Telangana High Court
Sri Rasheed Mohiuddin , Rasheed , vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 6 March, 2024
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal Nos.1700 and 1716 OF 2007
Crl.A.No.1700 of 2007
Between:
G.Raja Sekhar Rao ... Appellant/A2
And
Stae of A.P. rep. by Spl.P.P. for ACB cases ... Respondent/
Complainant
Crl.A.No.1716 of 2007
Between:
Rasheed Mohiuddin @ Rasheed ... Appellant/A1
And
Stae of A.P. rep. by Inspector of Police
Warangal Range, Warangal. ... Respondent/
Complainant
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 the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ Criminal Appeal Nos.1700 and 1716 OF 2007
% Dated 06.03.2024
Crl.A.No.1700 of 2007
Between:
# G.Raja Sekhar Rao ... Appellant/A2
And
$ Stae of A.P. rep. by Spl.P.P. for ACB cases ... Respondent/
Complainant
Crl.A.No.1716 of 2007
Between:
#Rasheed Mohiuddin @ Rasheed ... Appellant/A1
And
$ Stae of A.P. rep. by Inspector of Police
Warangal Range, Warangal. ... Respondent/
Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy
Sri A.Hari Prasad Reddy.
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sridhar Chikyala
SC SPL P.P for ACB cases.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. (2022) 4 SCC 574
2. (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152
3. (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
4. 2024 SCC OnLine TS 15
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1700 AND 1716 OF 2007
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.1700 of 2007 is filed by Accused No.2
and Criminal Appeal No.1716 of 2007 is filed by Accused No.1.
Since both appeals are questioning the Judgment passed in
CC.No.53 of 2003, both the appeals are disposed off by this
common Judgment.
2. The case of the defacto complainant(P.W.1) is that the
house in which they were staying is the property of their
ancestors. After his grandfather died, they are staying in the said
house. Even prior to the death of grandfather, the father of the
complainant died. The house was shared equally and partitioned
with his uncle. After the partition, for the portion in which PW1
was staying, he was paying tax. In August, 2001, a notice Ex.P1
was received for payment of house tax of Rs.1,020/-. The junior
paternal uncle who was staying in the other portion of the house
property also received a notice for paying tax for an amount of
Rs.84/-. P.W.1's uncle got his name mutated in respect of his
portion of the house, but, PW1 had not made any application for
mutation of the house in which he was staying.
3. Since PW1 was asked to pay more than his paternal uncle's
tax amount who was occupying one half of the house, P.W.1 went
to the municipal office and gave an application to reduce the tax
amount equal to his uncle's tax of Rs.84/-. The said petition
Ex.P3 was given to Accused Officer No.2 for verification. PW1 met
both A1 who is the bill collector and A2-Upper Division Revenue
Inspector, for reduction of tax. Both of them demanded
Rs.1,000/- as bribe for submitting favourable verification report
to the Commissioner for reduction of tax, failing which he would
have to continue to pay the tax amount of Rs.1,020/- p.a. as
reflected in the notice-Ex.P1, which was sent to PW1.
4. Aggrieved by the said demand, written complaint was filed
on 15.12.2001 with DSP, ACB. PW1 was asked to come back with
bribe amount on 19.12.2001. Trap was arranged on 19.12.2001.
In the presence of P.W.2 who is the independent witness and also
other trap party members including DSP, pre-trap proceedings
were conducted. In the office of DSP, Warangal, Ex.P8 was
drafted after concluding the pre-trap formalities.
5. The trap party then proceeded to the office of the Revenue
Inspector at Warangal Municipal Corporation. P.W.1 followed by
P.W.2 went inside the office. P.W.1 enquired about A2 and it was
informed that he went to the municipal commissioner's office to
attend a meeting. Then P.W.1 enquired about A1 who was
available in the sanitary inspector's room. Both P.Ws.1 and 2
then entered into sanitary inspector's room and found two
persons in the said room. On seeing P.W.2, A1 enquired about
him. P.W.2 replied that he came to the said office and was asking
for the address of Raja Reddy, who was an employee in the main
municipal office. Then A1 asked P.W.1 whether be brought the
bribe amount and A1 asked him to pay the amount so that he
would share the said amount with A2. P.W.1 then handed over
the amount to A1 who received the said amount, counted the
amount with both the hands and kept the amount in his shirt
pocket.
6. After receipt of the bribe amount, the trap party was
signaled regarding the acceptance of the bribe. Accordingly, DSP
and other trap party members entered into the room and
questioned A1 regarding the bribe. A1 initially informed that the
amount was towards loan and again stated that the amount was
towards tax, that P.W.1 was due and liable to pay. The relevant
documents were seized and after concluding post trap
proceedings, the same was drafted, which post trap proceedings
is Ex.P12. Ex.P1 notice, Ex.P3 requisition given by P.W.1 for
reduction of tax and other documents were also seized.
7. The Investigating Officer having collected relevant
documents filed chare sheet.
8. The learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and
Exs.P1 to P19 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No one
was examined on behalf of defence.
9. Learned counsel appearing for A1 would submit that P.W.1
has completely turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not
speak about any demand of bribe. In fact it was accepted that
Rs.500/- was towards payment of tax. P.W.4 who was present in
the room admittedly did not support the version of demand and
acceptance of bribe by A1. In fact, P.W.1 totally disowned the
complaint and even passing of the amount to A1. In the said back
ground when the factum of demand is not proved, mere recovery
from A1 cannot form basis to convict him.
10. The counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in K.Shanthamma v. State of Telangana (2022) 4 SCC
574), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to attract an
offence of Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is
the duty of the prosecution to prove the factum of demand
beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to prove demand, the
prosecution case fails. He also relied on the Full Bench judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of P.Satyanarayana
Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra
Pradesh (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152) wherein it was
held that mere recovery of amount dehors the proof of demand
would not be sufficient to bring home the charges under Section
7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
11. In Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 10 Supreme
Court Cases 371) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that defence
of accused can be taken at any time during trial and also at the
time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If the defence is
believable, the same can be accepted by the Court. He also relied
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bairam Muralidhar
v. State of Telangana (2024 SCC OnLine TS 15).
12. Learned counsel appearing for A2 would submit that the
only basis for convicting A2 is for the reason of stating the name
of A2 in the complaint that money was demanded. Since P.W.1
has disowned the complaint, the trial Court has erred in
convicting A2.
13. In the back ground of P.W.1 turning totally hostile to the
prosecution case, the other circumstances in the case has to be
looked into to find out whether the prosecution is able to prove
the demand and acceptance by the accused.
14. P.W.2 accompanied P.W.1 to the office where A1 accepted
amount from P.W.1. The presence of P.W.2 when the amount was
passed on is not disputed, since P.W.4 who is the colleague of A1
stated regarding the presence of P.W.2 in the office. P.W.2
specifically spoke about the demand of the bribe from P.W.1 by
A1. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that A1 had taken amount from
P.W.1 having demanded the same and also informed P.W.1 that
the amount would be shared with A2. After the trap party
entered, A1 initially stated that the said amount was taken as
loan from P.W.1 and again stated that the said amount was
towards payment of tax, for which notice was issued to P.W.1.
15. The very purpose of P.W.1 visiting the municipal office is for
reduction of the tax. The house was equally apportioned in
between P.W.1 and his paternal uncle. P.W.1 received notice, the
copy of which is Ex.P1 for Rs.1,020/- whereas for the same
extent of the house occupied by his paternal uncle notice for
payment of tax was Rs.84/- was sent. Aggrieved by the exorbitant
tax that was asked to be paid which is more than ten times the
tax which was asked by the paternal uncle to be paid, PW1 filed
application under Ex.P2. The question of PW1 paying tax of
Rs.500/- does not arise in the background of his application for
reduction of the tax pending consideration by the Municipal
office.
16. Though, PW1 had turned hostile, the circumstances in the
case regarding pending application for reduction of tax, the
statement of P.W.2 who is a witness to the demand and
acceptance of bribe by A1 are sufficient to prove the guilt of A1.
However, A2 was not present nor any communication was made
on the date of trap. In the said circumstances, there is no
evidence of demand for bribe by A2. Ex.P1 complaint was
disowned by P.W.1 in which the name of A2 was mentioned as
the person who demanded bribe along with A1. Accordingly, there
is no evidence to convict A2.
17. In the said circumstances, the conviction against A2 is set
aside and the conviction of A1 is sustained.
18. Criminal Appeal No.1716 of 2007 filed by A1 is dismissed
and Criminal Appeal No.1700 of 2007 filed by A2 is allowed.
Since A2 is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The trial
Court is directed to cause appearance of A1 and send him to
prison to serve out the remaining period of imprisonment.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.03.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o.tk
