Telangana High Court

The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Spl. Hyd., For ... vs B. Srinivasulu, on 28 October, 2024

                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.287 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:

1. The State, aggrieved by the acquittal of the

respondent/accused officer for the offences under Sections 7 and

Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide

judgment in C.C.No.21 of 2009 dated 11.11.2011 passed by the I

Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed the present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant

was working as retired attender at Z.P. High School, Parpally

village, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. He submitted

his pension papers to the accused who was working as Head Master

of the said school. It was the accused who had to issue the

proceedings relating to the Earned Leave of P.W.1/defacto

complainant during summer vacation for the years 2006, 2007 and

2008 and forward particulars of family benefit fund and group

insurance refund to the Deputy C.E.O, Zilla Parishad,

Mahabubnagar District.

3. Since the request of P.W.1 was long pending, he met the

accused in the month of September, 2008, who demanded

Rs.5,000/- for issuing the proceedings. Again P.W.1 met the

accused on 14.10.2008 at his house. However, the accused insisted

for payment of Rs.5,000/- to get the proceedings done. Aggrieved by

the said continuous demand of the accused for bribe, P.W.1 went to

the ACB office and lodged Ex.P1 complaint on 14.10.2008.

4. The DSP/P.W.6 received the complaint on 14.10.2008 at 12.30

p.m. P.W.6 arranged for the trap on the next day i.e., 15.10.2008.

On the trap day, the trap party gathered in the office of the ACB.

After concluding the formalities before proceeding to entrap the

accused, the pre-trap proceedings which is Ex.P7 was drafted. The

trap party went near the house of the accused. P.W.1 entered into

the house and when the accused demanded bribe, he handed over

the said amount. Then the accused handed over the original Service

Book and papers relating to P.W.1's pensionery benefits and also

gave the receipt to handover the same to the Deputy C.E.O, Z.P.P,

Mahabubnagar District and get his signature. P.W.1 came out and

signaled to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of

bribe.

5. The trap party entered into the house and the hands of the

accused were tested with sodium carbonate solution to know

whether the phenolphthalein smeared currency notes were handled

by him. The test on both the hands turned positive. The material

objects and concerned documents were all seized by the DSP and

thereafter, post trap proceedings were concluded. The said post-

trap proceedings were drafted as Ex.P12.

6. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.7, who

concluded investigation and filed charge sheet after obtaining

necessary sanction orders from the Government.

7. Learned Special Judge framed charges against the accused for

demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.5,000/- from P.W.1. During

the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 and

M.Os.1 to 8 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The accused

examined D.W.1 S.Narsimlu, who earlier worked as attender in the

office and also marked Exs.D1 and D2 in defence.

8. Learned Special Judge having assessed the evidence placed on

record by the prosecution, found the accused not guilty. The

reasons given by the learned Special Judge are:

i) Immediately during the post-trap proceedings, accused

spontaneously explained that the amount was meant to be given to

attender D.W.1/S.Narsimlu. D.W.1 also entered into the witness

box and stated that the amount was due from P.W.1.

ii) On 27.09.2008 itself, the accused signed on Ex.P3 papers

by affixing rubber stamp and also instructed P.W.1 to get the

service register. Further, prior to 27.09.2008, the accused prepared

Earned Leave figures on a separate paper which is Ex.P4. The said

circumstance indicates that there was no demand by the accused.

iii) From Ex.P17, which is C.D, it is clear that no farewell party

was given to P.W.1 on retirement and both P.Ws.1 and his son

P.w.2 had grievance against the accused.

iv) D.W.1 entered into the box and stated that P.W.1 fell sick

for some time and D.W.1 worked in the place of P.W.1. For the said

reason, amount of Rs.5,000/- had to be given to him by P.W.1. The

said version was admitted by the Investigating Officer/P.W.7.

Accordingly, the defence version is probablized by the evidence of

P.W.1/defacto complainant, P.W.2/son of P.W.1 and the

Investigating Officer/P.W.7.

9. In Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka 1 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court summarised the principles whereby appeals against

acquittals can be interfered with. At para-42 of the Judgment, it was held

as follows;

"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 544

(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Vijayakumar v.

State of T.N. 2 held as hereunder:--

"20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [(2007) 4 SCC 415] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p. 432) "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2021) 3 SCC 687

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.

Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

11. As rightly found by the learned Special Judge, no work was

pending with the accused on the date of trap or on the date of

alleged complaint. Long prior to work of the defacto

complainant/P.W.1, which was to be done by the accused was

completed and the accused had asked P.W.1 to produce Service

spontaneously replied that the amount of Rs.5,000/- was meant to

be given to D.W.1 who worked in the place of P.W.1 when P.W.1

was sick and absent to his duties. The said version of D.W.1 that he

worked in the place of P.W.1 was confirmed by P.W.1 himself and

also the Investigating Officer/P.W.7. The 'demand' was not proved

by the prosecution convincingly, except the version of P.W.1,

however, the work pending with accused was already completed