Telangana High Court
Sri Krishnaiah, vs The State Acb, Hyderabad Range ... on 30 October, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No. 1716 OF 2009
Between:
Sri Krishnaiah ... Appellant
And
The State ACB, Hyderabad Range ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 30.10.2024
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. 1716 OF 2009
% Dated 30.10.2024
# Sri Krishnaiah ... Appellant
And
$ The State ACB, Hyderabad Range. ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Badeti Venkata Rathnam
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Sridhar Chikyala, learned Spl.Public
Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2014(2) ALD (Crl) 73 (SC)
2
(2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 713
3
(2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 450
4
AIR 2002 Supreme Court 486
5
Air 2004 SC 1242
6
AIR 2004 Supreme Court 960
7
1984 CRILJ 1423
8
(1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 557
9
1964 AIR 575
10 (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 571
11 AIR 2006 SC 836
12 AIR 2006 SC 628
13 AIR 1997 Supreme Court 551
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1716 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is A1 and A2 (acquitted) both were tried for the
offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellant/A1 was convicted
and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.22 of 2006 dated
30.11.2009 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB
Cases, Hyderabad. A1 filed the present appeal aggrieved by the
conviction.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/defacto
complainant lodged complaint on 05.08.2004, which is Ex.P1. In
the said complaint, he narrated that his father purchased a plot of
105 sq.yds at Bagh Ameer, Kukatpally and wanted to obtain
permission for construction of house from the Municipality,
Kukatpally. Further for applying bank loan, a copy of the sale deed,
link documents and certificate from the concerned MRO that the
land falls under 'Gramakantam' had to be provided. On
29.07.2004, application was filed by P.W.1 in the MRO office on
behalf of his father for issuance of certificate. The M.R.O signed on
the application and directed it to be handed over to the appellant,
who was then working as Senior Assistant in the office of the
M.R.O. Accordingly, A1 demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- to be
paid as bribe for issuing the said certificate. Again on 05.08.2004,
P.W.1 met A1 at M.R.O office and requested to issue certificate,
however, A1 insisted for payment of bribe. On repeated requests,
the amount of bribe was reduced to Rs.8,000/-. A1 also showed
that the certificate was already prepared and signed by the M.R.O.
However, A1 kept the certificate with him asking P.W.1 to get the
amount of Rs.8,000/- and after payment, the certificate would be
handed over.
3. P.W.1 then approached the ACB on the same day i.e.,
05.08.2004 and filed typed complaint Ex.P1 at 2.10 p.m. The
DSP/ACB-P.W.8 received the complaint and arranged for the trap
on the next day i.e., on 06.08.2004.
4. The trap party assembled in the office of the DSP. The
independent mediator/P.W.2 and another also formed part of the
trap party including complainant P.W.1, DSP/P.W.8 and others.
The bribe amount of Rs.8,000/- was smeared with phenolphthalein
powder. All the other formalities were completed and the pre-trap
proceedings were drafted which is Ex.P4.
5. The trap party proceeded to the office of the appellant. P.W.3
was asked to accompany P.W.1 and observe as to what transpires
in between P.W.1 and A1. While the trap party stood at a distance,
P.Ws.1 and 3 went to the Section-B, wherein A2 was present. When
they enquired about A1, A2 informed that A1 was in the computer
room. P.Ws.1 and 3 met A1 in the computer and on seeing them, A1
came out of the computer room, opened almirah in his room and
showed the certificate to P.W.1. A1 asked about the person
accompanying P.W.1 and P.W.1 informed that P.W.3 is his father.
A1 then enquired whether the demanded bribe amount was
brought. P.W.1 stated that he brought the amount. A1 obtained
signatures of P.W.3 as acknowledgment and handed over certificate
to P.W.3. A1 asked P.W.1 to handover the bribe amount to A2 and
handed over the certificate. A2 asked P.W.1 to take him towards
the Bank of Maharashtra on the bike of P.W.1 and on the way A2
asked P.W.1 to stop the vehicle and handover the amount. The
tainted bribe amount was handed over to A2. The trap party having
seen PWs.1 and A2 coming out of the office and going on the bike,
followed them. P.W.1 gave signal to the trap party indicating
handing over of the bribe amount. The trap party then questioned
A2 regarding the bribe amount. Then A2 informed that A1 had
asked him to take the amount from P.W.1. The test on the hands of
A2 proved positive and bribe amount was seized at his instance.
The trap party went back to the office and enquired with A1
regarding what transpired when P.Ws.1 and 3 entered into the
office also seized the relevant file. The post-trap proceedings were
drafted which is Ex.P9.
6. The investigation was then handed over by the DSP/P.W.8 to
the Inspector/P.W.9. The Inspector conducted remaining part of the
investigation and after obtaining necessary sanction orders from the
competent authority, filed charge sheet.
7. Learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and
Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
against A1 for demanding and accepting amount of Rs.8,000/- for
handing over the certificate to P.W.2. A2 was charged under Section
12 of the Act for abetting the offence of bribery. Learned Special
Judge found that A2 was not guilty under Section 12 of the Act and
accordingly, acquitted him. A1 was convicted and sentenced as
stated supra.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would
submit that P.W.3 had impersonated as the father of P.W.1. There
was never any demand that was made by A1. The certificate was
not handed over to P.W.1 due to the requirement of presence of
P.W.1's father. Certificate could be handed over only to the person
who has applied for the certificate and not to any representative
including P.W.1, who is the son. On the date of trap, since it was
informed that P.W.3 was the father, certificate was handed over to
P.W.3.
9. Learned counsel further argued that P.W.2, who is the father
of P.W.1 deposed before the Court that he was informed that bribe
was demanded. However, no reason is given as to why P.W.2 did
not go to the M.R.O office to get the certificate. The defence is that
to falsely implicate A1, when A2 came out of the office, he was
taken on P.W.1's motor cycle to a distance and bribe amount was
thrust into the pocket of A2.
10. Since the amount was recovered from A2 and the certificate
was in fact already handed over to P.W.3, believing that he was the
father of P.W.1, the conviction cannot be sustained since the
prosecution failed to prove that there was demand and acceptance
of bribe.
11. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra
Pradesh 1. The Hon'ble three Judge bench of Supreme Court held
that recovery of currency notes will not suffice to infer guilt unless
the demand of gratification was proved beyond reasonable doubt by
the prosecution. In N.Sunkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the case of defacto
complainant turning hostile, found that prosecution cannot raise
presumption when the complainant himself has disowned his
2014(2) ALD (Crl) 73 (SC)
(2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 713
complaint and turned hostile only on the basis of recovery of bribe
amount. In State of Kerala and another v. C.P.Rao 3, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that mere recovery of amount divorced from
circumstances under which bribe was paid will not be sufficient to
convict the accused. In Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra 4, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if any explanation is given by the
accused during Section 313 Cr.P.C examination also can be
considered if it is found to be correct. The burden on the accused is
one of preponderance of probability.
12. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
ACB argued that certificate was with A1 and he did not handover
the said certificate to P.W.1, until the bribe amount was promised
to be given. The relevant file was seized from the possession of A1.
Presumption arises under Section 20 of the Act in the said
circumstances and the burden shifts on to A1 to discharge his
burden. In support of his arguments, he relied on the following
judgments: i)T.Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh 5; ii)
(2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 450
AIR 2002 Supreme Court 486
Air 2004 SC 1242
State of Andhra Pradesh v. V.Vasudeva Rao 6; iii) Gura Singh v.
State of Rajasthan 7 ; iv) State of U.P v. Zakaullah 8 ; v)
Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra 9 ;
vi)Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra 10 ; vii)
T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu 11 ; viii) State through
Inspector of Police, A.P v. K.Narasimhachary 12 and ix)
C.K.Damodaran Nai v. Government of India 13.
13. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for A1
is that the certificate was not handed over since applicant did not
turn up. Even on the date of trap, certificate was given to P.W.3
without receiving any amount. That in itself would go to show that
there was no demand for bribe.
14. Admittedly, A2 is a stranger to P.W.1. It is not in dispute that
the certificate was signed by the concerned officer/P.W.5. According
to P.W.5, he had already signed and handed over the certificate of
AIR 2004 Supreme Court 960
1984 CRILJ 1423
(1998) 1 Supreme Court Cases 557
1964 AIR 575
(2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 571
AIR 2006 SC 836
AIR 2006 SC 628
AIR 1997 Supreme Court 551
P.W.2 to A1. Ex.P5 file was received on 03.08.2004 by P.W.5 and on
the same day he signed on the file. The complaint was filed on
05.08.2004 when A1 showed the certificate that it was ready,
however, refused to handover the certificate unless bribe amount
was paid. Even on the date of trap, when P.Ws.1 and 3 went and
met A1, he demanded bribe amount and when P.W.1 stated that he
brought the amount, then the certificate was given to P.W.3, who
informed A1 that he was the father of P.W.1. Then A1 asked A2 to
accompany P.W.1 and take the bribe amount.
15. The evidence of demand by A1 is spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 3
on the date of trap. After A1 ensured that the bribe amount was
brought, he handed over the certificate to P.W.3 and asked A2 to
accompany P.W.1 and collect the bribe amount. Even without
collecting the bribe amount, though A1 handed over the certificate,
that in itself does not mean that there was no demand or
acceptance of bribe or that A1 was falsely implicated by thrusting
the amount into the pocket of A2 after taking him to a distance on
his motor cycle. If at all P.W1 wanted to falsely implicate A1, either
he would have kept the amount on the table or thrust the amount
into the pocket of A1 himself. A2 was stranger to P.W.1. There is no
reason for P.W.1 to take A2 on his motor cycle to a distance and
then handover the bribe amount unless it was directed by A1.
Further, there is no reason why A2 would go along with P.W.1 who
is a stranger.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that
P.W.3 impersonated as father of P.W.1. In an offence of bribery, it
has to be seen whether there was demand and acceptance of bribe
by the accused. The certificate was handed over to P.W.3 when he
stated that he was the father of P.W.1 and asked A2 to collect the
bribe amount from P.W.1. The demand aspect is proved by the
prosecution. In the said circumstances, when A1 asked P.W.1 to
pay the bribe amount to A2, P.W.1 did not have any other option
but to follow the instructions of A1. There is no reason why A2
would sit with P.W.1 who is a stranger and travel to a distance. A1
is trying to get the benefit from the transactions that happened on
the date of trap i.e., recovery of the amount from A2 and pleading
ignorance of demand of bribe. As already discussed, the recovery of
amount from A2 was only on account of the direction of A1 asking
P.W.1 to handover the bribe amount to A2.
17. There are no reasons to interfere with the well reasoned
judgment of the trial Court.
18. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal fails and dismissed. The incident
is of the year 2004 and nearly 20 years passed by, the appellant is
now aged more than 70 years, as such, this Court deems it
appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to one year
under both counts. Since the appellant-A1 is on bail, he shall be
summoned by the Special Court and send him to prison to serve
out the remaining part of the sentence.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 30.10.2024
kvs
