Telangana High Court

E. Ganga Ram, Rampur Village, ... vs The State, Acb., Rep. By Spl.P.P.For Acb ... on 2 April, 2025

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1509 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year

under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.45 of

2004 dated 29.10.2009, passed by the Principal Special Judge for

SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the

said conviction, the present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the defacto

complainant. He approached the DSP, ACB, and lodged a complaint

on 29.04.2003. According to P.W.1, he purchased two plots in the

year 2003, admeasuring 166.66 sq.yds. The sale deed was

registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Adilabad. On

19.04.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant, and requested him to return

the original sale deeds Exs.P1 and P2, for which, the demand for

Rs.500/- was made by the appellant. Again on 21.04.2003, P.W.1

met the appellant, and requested him to give the sale deeds.

However, the appellant reiterated his demand and informed that he

would not give Exs.P1 and P2 unless the demand for a bribe was

fulfilled.

3. On 29.04.2003, P.W.1 met DSP, ACB/P.W.6, and lodged a

complaint. P.W.6 asked P.W.1 to come the next day, i.e., on

30.04.2003, on which day the trap was arranged. The trap party

gathered at 1.00 p.m in the Forest Guest House, Adilabad. The pre-

trap proceedings were concluded. P.W.1 and his friend P.W.2 were

asked to meet the appellant. P.W.2 was instructed to observe what

transpires between P.W.1 and the appellant.

4. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the office around 2.30 p.m. The

appellant, on seeing P.W.1, demanded the bribe amount, and the

amount was handed over to A2, who was in his chamber. Ten

minutes thereafter, P.W.2 came out and signaled to the trap party,

indicating the demand and the acceptance of the amount by the

appellant. The trap party then entered the office, and the hands of

the appellant were tested. The test on both hands proved positive

for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The appellant, when

questioned, informed that the bribe amount was with A2. The

hands of A2 also tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein

powder.

5. The DSP, ACB seized Exs.P1 and P2 from P.W.1, which are the

sale deeds, allegedly handed over by the appellant after accepting

the bribe.

6. The statements of P.Ws.1, 2, the appellant, and A2 were

recorded in the post-trap proceedings/Ex.P6, and the relevant

documents were also seized. Thereafter, the investigation was

handed over by P.W.6 to M.Kiran Kumar, Inspector of Police (not

examined), who filed the charge sheet.

7. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and the recovery of Exs.P1 and

P2 on the date of the trap, were the reasons for the learned Special

Judge finding the appellant guilty. However, the learned Special

Judge found that A2 was not complicit along with the appellant in

demanding and accepting the bribe, for which reason A2 was

acquitted.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that the appellant never demanded any bribe. On the date of the

trap, P.W.1 showed a receipt which was handled by the appellant

for verification, and the amount was passed on by placing the

amount in the receipt. Though the appellant objected and intended

to return the receipt along with the amount, however, such amount

was handed over to A2 to return it to P.W.1. The said version was

not recorded by the DSP during the post-trap proceedings. Learned

counsel further argued that there is no official duty pending as on

the date of the trap. Exs.P1 and P2 were registered on 19.04.2003

by P.W.4, who is the Joint Sub-Registrar. The said documents,

Exs.P1 and P2, were received by P.W.1 on the date of the

registration, i.e., on 19.04.2003, and P.W.1 had acknowledged the

receipt of Exs.P1 and P2. A false complaint was filed by P.W.1, and

he accepted that he has signed on Ex.D1 after receiving the

registered documents. The documents, Ex.D1, Exs.X1, and X2,

clearly indicate that the documents were already taken by P.W.1, as

such, the question of demanding or accepting bribe, does not arise.

9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the

case of Kalukuri Lingaiah v. State 1.

2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 779 (AP)

10. Learned counsel further argued that the evidence of P.W.2

cannot be considered for corroboration to P.W.1's evidence. P.W.2 is

a friend of the complainant. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. The State of A.P2,

observed that the accompanying witness, being a close friend of the

complainant, can be assumed to be an interested witness.

11. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor

would submit that the documents were seized from P.W.1 on the

date of the trap, which were handed over by the appellant to P.W.1

on the date of the trap after receiving the bribe amount. In the said

circumstances, the version of P.W.1 that the signatures were

initially obtained, however, the documents were not returned, is

convincing. Further, P.W.2 is an independent witness who had

witnessed the demand and acceptance by the appellant and also

the handing over of the documents, Exs.P1 and P2, after receiving

the bribe.

12. P.W.1 deposed that he had shown the receipt to the appellant

to meet him in the office. After the appellant verified the receipt,

Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 9091 of 2022, dated 10.07.2024

the documents, Exs.P1 and P2, were handed over. However, the

pre-trap proceedings do not reflect that P.W.1 was carrying any

receipt with him to be shown to the appellant.

13. In the complaint, Ex.P3, it is no where mentioned by P.W.1

that the signatures were already taken in the Sub-Registrar Office,

either by the appellant or by anyone in the office acknowledging the

receipt of Exs.P1 and P2. Even in the chief examination before the

Court, P.W.1 did not state that he had signed any documents

acknowledging the receipt on Exs.P1 and P2.

14. The case of the appellant is that the registration was done by

P.W.4, and there was no involvement of the appellant. P.W.4 stated

as follows:

"As seen from the acknowledgment register produced by me the document bearing No.1128/2003 on 1129/2003 (P-1 and P-2) was registered by me and I issued a receipt and obtained the acknowledgment of PW1 on the receipts I also obtained acknowledgment register of delivering the registered documents of PW1 and PW2 on 19.4.2003 at 1:55 PM and 1:59 pm Ex.X-1 is the acknowledgment registered is relevant entry is marked as Ex.X-

2. Ex.D-1 is the true copy of the said entry X-2 attested by the Joint Sub-Registrar by Mr.Manohar Masadhe and I can identify the signature on Ex.D-1. As per record Ex.X-1 and X-2 entry Ex.P-1 and P-2 were delivered to PW1 on 19.4.2003."

]

15. P.W.4 further admitted that the appellant had no role either in

the registration of Exs.P1 and P2 or in delivering the documents to

P.W.1.

16. A2 entered the witness box and examined himself as D.W.1.

According to him, P.W.4 was the Joint Sub-Registrar and the

appellant was the Senior Assistant. On 30.04.2003, i.e., the trap

date, D.W.1 prepared Ex.D2 photocopy of the sale deed, and gave it

to P.W.4. At that time, P.W.1 came there and handed over the

receipt, and beneath the receipt, some amount was kept. The said

person immediately rushed out of the office room. The appellant

then gave the amount to D.W.1 and asked him to return it to that

person. When D.W.1 was going out, the ACB officials came inside

the office and caught hold of A2. Thereafter, the proceedings were

conducted.

17. P.W.6/Investigating Officer stated as follows:

"It is true during post trap proceedings I did not file any registered documents in the custody of Ao1. It is true that PW2 did not state to me that in his presence on the date of the registration of the document i.e., on 19.4.2003 the AO1 demanded any bribe amount from P.W.1. It is true the office of the Sub-Registrar will maintain an acknowledgment

register and I verify the acknowledgment register Ex.X-1 shown to me. As seen from Ex.X2 entry Ex.P1 and P2 were delivered to PW1 and acknowledged by him on19.4.2003. It is true the registered documents Ex.P1 and P2 delivered to him on 19.4.2003 there was no need to go the sub registrar office after 19.4.2003. It is true AO1 stated during post trap proceedings that he did not demand any amount from PW1 and PW1 voluntarily paid some amount and that he handed over the same to A2 Abdul Waheed Asst. documentary Writer. It is true as per Ex.P6 at page 2 A2 was found standing at the door of the sub registrar office by the time the trap party member entered in the said office."

18. P.W.1 had concealed the receipt, and on the said date, he

allegedly showed and handed it over to the appellant. P.W.4 and

P.W.6 also specifically admitted that, as per Ex.X2 entry, Exs.P1

and P2 were delivered to P.W.1, and it was also acknowledged.

Further, the spontaneous explanation given by the appellant was

that he had informed that P.W.1 had paid some amount and that

he handed it over to A2. Further, A2 was found at the door of the

Sub-Registrar office when the trap party members entered.

19. From the sequence of the events that transpired in the case,

Exs.P1 and P2-sale deeds were already handed over to P.W.1 on

19.04.2003. The version of the appellant appears to be correct.

P.W.4 was the officer who registered the documents Exs.P1 and P2