Telangana High Court
Dr. K. Anand Rao vs The State Acb, City Rangei, on 9 April, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1643 OF 2007
*****
Between:
Dr.Gurushantappa S.Bandi ... Appellant
And
The State of AP, rep. by DSP, ACB,
City Range-I, Hyderabad ... Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1682 OF 2007
Between:
Dr.K.Anand Rao ... Appellant
And
The State of AP, rep. by DSP, ACB,
City Range-I, Hyderabad ...Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 09.04.2025
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
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1643 OF 2007
% Dated 09.04.2025
# Dr.Gurushantappa S.Bandi ... Appellant.
And
$ The State of AP, rep. by DSP, ACB,
City Range-I, Hyderabad ... Respondent
+CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1682 OF 2007
# Dr.K.Anand Rao ... Appellant.
And
$ The State of AP, rep. by DSP, ACB,
City Range-I, Hyderabad ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V.Surender Rao
Sri Badeti Venkata Rathnam
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy
Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
1
(2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152
2
2001 AIR SCW 2415
3
(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1643 and 1682 OF 2007
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.1682 of 2007 was filed by A1 and Criminal
Appeal No.1643 of 2007 was filed by A2.
2. A1 and A2 were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one and half years, each under Section
7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 vide judgment in C.C.No.50 of 2003 dated 15.11.2007,
passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3. Since both the appeals are questioning the conviction of the
appellants/A1 and A2, both the appeals are heard together and
disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto
complainant/P.W.1 was a final year M.B.B.S Student at Osmania
Medical College. There were practical examinations scheduled from
06.05.2002 to 15.05.2002. For the evaluation of the practical
exams, the college has two professors who are internal evaluators
and two professors from outside the college who would be external
evaluators. A1 and A2 were appointed as external evaluators. The
practical exam of PW.1 was scheduled on 04.05.2002. P.W.1 was
asked to come to the Osmania Medical College Guest house, room
No.4, by A1 on 10.05.2002. A1 demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/-
from P.W.1 for awarding passing marks in the internal exams. A1
then insisted that the amount had to be paid by 15.05.2002, which
was the last date of the examination. The next day, i.e., on
11.05.2002, during the practical examination, A2 also demanded
Rs.6,000/- from P.W.1 for awarding passing marks in the practical
examination.
5. P.W.1 was not willing to pay any bribe to A1 and A2, as such,
he approached the DSP, ACB on 13.05.202, and lodged Ex.P1-
complaint, which was received by DSP/P.W.12. P.W.1 was asked to
come on 14.05.2002.
6. A1 was staying in Osmania Medical College Guest room and
A2 was staying in Mahaveer Hotel. P.W.9/independent mediator,
and another mediator, namely M.A.A.Farooqui (L.W.12), who was
working in the office of Commissioner and Director of Horticulture,
Hyderabad, were asked to act as independent mediators for the trap
of A1 in the Osmania Medical College Guest House. P.W.10 and one
Sai Baba, who was working as Co-operative Sub Registrar in the
office of the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Hyderabad, were asked to act as mediators for
the entrapment of A2. The complaint was registered at 5.00 p.m, on
14.05.2002, and the trap party, who gathered in the ACB office,
started the pre-trap proceedings at 5.15 p.m. The amount of
Rs.5,000/- and Rs.6,000/-, meant for A1 and A2, respectively, were
kept in separate pockets of P.W.1.
7. After concluding the pre-trap proceedings/Ex.P18, P.Ws.1, 9,
L.W.12, P.W.12, and two Inspectors, namely J.Bhadreeswar and
S.Thrimurthulu, went to the Guest house at Osmania Medical
College. They reached the Osmania Medical College around 7.30
p.m. P.W.1 went inside the room where A1 was staying. According
to P.W.1, when he knocked the door of room No.4, A1 opened the
door and questioned him about Rs.5,000/-. When P.W.1 took out
the amount of Rs.5,000/-, A1 asked him to keep the bribe amount
underneath the bed-sheet. PW.1 kept the amount as directed by A1,
went out of the room, and signaled to the trap party. Having
received signal from P.W.1, the DSP, P.W.9, and other trap party
members went inside the room of A1. Sodium carbonate solution
was prepared and the hands of A1 were tested. However, they
remained colourless. When questioned, A1 pointed towards the
currency notes which were kept underneath the bedsheet. The
money was recovered.
8. At 8.30 p.m, P.W.1 and P.W.12 went to Mahaveer Hotel, where
P.W.10, another mediator, and two other ACB inspectors were
waiting. P.W.1 then went and met A2 in the room No.408.
According to P.W.1, when he knocked the door and when A2 came
out, he demanded the amount of Rs.6,000/-. A2 took the bribe
amount from P.W.1 and kept it in his right-side trouser pocket.
P.W.1 came out of the hotel and relayed the pre-arranged signal.
P.W.10, P.W.12, and other trap party members then went inside the
room of A2 and questioned him about the bribe amount. A2's hands
were tested in sodium carbonate solution, and both proved positive.
On repeated questioning, A2 informed about the amount in his pant
pocket which was hung on the wall hanger. One of the mediators
took the amount from the pocket and verified the currency
numbers.
9. After A2's tests were conducted, P.W.12 took P.W.1 back to the
guest house where the proceedings against A1 were continuing. A1
was found in possession of Rs.1,48,640/-. The post-trap
proceedings of A1 were concluded at the guest house and from
there, P.W.12 and P.W.1 again went to Mahaveer Hotel around
00.50 hours on 15.05.2002. There also, the post-trap proceedings
of A2 were concluded.
10. P.W.12 examined the witnesses during the post-trap
proceedings of A1 and A2, and thereafter, the investigation was
handed over to one Koteshwar Rao
(not examined). The investigation was completed by P.W.13, who
filed the charge sheet against the appellants.
11. The defence of the appellants is that they never demanded any
amount from P.W.1 and no official favour was pending with A1 and
A2. According to A1 and A2, since they did not agree to award first
class marks in the internal examination to P.W.1, a false complaint
was filed against them.
12. According to A1, he never demanded or accepted any amount
on the trap date. The ACB officials had manipulated the recovery
underneath the bedsheet. The post-trap proceedings were drafted
with false averments.
13. A2's defence is that on the date of the trap, P.W.1 came to his
room and handed over the currency notes to Dr.Sangram Iradar
(not examined in Court), who was admittedly in the room, and PW.1
stated that the amount was given to him at the hotel reception. The
said Sangram kept the amount in the pant pocket of A2, which was
hanging on the hanger of the lodge room.
14. Both A1 and A2 stated that though spontaneous explanations
were given by them regarding the recovery of the amount, however,
the same was not recorded in the post-trap proceedings.
15. Learned counsel for A1 argued that P.W.1 is the only witness
to speak about the alleged demand and there is no independent
corroboration. Though P.W.1 stated that one person informed him
to meet A1, however, the prosecution has not identified the said
person, nor has P.W.1 named the person who asked P.W.1 to meet
A1 in his room on 10.05.2002. In the complaint/Ex.P1, P.W.1's
meeting with A1 was not mentioned. Since there is no evidence that
A1 had asked P.W.1 to meet him, the demand for bribe becomes
doubtful. Learned counsel submitted that even on the date of the
trap, no person accompanied P.W.1 to witness what transpired
between P.W.1 and the appellants. According to P.W.12, A1 was not
wearing any baniyan, however, P.W.1 stated that A1 was wearing a
baniyan, which evidence is contradictory. P.W.1 had planted the
amount underneath the bedsheet in the room, which fact is evident
from the admission of P.W.1.
16. Learned counsel for A2 argued that there is no proof of
demand for bribe on 11.05.2002, and it is highly improbable that
A2 would have asked P.W.1 to come to his room on 15.05.2002.
There is no documentary evidence placed on record to show the
scheduled dates of the examination. According to P.W.1, his
examination was in two sessions, i.e., the morning session, which
was conducted by A1 and Dr.S.Madhukar,(who was examined as
L.W.3 during the course of investigation, but not examined in the
Court) and the evening session was conducted by A2 and P.W.2.
The examinations were conducted for a group of 20 students, and
not a single student was examined to probablise the demand made
by A2.
17. Counsel for A2 further argued that, on the date of the trap,
though P.W.12 stated that two inspectors, namely K.Ramchander
Rao and Ashok Kumar, accompanied him, they were not examined
in the Court. The money was recovered from the pant hanging on
the wall hanger, and the explanation given at the earliest point of
time, that the amount was handed over by P.W.1 to Sangram, was
not incorporated in the post-trap proceedings. Both the counsel
argued that there was no official favour pending. By the date of
lodging the complaint and the trap being laid, the medical
examination of P.W.1 was over. According to P.W.1, he admitted
that by the date of lodging Ex.P1, his practical exam was over. Once
the exam was complete, and even according to P.W.2, the marks
had to be given on the very same day of examination, the allegation
of demand and acceptance of bribe on 14.05.2002 is highly
improbable.
18. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that a large amount
of cash was found with both A1 and A2, which was unexplained.
According to the prosecution, they would receive around
Rs.10,000/- towards their services; however, no explanation was
given as to why such huge amounts were found. There is no reason
why P.W.1, who is a final year student of M.B.B.S, would falsely
implicate A1 and A2, who had came from outside for assessing
internal exams.
19. According to P.W.1, A1 demanded bribe on 10.05.2002 and A2
demanded bribe on 11.05.2002. P.W.2 deposed in his cross-
examination as follows:
"We were supposed to award marks then and there itself after
examining the concerned student.
By the end of each day the internal and external examiners had
to submit the sheets containing the marks awarded to the
students to chief examiner i.e., LW3 Dr.Madhukar. After
handing over the said sheets to Chief-Examiner, the internal
and external (examiners) had no chance to change the marks.
Since AOs 1 and 2 were external examiners they had no
acquaintance with the students."
20. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination as follows:
"By the date of my lodging Ex.P1 the practical examination
was over."
21. As seen from the above evidence, P.W.2, who is the examiner
from Osmania Medical College where P.W.1 was studying, stated
that the marks would be granted on the very same day, and the
marks sheet would be handed over to the Chief Examiner,
Dr.Madhukar. Further, the question of changing marks would not
arise once the answer sheets were handed over to the Chief
Examiner.
22. It is an admitted fact that the practical examination of P.W.1
was completed on 11.05.2002, and the marks were also awarded on
the very same day. The prosecution has not examined the Chief
Examiner, Dr.Madhkar, who would have given the details of the
marks allotted by A1 and A2 in favour of P.W.1. Neither the marks
sheet of P.W.1 was seized by the ACB, nor was the Chief Examiner,
though examined during investigation, examined during the course
of trial as he was given up by the prosecution. Non-examination of
L.W.3-Madhukar is fatal to the prosecution case.
23. It cannot be said that P.W.1 did not have knowledge about the
grant of marks on the date of examination itself. There is no
evidence by the prosecution to suggest that A1 and A2 had kept
pending the marks that were to be awarded to P.W.1.
24. The complaint was filed by P.W.1 two days after the marks
were awarded by A1 and A2. Once the marks are awarded, the
question of making any changes does not arise. A1 and A2 did not
have any say after 11.05.2002 in the marks that would be awarded
to P.W.1. Both A1 and A2 were not in a position to do any favour to
P.W.1 or grant any additional marks, or alter or increase the marks
that were already given on 11.05.2002.
25. These factors were not appreciated by the learned Special
Judge. The prosecution has suppressed the marks sheet of P.W.1.
Though P.W.1 pleaded ignorance regarding the marks being granted
on 11.05.2002 itself, however, he does not speak about any
interaction with either A1 or A2. Nor did P.W.1 state that the
practical examination marks were not awarded or were yet to be
awarded. It is an admitted fact that the complaint was filed two
days after the marks were awarded by A1 and A2. Complaint/Ex.P1
was filed by PW.1 on the ground that bribe was demanded for
awarding passing marks in the practical examinations.
26. Other than the testimony of P.W.1, there is no corroboration to
the version of P.W.1 that the demand was made by either A1 or A2.
Though there were groups of 20 students for each practical
examination conducted over four days, not a single student came
forward stating that there was any demand by either A1 or A2 for
the purpose of granting marks in the practical examination. None of
the other students were examined during investigation. No reason is
shown by the prosecution as to why A1 and A2 demanded money
from PW.1 only, when there were more than 100 students, who took
the examination.
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in P.Satyanarayana Murthy v.
District Inspector of Police and State of Andhra Pradesh and
another 1 , held that mere recovery or acceptance of the amount,
dehors the proof of demand, will not be sufficient to bring home the
(2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152
charge under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
28. The recovery in A1's room was underneath the bedsheet and
the colour on the hands of A1 did not turn positive. Though three
persons were present in the hotel room of A2, when the alleged
bribe was passed on, none of them were examined, and the recovery
of the amount was from the pant pocket which was hung on the
wall hanger.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v.
Krishnan and another2, believed the version that the amount was
planted. Similarly, in Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra 3 , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the explanation given by the
accused is probable and reasonable, such defence can be accepted.
30. In view of there being no official favour pending on the date of
lodging the complaint, i.e., on 13.05.2002, since the practical exam
of P.W.1 was completed on 11.05.2002 and marks had already been
granted by A1 and A2, the version of P.W.1, coupled with the other
2001 AIR SCW 2415
(2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371
circumstances discussed above, creates doubt regarding the
credibility of PW.1's statement about demand for bribe by A1 and
A2 for awarding passing marks. Therefore, benefit of doubt is
extended to the appellants.
31. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.50 of
2003 dated 15.11.2007, passed by the Principal Special Judge for
SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is hereby set aside,
and the appellants are acquitted.
32. Accordingly, Criminal Appeals are allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 09.04.2025
kvs
