Telangana High Court
R. Ravikanth, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Spl Pp Hyd., For ... on 6 March, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1592 OF 2008
Between:
R.Ravikanth ... Appellant
And
The State ACB City Range-I,
Hyderabad. ..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.1592 of 2008
% Dated 06.03.2024
# R.Ravikanth ... Appellant
And
$ The State ACB, City Range-I,
Hyderabad. ...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
1995 Cri.L.J 3978
2
(2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 227
3
2001 AIR SCW 2415 (FB)
4
1992 Cri.L.J 608
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1592 OF 2008
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 six months and one year respectively vide judgment in
C.C.No.38 of 2004 dated 22.12.2008 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 Junior Assistant in the office of the Deputy
Educational Officer, Ameerpet Mandal, Hyderabad.
P.W.1/defacto complainant was the office in-charge of Gyana
Saraswathi School. The TC book of the school was exhausted
and since new TC book would be supplied by the DEO,
Hyderabad, on the instructions of the Head Mistress of the
School, the defacto complainant visited the office of the
Deputy DEO, on 03.07.2003 and met the appellant. The
application for giving TC certificates Ex.P1 and letter for
allotment of text books dated 30.06.2003 along with pay
orders Exs.P3 and P4 were handed over to the appellant. The
appellant refused to put up file before the Deputy DEO for
issuance of TC book and text books and demanded Rs.1,000/-
as bribe. P.W.1 went back to school and informed to the
Secretary and correspondent of the School that the appellant
was demanding Rs.1,000/- to process the file and forward to
the DEO. Then, P.W.3, who is the Correspondent of the school
asked P.W.1 to inform the appellant that he would arrange
bribe and later directed P.W.1 to lodge a complaint with the
ACB.
3. P.W.1 approached the ACB on the very same day i.e.,
03.07.2003 on the day of demand and lodged Ex.P5
complaint. The DSP directed P.W.1 to come back on
05.07.2003 on which date the trap would be arranged. Having
received the complaint and verifying the antecedents of the
appellant and also the complainant, the complaint was
registered on 05.07.2003. P.W.4 along with another were
asked to act as independent mediators to the proceedings. Pre-
trap panchanama was drafted in the office of ACB which is
Ex.P8. Thereafter, the trap party went to the office of the DEO.
Around 3.30 p.m, P.W.1 went inside and came out from the
office and gave the signal that the bribe was accepted by the
appellant. Accordingly, the trap party entered into the office
and asked the appellant regarding the bribe amount. His
hands were tested to find out whether bribe amount was
handled. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the
appellant was asked to rinse his fingers in the sodium
carbonate solution. The tainted currency notes were smeared
with phenolphthalein powder. In the event of handling the
currency notes, the person handling the currency notes would
come into contact with the phenolphthalein powder on the
notes and when hands are washed in sodium carbonate
solution, the same would turn pink indicating handling of the
smeared currency notes.
4. The tests on the right fingers did not yield any result.
However, on the left hand fingers, the solution turned pink.
The DSP questioned whether any amount was received, on
which the appellant opened almirah with keys available with
him and bribe notes were found along with the register and
used TC book Ex.P6.
5. Post trap proceedings were conducted and Ex.P11 was
drafted, incorporating what all transpired during post trap
proceedings.
6. The appellant was arrested and having concluded
investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 6 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked.
7. Learned Special Judge found that the element of demand
and acceptance were proved by the prosecution. Further, the
amount was seized at the instance of the appellant which was
under lock and key in the almirah. The key to the almirah was
with the appellant and after he opened it, the amount was
found along with Ex.P6 TC book and another Register.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the evidence of demand and acceptance cannot be
believed. The amount was found in Ex.P6 which is the used
TC book. There is no mention about Ex.P6 in the pre-trap
panchanama. None of the witnesses stated that P.W.1 was
carrying Ex.P6 to be handed over to the appellant. It is
apparent that the amount was kept in Ex.P6 without the
knowledge of appellant and handed over to the appellant,
which was in turn kept under lock and key by the appellant.
There is no explanation as to why there is no mention about
Ex.P6 in pre-trap proceedings and in such circumstances
when the case is that Ex.P6 TC book was handed over by
P.W.1, it is for the prosecution to explain as to how PW.1 came
into possession of Ex.P6. In the said circumstances, there
arises any amount of doubt in the case of prosecution being
correct. Counsel further argued that the reason known to the
appellant is that the school management i.e., P.Ws.2 and 3
were aggrieved by the Education Department for grant of
permission to Gowthami Vidyalaya High School near by the
Gyana Saraswathi School and the students were taking TCs
and joining in Gowthami Vidyalaya School, which is the
reason for false implication.
9. Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of M.K.Harshan v. State of Kerala 1. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court found favour with the defence of the
accused that the amount was planted in his table drawer
without knowledge and extended benefit of doubt to the
appellant.
10. In State of A.P v. T.Venkateswara Rao 2, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court acquitted the accused on the ground of
recovery of the amount under mattress. Though the solution
on the hands tested positive, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that on facts, the said money could not have been received as
bribe.
1995 Cri.L.J 3978
(2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 227
11. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Krishnan and another 3, the
Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court found favour with the
defence version that the bribe amount was planted.
12. In Ayyasami v. State of Tamil Nadu 4, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court found favour wit the defence of the accused
that the money was planted.
13. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would
submit that the amount was recovered at the instance of the
appellant which was kept under lock and key. It cannot be
said that the amount would have been planted in a locked
almirah. P.W.1 had specifically stated that there was a
demand of bribe to put up the application under Exs.P1 and
P2 to the Deputy DEO. In the said circumstances, the plea of
planting cannot be believed and the conviction has to be
upheld.
14. P.W.2 is the Deputy Educational Officer who stated that
he is the recommending authority and it is the DEO who will
2001 AIR SCW 2415 (FB)
1992 Cri.L.J 608
issue Transfer Certificate book and only one book will be
issued at a time. P.W.6, the DEO who was examined stated
that the appellant was not competent person to address any
communication to him directly. P.W.6 further stated that as
and when application to issue fresh TC book is made, it is
necessary that the TC book has to be given for verification and
only one book will be issued at a time. It is for P.W.2, DEO to
forward his recommendation for the issue of TC book to the
DEO. Further, unless the old TC book is submitted, the
question of recommending for issuance of new TC book does
not arise.
15. The whole argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant is regarding the TC book Ex.P6 that was found in
the almirah and alleged to have been passed on by P.W.1.
16. As on the date of meeting the appellant, application
under Exs.P1 and P2 were made, the old TC book was not
handed over. P.W.1 admitted that though he met the appellant
for the second time on 03.07.2003, the TC book was not
handed over to him.
17. The prosecution failed to explain as to how Ex.P6 was
handed over by P.W.1 to the appellant. In the pre-trap
proceedings ExP8, there is no mention about Ex.P6 TC book in
the possession of P.W.1. Ex.P6 is a A4 size book containing
nearly 100 used sheets with one inch thickness. The said book
could not have been concealed in any of the pockets of P.W.1.
When such book was being carried along by P.W.1 on trap
day, it should have been mentioned in the pre-trap
proceedings Ex.P8. For the first time, there is a mention about
Ex.P6 in post trap proceedings and it is not known when it
was handed over by P.W.1, when Ex.P6 was not carried by
P.W.1 during pre-trap proceedings or while entering into the
office, as evident from the evidence of P.W.4 mediator and the
DSP. One fails to understand as to how P.W.1 got into
possession of Ex.P6 after they entered into the office. P.W.5,
who is the Inspector of ACB also admitted that there is no
mention about P.W.1 being in possession of Ex.P6 TC book
nor was he asked by the DSP to produce TC book or hand it
over to the appellant at the time of passing on the bribe
amount.
18. From the evidence narrated by the witnesses, it was only
P.W.1 who went inside the office and was not accompanied by
anyone else. The DSP did not deem it appropriate for the
reasons best known to him to send any one of the mediators to
accompany P.W.1 and to observe what transpires in between
P.W.1 and the appellant. P.W.1 having gone inside, came out
after 15 minutes and relayed the signal indicating acceptance
of bribe. It is for the prosecution to explain as to how Ex.P6,
which is used TC book was handed over to the appellant. Only
left hand of the appellant proved positive. Prosecution did not
explain as to how the appellant, who handled the bribe
amount tested positive on left hand only. Placing in Ex.P6 TC
book, without knowledge of appellant and the same being
placed in the almirah, is probable as argued by the learned
counsel for the appellant. Even according to the evidence of
Inspector P.W.6, the amount and Ex.P6 was taken out from
the almirah.
19. Two versions are given during the post trap proceedings.
One version is that the amount was asked to be placed in the
table drawer by the appellant and thereafter when the trap
party entered, the cash was found in the almirah along with
register Ex.P6. The other version is that the appellant
specifically stated that he is not aware about the amount as to
how it was found in between the documents and register
which was placed in the almirah. The version of the amount
being placed in the table drawer was not verified by the DSP
by taking any test to know whether the amount was in fact
placed in the table drawer. The DSP ought to have conducted
test in the table drawer by testing inside of the table drawer to
know whether the amount was placed.
20. In the back ground of there being no explanation
regarding Ex.P6, as to how it was taken by P.W.1 and handed
over to the appellant, there arises any amount of doubt
regarding the version of P.W.1, in the back ground of
suppressing the factum of Ex.P6 to be handed over to the
appellant. Accordingly the benefit of doubt is extended to the
appellant.
21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside
the judgment of learned Special Judge in C.C.No.38 of 2004
dated 22.12.2008. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail
bonds shall stand cancelled.
22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.03.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
