Telangana High Court
Chowda Sudhakar Rao, Sangareddy, Medak ... vs The State, Acb, Nizamabad Range, Rep.By ... on 16 April, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.11 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7
and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (for short 'the Act'), and was sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year under each count, vide
judgment in C.C.No.15 of 2010, dated 23.12.2010, passed by the II
Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that P.W.1, who was running
a barber shop, filed an application in the office of M.D.O for loan
from a Scheduled Bank, which offers a subsidy. There was a
scheme floated by the State Government, 'Kotivaralu', for upliftment
of backward classes like Dhobis, Barbers, etc., in various Districts.
The individual beneficiaries would be identified by the Mandal
Parishad Development Officer (MPDOs), and the concerned MPDOs
would forward the applications received from individuals like P.W.1
to the concerned District Collector. The proposals would also be
sent to the District Collector for approval of loan to the applicants.
3. The procedure would be that the applications would be
processed, and thereafter, cheques would be given to the MPDOs to
disburse them to the concerned beneficiaries.
4. P.W.1 applied for the loan. In due process, he was identified as
a beneficiary, and his application was accepted. His name was also
finalized for receiving the subsidized loan. The prerequisites of
opening an account and giving signed cheques for amount of
Rs.829/- in favour of the Executive Director BC Corporation,
Sangareddy, were all completed.
5. P.W.1 went to the BC Corporation Office at Sangareddy and
met the appellant, who was working as a Junior Inspector of the
Cooperative Societies in the office of the Executive Director,
Backward Classes Service Co-operative Society Limited, Medak
District. The appellant demanded Rs.500/- for handing over a
cheque of Rs.20,000/- to him. Further, the appellant informed
P.W.1 that only after paying Rs.500/- as a bribe, would the cheque
be forwarded to the MDO's office.
6. P.W.1 then approached the Inspector, ACB, on 31.01.2004
and narrated his grievance about the appellant demanding a bribe
for handing over the cheque. A Telugu written complaint/Ex.P1,
was drafted by P.W.1. P.W.1 was asked to return to the ACB office
Sangareddy on 04.02.2004. The pre-trap proceedings were
concluded in the office of the ACB at Sangareddy. The trap party
proceeded to the BC Service Corporation Society Office. P.W.1 went
inside the office and found that the appellant was not available in
the office. P.W.1 then came out and, on the instructions of the
Inspector, ACB, called the appellant on his phone. The appellant
informed that he would be coming to the office within five minutes.
The appellant came to the office around 1.20 p.m. The appellant
then demanded the bribe, and the tainted bribe amount was
handed over to him. The appellant kept the amount in his right-side
back pocket of his trousers and informed P.W.1 that his cheque
would be forwarded to the MPDO office. P.W.1 came out and
signaled to the trap party. P.W.8 and others entered the office and
questioned the appellant about the amount. The sodium carbonate
solution test was prepared, and when tested, the right-hand wash
gave a positive result, and the left-hand wash tested negative. The
amount was produced from the back pocket of the appellant. The
appellant was convicted on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and
the recovery of the tainted amount from him.
7. Sri Nageshwar Rao Pappu, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the
appellant had nothing to do with the cheques and could not have
handover the cheques either to P.W.1 or to any of the beneficiaries.
The entire process of identifying the beneficiaries and the
preparation of the cheques had already been completed by the date
of laying the trap. In fact, P.W.3 admitted that on 03.02.2004, i.e.,
one day prior to the trap, the cheques pertaining to P.W.1 and
others had been handed over by the appellant to her. However, she
did not dispatch the cheques for want of postal stamps. Again, on
the date of the trap, i.e., 04.02.2004 at about 11.00 a.m, the
appellant gave her the cheques of P.W.1 and others for dispatch.
The fact that the appellant was not involved in the process of
identifying the beneficiaries and that the cheques were not to be
handed over by the appellant to the beneficiaries was also accepted
by the investigating officer. In the said circumstances, the question
of a demand for bribe does not arise.
8. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
appearing for the ACB would submit that there is no reason why
P.W.1 would falsely implicate the appellant. The complaint was filed
on 31.01.2004, and the trap was arranged on 04.02.2004. P.W.1,
being a beneficiary, is not disputed, and also his cheque being
ready with the appellant. In fact, the appellant was in possession of
the cheques, and he had handed them over to P.W.3 for the
purpose of dispatch. P.W.1 approached the appellant, and when
asked for the cheque, the appellant demanded a bribe. The
prosecution had proved both the demand and the acceptance of the
bribe by the appellant.
9. It is not in dispute that the entire process of identifying the
beneficiaries and their applications being received for the purpose of
providing subsidized loans was undertaken even prior to the date of
trap. It is also not disputed that the cehque in question was ready
by 03.02.2004, a day prior to the trap.
10. P.W.1 was running a Barber shop, whose family income was
around Rs.9,000/-. He applied for a loan, and the loan was
sanctioned. He wanted to get the land loan amount and met the
appellant in the process. Neither the appellant, nor P.W.3, or
anyone in the office had informed P.W.1 that the cheques would be
dispatched by post to the address mentioned in the application.
P.W.1 denied knowledge about the dispatch of cheques to the
individuals.
11. The defence of the appellant is that P.W.1 held a grudge
against the appellant for the delay in receiving a cheque, and for the
said reason, he had forcibly thrust the amount into the right side
pant pocket of the appellant and involved him in a false case.
12. Admittedly, P.W.1 was not aware of the cheques being
dispatched from the office to the beneficiaries. The appellant would
receive the cheques, and he, in turn, handed them over to
P.W.3/concerned clerk for dispatch of the cheques. According to
P.W.1, the appellant threatened that his cheque would be forwarded
to the MPDO office only if the bribe was paid. The factum of the
appellant being the person to get the cheques dispatched is not in
dispute. P.W.1, having met the appellant in the office, was aggrieved
by the fact that the appellant demanded Rs.500/- for forwarding
the cheque.
13. The defence of the appellant that he was falsely implicated on
account of the delay in dispatching cheques cannot be accepted.
P.W.1 belonged to a low-income group, and he was in need of the
loan. There is absolutely no reason why P.W.1 would lodge a false
complaint against the appellant when the process of identifying the
beneficiaries, taking applications, and sanctioning the loan is
dependent on several officials in the office.
14. There are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded
by the trial Court. Since the appellant is on bail, the trial Court is
directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to
prison, to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The remand
period, if any, shall be given set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 16.04.2025
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Date:16.04.2025
kvs
