Telangana High Court
Nagabandi Baby Mareswaramma, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 6 March, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.477 OF 2008
Between:
Nagabandi Baby Nageswaramma ... Appellant
And
The State of A.P
Through Inspector of ACB,
rep. by Special Public Prosecutor ..Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : .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.477 of 2008
% Dated .03.2024
# Nagabandi Baby Nageswaramma ... Appellant
And
$ The State of A.P
Through Inspector of ACB,
rep. by Special Public Prosecutor ..Respondent/Complainant
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P.Giri Krishna
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala,
Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
2022(4) SCC 574
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.477 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.54 of 2004 dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Principal
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
2. Briefly, the case of defacto complainant is that her
property situated at Kamaypally village was given on rent to
B.C Welfare Office, Khammam for running hostel in it. The
rent was fixed at Rs.1,073/- per month. Later, on an
application made, the rent was enhanced to Rs.1,575/- per
month. The rent was being paid through Demand Draft. For
the months of May, June and July, 2003, the rent was due.
P.W.1 met the appellant and asked to pay three months rent.
Then the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.500/- on 10.11.2003
for handing over the Demand Draft that was issued on
08.10.2003. The demand was repeated on 11.10.2003,
14.10.2003 and 20.10.2003. On the said three days, the
husband of P.W.1 met the appellant.
3. On 23.10.2003, P.W.1 and her husband went to the ACB
office and gave Ex.P1 written complaint. Having received the
complaint, P.W.1 and her husband were asked to come on
28.10.2003 with the proposed bribe amount, on which date
trap would be arranged.
4. On 28.10.2003, the mediators P.W.2 and another and
other trap party members were present. Pre-trap proceedings
were drafted vide Ex.P6. Having concluded formalities, prior to
proceeding to trap the appellant, all the trap party members
went to the hostel situated at Kamaypally village at 1.00 p.m.
At 1.00 p.m, the appellant was not present in the office. P.W.1,
on instructions of DSP went back to her house and at 3.00
p.m, it was known that the appellant was sitting in her chair.
P.W.1 approached her and asked for the Demand Draft, for
which demand was made for the bribe of Rs.500/- and at that
time, the appellant was having her lunch. After completing
her lunch, she received the bribe amount, counted and kept in
the bag. P.W.1's signature was taken in Ex.P2 acquittance
register. P.W.1 came out of the office and relayed the signal
intimating acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant. The
trap party members entered into office and conducted tests
over the hands of the appellant and the same turned positive.
Eleven documents were seized and post trap proceedings
under Ex.P10 were drafted.
5. Having obtained sanction orders, the Investigating Officer
concluded investigation and filed charge sheet. Learned
Special Judge examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked
Exs.P1 to P13 on behalf of the prosecution. D.W.1 was
examined on behalf of the appellant and Ex.D1 was marked.
6. Learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of
accepting bribe amount pursuant to demand and accordingly
convicted her.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that a false case was filed by P.W.1 since appellant had
given a memo Ex.D1 asking to carry out repairs in the house
as there was leakage in the building. Further, she had taken
active part in construction of a separate hostel building by the
department. For the said reason, if the hostel is shifted, P.W.1
would be deprived of the rent, for which reason, appellant was
falsely implicated. Further, D.W.1 is the Constable who had
come before the Court and stated that the husband of P.W.1
was earlier convicted for the offence under Section 376 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act. He was shady
character and was responsible for falsely implicating the
appellant in the case. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of K.Shanthamma v. The State of
Telangana 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the basic
requirements to prove a case against a public servant under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are: i) Demand of
illegal gratification and ii) acceptance thereto. If the demand is
2022(4) SCC 574
not proved, the prosecution case fails though there is recovery
of the amount. Further, mere recovery of the amount from the
accused will not dispense with the burden of proof of proving
the demand by the prosecution. He also relied on the
judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.742 of 2023
dated 01.02.2024 in the case of Bairam Muralidhar v. The
State of Telangana.
8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
ACB would submit that the demand of bribe is proved by the
evidence of P.W.1. There is no reason why the appellant would
be falsely implicated when she was giving the rent by way of
Demand Draft as and when received from the department. The
findings of the trial Court are probable and cannot be
interfered with.
9. P.W.1 is the witness to prove demand and acceptance of
bribe by the appellant. Ex.D1 is the memo issued for carrying
out repairs. Further, the case of the appellant is that the
department was building its own premises for shifting hostel.
It is not the case that the appellant had recommended for
shifting the hostel from the premises of P.W.1. In the capacity
of the appellant, she will not have the authority to sanction
the construction of any building. Admittedly, Demand Draft
dated 08.10.2003 was with the appellant. It was not handed
over to P.W.1 till the trap date i.e., 28.10.2003.
10. Though it was argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant that on 11.12.2003, the appellant was on leave, that
in itself would not create any dent or doubt in the case of the
prosecution regarding demand. It is not the case of P.W.1 that
she was out of station on the said dates and no evidence is
brought on record by the appellant to prove that she was not
in station on the alleged dates of demand.
11. It is the specific plea of the appellant that earlier loan
was taken for the purpose of whitewashing the building by
P.W.1 and the said amount of Rs.500/- which was paid on the
trap day was towards repayment of the said loan. Except
making a suggestion that the said amount was received
towards loan repayment, the appellant has not taken steps to
convince the Court as to on what date the amount was taken
and whether any whitewashing was done. Since the
acceptance of the amount of Rs.500/- on trap date is accepted
by the appellant, the burden shifts on to the appellant to prove
her case that the said amount was towards loan that was
earlier taken.
12. In the present case, as already stated, the Demand Draft
was dated 08.10.2003 and it was not handed over until the
date of trap i.e., 28.10.2003. No reasons are given as to why
the Demand Draft was kept with the appellant for nearly 20
days.
13. The said circumstances prove the case of the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
14. Finally, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
appellant was handicapped and is now old aged and prayed to
take a lenient view. Minimum sentence was awarded by the
trial Court. Statute does not contemplate inflicting lesser
sentence than the minimum sentence imposed. When no such
discretion is given to the Court to give punishment lesser than
the minimum punishment, this Court cannot show indulgence
in passing sentence of imprisonment lesser than the minimum
sentence.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.03.2024
kvs
