Telangana High Court
Sri. M.Venkataiah vs The State Of A.P., Thru Acb, Hyderabad on 6 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.60 OF 2009
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 one year and also fine of Rs.1000/- under each count, in
default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
month vide judgment in C.C.No.1 of 2005 dated 22.01.2009
passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. The appellant died during pendency of the appeal and an
application filed by the legal representatives to prosecute the
case, was allowed. Accordingly, appeal is heard.
3. The appellant, who was working as Additional Public
Prosecutor in the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy was entrapped by the ACB on 03.03.2004 in his
chamber in the Court premises on the ground that he
demanded and accepted amount of Rs.1500/- from P.W.1 for
the purpose of showing favour in the Sessions Case in which
P.W.1 and 8 others were accused.
4. P.W.1 lodged a complaint on 01.03.2004 with the DSP,
ACB, Hyderabad stating that he is accused in SC No.170 of
1999 in the Court of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,
Ranga Reddy. The appellant was Additional Public Prosecutor
and at the time of final arguments in the case, he called and
demanded Rs.3,000/- for not arguing the case effectively. On
26.02.2004, the appellant insisted that the bribe amount
should be paid, however, when pleaded the bribe was settled
at Rs.1500/-. On 01.03.2004 when P.W.1 and others went to
the Court, the appellant insisted to make payment on
05.03.2004 on which date, the case was posted.
5. On the basis of the said complaint, trap was laid on
03.03.2004. P.W.2, the accompanying witness is a friend of
P.W.1 and both went to the ACB office around 8.00 a.m. In the
presence of independent mediators, DSP and others, pre-trap
proceedings were drafted under Ex.P3. Thereafter, the trap
party proceeded to the District Court Complex at Ranga Reddy
District. P.Ws.1 and 2 went into the chamber of the appellant
and enquired about the case. The appellant informed that
nothing would happen and they would be acquitted.
Thereafter, when demanded, P.W.1 handed over tainted
currency amount to the appellant, who accepted the amount
and kept in the table drawer. P.W.2 went outside and
conveyed signal that the amount was received. Accordingly,
the trap party members entered into the chamber of the
appellant and questioned about the bribe amount.
Phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the hands of the
appellant. The resultant solution on the right hand of the
accused turned positive. However, the test on the left hand
remained negative. The amount was seized from the table
drawn at the instance of appellant and thereafter post trap
proceedings were conducted which is Ex.P5. Appellant was
arrested. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was
filed by ACB.
6. During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined
and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked by the prosecution. In defence,
Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. Learned Special Judge was
convinced that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other
circumstances proved the case against the appellant and
accordingly convicted the appellant.
7. Learned Senior Counsel Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy
appearing for the appellant would submit that the reason
given for demand of bribe is highly improbable and
unbelievable. Even according to P.W.1, all the witnesses in the
Sessions Case in which he is accused, turned hostile to the
prosecution case. In the said circumstances, the question of
the appellant as a Additional Public Prosecutor demanding
amount not to effectively argue the case, cannot be believed. In
fact, the case was posted on 26.02.2004 when the accused
were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and arguments were
heard and posted for judgment on 01.03.2004. On
01.03.2004, all the accused were present, however, since the
Presiding Officer was on leave, the case was posted on
05.03.2004 'for judgment'. When the case was already posted
for judgment on 05.03.2004, the question of the Public
Prosecutor/appellant again arguing the case does not arise.
Learned Special Judge found that there would be possibility of
the Public Prosecutor/appellant reopening the case, for which
reason, the amount must have been demanded and paid,
cannot be made basis to record conviction. It is nobody's case
that any such application either to reopen or recall ay witness
was made. Accordingly, the finding of the Special Court is
incorrect and basis being assumption, the conviction has to be
set aside.
8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor
would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2, who are witnesses have
supported the case of the prosecution and specifically stated
regarding acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The
corroborating evidence is the recovery of the amount from the
table drawer and the right hand test being tested positive for
handling the bribe amount. The case was pending before the
Court in which the appellant was the Public Prosecutor and
judgment was not delivered till the date of trap. In the said
circumstances, the evidence of demand of bribe is convincing
and also the official favour is apparent from the record. There
are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Special
Court and accordingly, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. As seen from the admission of P.W.1, he was a rowdy
sheeter and involved in several cases. Specifically, it is stated
that he was involved in five house burning cases. Further, it is
to his knowledge that all the witnesses have turned hostile
and even according to him, in the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.1
mentioned that there is no evidence and the case is very weak.
In the said criminal back ground of P.W.1, it has to be
assessed as to whether the demand of bribe is probable, on
the basis of the evidence available on record.
10. It is admitted that all the witnesses in the Sessions Case
have turned hostile and even according to P.W.1, there is no
evidence in the case to convict them. On 26.02.2004, Section
313 examination of P.W.1 and the other accused in the case
was complete and arguments of both the sides were over. The
case was reserved for judgment on 26.02.2004 and posted to
01.03.2004 for delivering judgment. Even according to the
record and to the knowledge of P.W.1, the arguments of Public
Prosecutor/appellant were already heard and the Court has
reserved the case for judgment to be pronounced on
01.03.2004.
11. On 01.03.2004, the Presiding Officer was on leave. It is
not the case that any attempt was even made by the Public
Prosecutor to either reopen the case or recall any witness or
any such application was filed on 01.03.2004. P.W.1 was
having several criminal cases registered against him and a
rowdy sheeter. An Advocate was representing him in the Lower
Court, even according to his evidence. Having previous
knowledge about criminal cases and assistance of an
Advocate, the possibility of the Public Prosecutor/appellant
intervening or making an impact on the Court for recording
conviction in a case in which all the witnesses turned hostile,
is not probable, as such, the reason for demand given by
P.W.1 appears to have been made up. Ultimately, on
05.03.2004, judgment was pronounced and all the accused
were found not guilty and acquitted.
12. The version of P.W.1 raises any amount of doubt
regarding the demand being correct. P.W.1 being a rowdy
sheeter involved in several cases, having knowledge that there
is no case that was made out against him in the main case,
agreeing to part with bribe of Rs.1500/- is not belilevable.
Further, the money was recovered from the table drawer. The
independent witness/P.W.4, who was also Public Prosecutor in
III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, was sitting in the room
when the ACB official entered into the room. Though he was
present in the room, he did not state anything about P.Ws.1
and 2 entering into the room and that there was any exchange
of money. The witness P.W.4 was not declared hostile to the
prosecution case. The defence of the appellant is that he never
demanded any bribe and prior to his arrival, the tainted
currency notes must have been kept in the table drawer.
Further in SC No.170 of 1999, it is the case in which PW.1
was accused and the appellant was requested to give up
witness namely Mallesham. However, the appellant/Public
Prosecutor refused to do so unless the Investigating Officer
gives up the witness. For the said reason, PW.1 bore grudge
and filed false case against him.
13. In the present circumstances of the case, keeping in view
the back ground of P.W.1 and total hostility in the Sessions
case in which P.W.1 is accused and also that the amount was
recovered from the table drawer, there arises any amount of
doubt regarding the prosecution case being correct. More
particularly, when P.W.4 was present in the chamber room
when the ACB officials arrived and he did not state about
P.Ws.1 and 2 entering into the room and meeting appellant.
For the said reasons, benefit of doubt is extended to the
appellant.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside
impugned judgment of learned Special Judge in CC No.1 of
2005 dated 22.01.2009.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.03.2024
kvs
