Telangana High Court
State,Rep.By Inspector Of Police, Acb, ... vs Shaik Mahamood, Dy Commercial Tax ... on 16 April, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1302 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
The State, aggrieved by the acquittal of the
respondents/A-1 and A-2, is questioning the judgment dated
23.05.2011 in S.C.No.20 of 2010, on the file of II Additional
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. The offences
alleged against the accused are under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
r/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998, and 34 of
IPC.
2. Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for ACB cases and Sri T.Aditya, learned counsel
for respondents.
3. A-1 died, and accordingly, the appeal against him was
abated on 11.04.2025.
4. The Appeal is heard insofar as A-2 is concerned.
5. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. According to him, he
was the Proprietor of Sri Sai Binding Works. He used to
purchase raw material from Vijayawada and Hyderabad
which included taxes. On 13.06.2003, A-1 went to his shop
and verified the details of bills and accordingly levied
Rs.1,809/- for the year 2002-03 and Rs.7,171/- for the year
2003-04. On 18.06.2003, A-1 informed P.W.1 that an
amount of Rs.8,980/- has to be paid as tax. Further, penalty
of Rs.2,000/- was levied as user charges. P.W.1 paid the
entire amount on 18.06.2003. Though the amounts were
paid, A-1 did not return the bills. For returning the bills
A-1 informed P.W.1 that he is competent to impose heavy
penalties and taxes and in order not to impose the same, an
amount of Rs.10,000/- has to be given to him as bribe.
P.W.1 requested that he would pay the said amount as
Rs.6,000/- and Rs.4,000/- in two installments. Then, A-1
called P.W.1 and informed that he would send A-2 to the
shop and amount shall be handed over to him. When A-2
went to the shop, P.W.1 expressed that he was not having the
amount and that he will talk t A-1. On 27.06.2003, P.W.1
went to ACB office and filed complaint Ex.P.3. Along with the
complaint, he also enclosed Exs.P.1 and P.2, which are
receipts of payment of money by P.W.1.
6. The trap was laid on 30.06.2003. After completing the
formalities, entire team went to the office of A-1. P.W.1
entered the office of A-1. A-1 enquired about the bribe
amount and P.W.1 stated that he brought Rs.6,000/-.
Accordingly, A-1 asked P.W.1 to handover the said amount to
A-2. P.W.1 gave the amount to A-2 and A-2 kept the amount
in the right side pocket of his pant. P.W.1 went out and
conveyed the prearranged signal to the trap party. On his
signal, DSP/Umakantha Reddy entered into the office and
conducted test on both A-1 and A-2. Test on A-1's hand
proved negative, while A-2's hand proved positive. The said
amount was later handed over to DSP by A-2. Since DSP
Umakantha Reddy died, in his place P.W.7 was examined,
who was part of the trap.
7. Having concluded the trap proceedings, A-1 and A-2
were arrested. Thereafter, investigation was done by
Inspector/P.W.8 and charge sheet was filed.
8. Learned Special Judge examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8
and also marked Exs.P.1 to P.18. M.Os.1 to 10 were also
brought on record by the prosecution. Exs.D.1 and D.2
which are the letters issued by the Commercial Tax Officers
were marked on behalf of the defence.
9. The evidence insofar as A-1 is concerned is not
discussed since the case is abated against him.
10. Insofar as A-2 is concerned, learned Special Judge
found that at no point of time, A-2 was informed that amount
was bribe amount. Even according to the evidence placed on
record, A-2 did not have the knowledge that the amount
received from P.W.1 at the instance of A-1 was that of bribe
amount. Learned Special Judge further found that the
demand of bribe amount was for return of the bills, however,
P.W.1 himself admitted in his cross-examination that the
bills were received under Ex.P.4 and his endorsement at
Ex.P.4(a). Though P.W.1 stated that some other bills were
not received, however, the details of such bills were not
mentioned.
11. Learned Special Judge found that the demand aspect
insofar as A-1 is concerned was not proved. The subsequent
recovery of amount from A-2 is of no consequence.
12. In Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka 1 the
Honourable Supreme Court summarised the principles
whereby appeals against acquittals can be interfered with. At
para-42 of the Judgment, it was held as follows;
(2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 544
"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;
(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."
13. 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.
(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
(2021) 3 SCC 687
"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."
14. The role of A-2 is confined to the amount being received
by him at the instance of A-1. As rightly found by the
learned Special Judge that at no point of time A-2 had the
knowledge of any kind of demand of bribe by A-1. P.W.1 also
stated that A-2 never demanded amount towards bribe or
that he approached P.W.1 on behalf of A-1 knowing that
P.W.1 would pass on the amount which was bribe meant for
A-1.
15. The reasons given by the learned Special Judge are
based on record. There are no compelling reasons to
interfere and reverse the judgment of acquittal insofar as A-2
is concerned.
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 16.04.2025
dv
