Telangana High Court
Mungi Janardhan Rao vs The State, on 21 October, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 352 OF 2013
Between:
Mungi Janardhan Rao ... Appellant
And
The State rep. by ACB ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 21.10.2024
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
+ CRL.A. No. 352 OF 2013
% Dated 21.10.2024
# Mungi Janardhan Rao ... Appellant
And
$ The State rep. by ACB ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Badeti Venkat Ratnam
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala,
Special Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
1
Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022
2
Criminal Appeal No.2136 of 2010
3
AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2022
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.352 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under each
count vide judgment in C.C.No.47 of 2007 dated 01.04.2013 passed by
the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved
by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto
complainant/P.W.1 lodged complaint stating that one Kodipaka
Vishwanadh Goud, who is his uncle and one Balaram is brother-in-law
of his uncle. Both of them owned agricultural land of Acs.49.00 in
Sy.Nos.34 to 37 of Ahmedguda village of Keesara Mandal, R.R.District.
During the year 2006, both Vishwanadh Goud and Balram made a
request to the Government to convert their agricultural land from
'conservation use' to 'residential use'. The file was pending in the office of
HUDA. The appellant was working as Assistant Planning Officer in the
said office. Since both his uncles were not maintaining good health,
P.W.1 was taking care of the processing of land conversion. Though
P.W.1 met the appellant number of times and specifically on 13.10.2006
and asked about the pending file, the appellant demanded Rs.1,50,000/-
as bribe and informed that he would take care of the entire processing.
P.W.1 then expressed inability and offered to pay Rs.75,000/- on
16.10.2006. The appellant threatened that if the amount is not paid, he
would pass negative remarks on the file. Both the uncles of P.W.1 asked
him to approach ACB when informed about the demand by appellant.
Accordingly, P.W.1 handed over written complaint on 13.10.2006 at 6.00
p.m to the DSP, ACB/P.W.9.
3. The complaint was received by P.W.9, DSP/ACB. P.W.9 instructed
P.W.1 to come to his office along with Rs.75,000/- on 16.10.2006. FIR
was registered on 14.10.2006. The trap party assembled in the office of
the DSP at 6.30 a.m on 16.10.2006. Having concluded the formalities
prior to proceeding to the trap, pre-trap proceedings were drafted which
is Ex.P3. P.W.9, then asked P.W.1 to make a phone call to the appellant
to know about his whereabouts. At 9.00 a.m, the trap party left the office
and reached the house of the appellant. At 9.50 a.m, P.W.1 entered into
the office and after ten minutes, came out and signaled to the trap party
indicating demand and acceptance of bribe. Having received the signal,
the trap party entered into the house and informed the appellant that
they were from ACB. On the instructions of P.W.9, sodium carbonate
solution test was conducted on both hands of the appellant to know
whether the phenolphthalein powder smeared currency notes of
Rs.75,000/- were handled by the appellant. The test on both hands
turned positive. The appellant then went into his bed room, opened the
almirah and handed over Rs.75,000/- to the trap party. Having
concluded the post trap proceedings and also seizing the concerned files,
Ex.P12 post trap proceedings were drafted.
4. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.10 who
concluded investigation and filed charge sheet after obtaining necessary
sanction.
5. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1
to P19 during the course of trial. Ex.D1 was marked by the appellant.
Learned Special Judge found that the hostility of P.W.1/defacto
complainant is of no consequences and the other evidence in the case
was pointing towards guilt of the appellant and accordingly, recorded
conviction.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant has turned hostile to the
prosecution case, as such, the question of the prosecution proving
'demand' does not arise. Once the demand is not proved, the recovery is
of no consequence. The appellant at the earliest point of time has stated
that Rs.75,000/- which was accepted was towards repayment of loan.
However, the said version was not recorded during post trap proceedings.
In fact, P.W.1 had accepted during cross-examination that at the
instance of Vishwanadh Goud, he went to the house of the appellant and
handed over Rs.75,000/- and informed that the said amount was sent by
one Narender, Junior Planning Officer/P.W.4.
7. Learned counsel further argued that even according to the
prosecution case, the appellant does not have the power or authority to
convert the land use from agricultural to residential. The file which was
placed before the appellant was already processed by him and remarks
were made. As such, no official work was even pending with the
appellant. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Soundarajan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police,
Vigilance Anticorruption, Dindigul 1, Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab 2
and C.M.Girish Babu v. C.B.I, Cochin, High Court of Kerala 3 and
argued that once the demand was not proved by the prosecution, mere
recovery of amount is of no consequence.
8. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB
argued that the amount of Rs.75,000/- was taken by the appellant on
Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022
Criminal Appeal No.2136 of 2010
AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2022
the date of trap and kept it in the almirah. At the instance of the
appellant, the said amount was recovered by the DSP. Presumption
arises under Section 20 of the Act and the appellant has failed to
discharge his burden. Learned Special Judge has rightly decided the case
by convicting the appellant.
9. Admittedly, P.W.1 has completely turned hostile to the prosecution
case and did not even accept that the contents of the complaint are true.
He stated that the said Ex.P1 was given by one Vishwanadh Goud and he
is not aware of complaint. The Investigating officer failed to examine the
land owners, Vishwanadh Goud and Balram, who are the Uncles of
P.W.1 to prove that they are the land owners and they wanted conversion
of their land use. In the absence of examination of the land owners and
no reasons being given for such non examination during investigation,
the version of the prosecution regarding demand by the appellant
becomes doubtful.
10. Further, according to P.W.4, the appellant had already endorsed on
the relevant file under Ex.P13 at page 8 that in accordance with zoning
regulations, residential activity is not permissible. The extract of cross-
examination of P.W.4 would be relevant.
"It is true that at page 8 of Ex.P13 at para 31 the AO had noted that in
terms of zoning regulations residential activity is not permissible in
conservation use and at para 30 the AO had mentioned that the land in
question was earmarked as conservation use zone. It is true that neither
me nor the accused officer had any authority to convert the land use from
agriculture to residential. It is our duty to put up the status position for
higher officials to take further action. It is true the Government is the
competent authority to change the land use from agriculture to residential.
It is true as per the master plan the land in question while in conservation
use and we had discussed about this conservation use land at the time of
our inspection and that residential activity is not permissible in
conservation use."
11. P.W.9's cross-examination regarding the pending work would be
relevant.
"As per the complaint the complainant himself has no official work with
the accused. Pw-1 was not the owner of the land for which conversion of
land use was applied for. I have not examined the real owners of the land
before taking action on Ex.P1. I have not verified the ownership of the
lands mentioned in Ex.P1. Pw-1 has not enclosed any authorization
given to him by the land owners to act on their behalf. He has not shown
any written authorization to act on behalf of real owners and to give
report to me."
12. As seen from the record, P.W.1 totally denied having knowledge
about any kind of processing of file by the appellant and also denied
demand and acceptance of bribe. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, there
is no other evidence to prove the demand aspect. The appellant had
already endorsed as admitted by P.W.4 on the relevant file that such
conversion is not possible even prior to the date of lodging complaint. In
the said circumstances, the question of demanding bribe by appellant for
processing the file and getting permission for land use conversion cannot
be believed.
13. The prosecution has failed to prove either the demand aspect or
that the appellant was in a position to do any official work.
14. Once the demand is not proved by the prosecution and it is also
proved that part of the official work of the appellant was already
completed and he has endorsed that the land use conversion cannot be
done, the recovery of Rs.75,000/- from the appellant is of no
consequence. Mere recovery cannot form basis to find the appellant
guilty in the absence of proof of demand and the appellant having no
power to do any official favour.
15. Though appellant had taken a specific plea during trial that the
amount received from P.W.1 was towards loan from P.W.4, however,
appellant could not prove the same. The said aspect cannot be an
incriminating circumstance against the appellant. As already discussed,
the prosecution could not discharge their initial burden of either proving
the 'demand' by appellant or any 'pending official favour' with the
appellant. Only when prosecution succeeds in discharging its initial
burden, the appellant's failure to prove his defence can be treated as an
additional circumstance as proof of guilt of accused and not otherwise.
16. For the said reasons, the appellant succeeds and the conviction
recorded by the learned Special Judge in C.C.No.47 of 2007, dated
01.04.2013 is hereby set aside.
17. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on
bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 21.10.2024
Note: LR copy to be marked
B/o.kvs
