saturday, the Court disposes off petty cases and collects fine
amount from the accused therein.
11. Learned Special Judge relied on the statement made by
P.W.1 in his own handwriting under Ex.P1 and also under
Section 164 CrPC statement which was given by the
witnesses. The contents of Ex.P1 complaint cannot be relied
upon when the author i.e., P.W.1 has stated that the contents
in Ex.P1 were incorrect. Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of a
witness is a previous statement and it can only be used for the
purpose of confronting the witness either for the purpose of
any omissions or contradictions during trial. It is not a
substantive piece of evidence to rely upon to infer guilt of an
accused, when the witness turned hostile to his earlier
statement. The learned Special Judge had heavily relied on
Section 164 Cr.P.C statement made before the Magistrate to
infer that demand was made by the appellant and found that
the witnesses were won over subsequently.
12. The factum of demand has to be proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. On the basis of
assumption that the witness must have been won over by the
accused, cannot form basis to infer that there was a demand.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Shanthamma v. The State
of Telangana 7 held that proof of demand is sine qua non for
establishing guilt of an accused under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Unless the factum of demand is
proved, the recovery if any cannot form basis to convict the
accused.
13. In the present case, recovery was made from the
appellant. However, at the earliest point of time, appellant
explained regarding the possession of the tainted currency. He
informed that on Saturdays petty cases would be taken up by
the Magistrate and fine would be imposed, which would be
paid to the Court through the Constables. The said procedure
was adopted in the said Courts. P.Ws.1 to 3 when they
appeared before the Magistrate, it is their case that the
Magistrate questioned them whether they are ready to pay the
fine amount and when accepted, they were asked to wait for
sometime outside the Court. P.Ws.1 to 3 came out and handed
2022(4) SCC 574
over the amount to the appellant towards fine amount and
thereafter trap party had accosted the appellant.
14. In the circumstances of the witnesses turning hostile and
the explanation at the earliest point of time that the amount
was towards fine is corroborated by the evidence of the hostile
witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3, factum of demand is not proved. Mere
recovery of the amount from the appellant cannot be made
basis to record conviction. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is
extended to the appellant.
15. In the result, the judgment of Special Court in C.C.No.38
of 2005 dated 29.12.2009 is hereby set aside. Since the
appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
16. Criminal Appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.03.2024
kvs
