Telangana High Court
T.Ethishwar vs The State Of A.P. on 5 February, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.375 OF 2012
Between:
T.Ethishwar ... Appellant
And
State of A.P rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Hyderabad Range. ... Respondents
AND
Criminal Appeal No.376 OF 2012
Between:
K.Sudhakar ... Appellant
And
State of A.P rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Hyderabad Range. ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 05.02.2025
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
+ Crl.A. No. 375 OF 2012
% Dated 05.02.2025
Between
# T.Ethishwar ... Appellant
And
$ State of A.P rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Hyderabad Range. ... Respondents
+ Crl.A. No. 376 OF 2012
# K.Sudhakar ... Appellant
And
$ State of A.P rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, Hyderabad Range. ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel
For Sri Allika Suresh
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Spl. Public
Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2014) 13 SCC 55
2
(2015) 10 SCC 152
3
(2009) 3 SCC 779
4
2023 SCC OnLine SC 320
5
(2021) 3 SCC 687
6
(2024) 10 SCC 489
7
(2015) 10 SCC 230
8
2022 SCC OnLine SC 213
9
(2014) 13 SCC 143
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.375 and 376 OF 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.375 of 2012 was filed by A1 and Criminal
Appeal No.376 of 2012 was filed by A2. Criminal Appeal No.377 of
2012 was filed by A3. Since A3 died, Criminal Appeal No.377 of
2012 stands abated.
2. A1, A2 and A3 were convicted for the offences under Sections
7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year and two years, each, respectively under both counts and A3
was convicted for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one year vide judgment in C.C.No.17
of 2007 dated 20.04.2012 passed by the First Additional Special
Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City
Civil Court, Hyderabad. Both the appeals filed by A1 and A2 are
heard together and disposed off by way of this Common Judgment.
3. A1 worked as Town Planning Officer, A2 worked as Town
Planning Supervisor and A3 as attender in the Qutbullahpur
Municipality office. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the defacto
complainant is P.W.1 namely Mohd.Moinuddin. He purchased a
plot bearing No.1 admeasuring 167 sq.yds in Venkatram Nagar
Colony at Suraram, in the year 1997 in the name of his mother
Smt.Sadath Bee. About six months prior to complaint, NSR Raju
constructed a compound wall by occupying the road and caused
obstruction to their ingress into their plot by claiming that he was
issued with a patta certificate for the said land by the Revenue
Authorities. P.W.1 approached Junior Civil Judge Court Medchal,
Ranga Reddy District and filed a case vide OS No.369 of 2005 and
on 16.11.2005, the same was decreed by the Court in their favour
by issuing perpetual injunction.
4. P.W.1 approached the Revenue and Municipal Officials several
times and shown the Court order and requested for taking
necessary action for the removal of the illegal construction. Again,
on 14.02.2006, Raju started construction of room in the same
place. Immediately, P.W.1 approached Jeedimetla Police Station
and lodged complaint. He also lodged complaint at Qutbullahpur
Municipality by enclosing registration document, HUDA layout and
Court Order pertaining to his plot and requested them to stop the
illegal construction and dismantle the existing wall. The then
Commissioner, Qutubullahpur Municipality/P.W.3 forwarded his
application to the Town Section. On 20.03.2006, when P.w.1 went
to the Town Planning Section and enquired with A1 about his work,
A1 demanded him to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to him and
another Rs.10,000/- to A2 in order to complete the work of
dismantling the illegal construction as requested by him.
5. On 22.03.2006 at 11.00 hours, P.W.1 went to the
Municipality, Qutubullapur, and met both A1 and A2 and pleaded
for the completion of his work. But both of them stuck to their
earlier demand of bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- each for site
inspection, for sending their report and also for removal of the
illegal construction. Since P.W.1 was not willing to pay bribe to A1
& A2, he lodged a written complaint with P.W.7-DSP, ACB,
Hyderabad on 23.03.2006 requesting to take action against A1 &
A2. After verifying the contents of the complaint, P.W.7 registered a
case in Cr.No.7/ACB-HR/2006 under Section 7 and Section
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act on 24.03.2006 at 9.30 a.m. On the
same day, trap was arranged.
6. The DSP/P.W.7 summoned independent mediators P.W.2 and
another. P.W.4, who is the friend of P.W.1 was also present. The
DSP in the presence of said witnesses and other ACB personnel,
concluded pre-trap proceedings. P.Ws.1 and 4 went to town
planning section, where they found A1 sitting in his seat. P.W.1
took out the wad of the currency notes from his left front shirt
pocket and offered the same to A1, who accepted the same with his
right hand and kept them in the tray available just below his office
table and then assured him that his work will be done. Thereafter,
P.Ws.1 and 4 went to the cabin of A2. A2 enquired whether P.W.1
brought the amount and instructed P.W.1 to hand over the said
amount to A3, who was in the chamber of A2. A2 promised that the
work would be completed. Thereafter, both P.Ws.1 and 4 came out
of the chamber of A2 and informed DSP/P.W.7 on phone that the
appellants demanded and accepted the bribe amount. Then, all the
trap party members entered into the chamber of A1.
7. The phenolphthalein test conducted over the right hand
fingers of A1 and A3 yielded positive result. First bunch of tainted
notes of Rs.10,000/- were recovered at the instance of A1 from the
tray meant for the computer keyboard on his table. Then the trap
party also questioned A2. The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-
was seized from A3. P.W.7, after completion of post trap
proceedings, handed over investigation to P.W.8, who concluded
investigation and after obtaining sanction orders, filed charge sheet
under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.
8. Learned Special Judge convicted A1 toA3, though P.W.1
turned hostile to the prosecution case, mainly on the basis of the
evidence of P.W.4, who accompanied P.W.1 on the date of trap and
other corroborating oral and documentary evidence.
9. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Allika
Suresh, learned counsel the appellants and Sri M.Bala Mohan
Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants argued
that P.W.1 complainant has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
P.W.1 admitted that DSP/P.W.7 instructed him to go to the office of
A1 and A2 and pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- each to A1 and A2.
The contents of the complaint were disowned by P.W.1, as such, the
demand aspect was not proved. The main issue is that the piece of
land in question was government land, as such, municipal
authorities did not have jurisdiction. It was for the revenue
authorities to initiate action which was admitted by P.W.3. Since
the demand was not proved and the appellants were also not in a
position to do any official favour, the ingredients of Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) are not made out.
11. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments:
1) In B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 , wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court found that when the complainant turned
hostile to the prosecution case, the contents of the complaint
cannot be relied upon, and acquitted the accused therein.
2) In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of
Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court found that mere recovery of amount without proof
(2014) 13 SCC 55
(2015) 10 SCC 152
of demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge, and
acquitted the appellant therein.
3) In C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of
Kerala 3 , the Hon'ble Supreme held that mere recovery of tainted
money by itself is not enough, in the absence of evidence to prove
payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted
the money knowing it to be bribe.
4) In Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab4, the complainant and
independent mediator/shadow witness turned hostile to the
prosecution case, and when there was no other circumstantial
evidence available to prove demand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set
aside the conviction and acquitted the accused therein.
5) In N.Vijaykumar v. State of Tamil Nadu 5 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that absence of proof of demand for illegal
gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is
not sufficient to constitute such offence. Presumption under Section
(2009) 3 SCC 779
2023 SCC OnLine SC 320
(2021) 3 SCC 687
20 of the Act can only be drawn when acceptance of illegal
gratification is proved.
6) In Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh 6,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the trap laying officer
shall make efforts to verify the factum of demand before initiating
the trap proceedings. In the said case, the demand of bribe by the
accused was not mentioned in the complaint, which is a significant
omission, as such, the accused was acquitted.
7) In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka7, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that recovery of tainted currency is not sufficient to
convict, if there is no corroboration of the testimony of the
complainant.
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of A2 sailed with the
arguments of the learned Senior Counsel representing A1 and relied
on the following judgments: 1) K.Shanthamma v. State of
Telangana 8; 2) Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi9.
(2024) 10 SCC 489
(2015) 10 SCC 230
2022 SCC OnLine SC 213
(2014) 13 SCC 143
13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for ACB would
submit that the findings of the learned Special Judge are correct.
However, he did not dispute the fact about P.W.3 stating that the
appellants did not have power to demolish the compound wall on
the subject land and also that it was the revenue department which
was competent to take action on the complaint of P.W.1.
14. The application was filed by P.W.1 on the basis of judgment
and decree passed in O.S.No.369 of 2005. The application which is
Ex.P2, reflects the endorsements of A1 and A2. Further, P.W.3
stated in his chief examination as follows:
"On 15-2-06 Sadath Bee, r/o Venkataram Nagar
presented an application with enclosures to me personally.
(The application and the enclosures are in Ex.P2 file). On
the same day I forwarded the application and the
enclosures to TPO., by G-1 section. As per Ex.P2 file on 16-
2-06 TPO handed over the file to TPS Town planning
supervisor with his endorsement. On 20-2-06 I received a
letter from Jeedimetla police station which is also in Ex.P2
file. On 27-2-06 I addressed a letter to Jeedimetla police
station on the strength of the report given by town
planning wing."
15. As seen from the endorsements, on 22.02.2006 and
27.02.2006, it was decided that letter has to be addressed to the
MRO, Qutubullahpur for arranging inspection of the site by the
Mandal Surveyor, since the dispute would be within the jurisdiction
of the revenue authorities.
16. P.W.3 stated in his cross-examination as follows:
"The date of trap i.e., on 24-3-06 my office has not received any
letter from MRO,RDO and Dist.Collector R.R.District in
connection with my letter dtd.27-2-06. I do not remember
whether Sadath Bee approached me subsequent to 27-2-06. I
have not instructed G-2 clerk Narasimharao to send copy of my
letter to Sadath Bee. In respect of government lands MRO is
competent to pass demolition orders. Coming to the present
dispute the municipality has no authority to pass demolition
orders as the said land belongs to government."
17. The appellants 1 and 2, even according to the case of the
prosecution, were not competent persons to demolish the
compound wall, as requested in the application made by P.W.1. The
said fact is admitted by P.W.3, who worked as Commissioner,
Qutubullahpur Municipality.
18. P.W.1 has turned hostile to the prosecution case. In the
statement before the Court, P.W.1 confined his grievance of demand
of bribe by A2 only. P.W.1 stated that A2 demanded Rs.20,000/-
which would be split in between A1 and A2 equally. Since A2
insisted to make the payment, Ex.P1 complaint was filed with ACB
authorities. The said complaint was admitted by P.W.1. However, in
the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated that A1 demanded Rs.10,000/-
to inspect the site and when he met A2, A2 demanded Rs.10,000/-
to remove the illegal construction in the land. Two different versions
are stated, in the complaint and in the statement before the Court.
P.W.1 did not support the version mentioned in the complaint
Ex.P1 and stated that it was only A2 who demanded bribe and A1
did not demand any bribe. P.W.1, in his chief examination, further
stated that on the date of the incident, he went inside the office and
firstly went to the cabin of A2. When P.W.1 stated that he brought
the amount, A2 asked P.W.1 to handover the amount to A3. From
there, he went to the room of A1 and tried to hand over Rs.10,000/-
to A1, however, A1 questioned as to why he was giving amount and
refused to receive the amount. Then, P.W.1 kept the amount on the
key board of the computer. P.W.1 went outside and called DSP on
phone. The entire trap party entered into the office thereafter.
19. The version of P.W.4, who accompanied P.W.1 is that initially
they went and met A1 on the date of trap and after A1 received the
amount of Rs.10,000/-, kept the amount underneath the table of
the key board. After handing over the amount to A1, both P.Ws.1
and 4 went to the cabin of A2 and A2 demanded the amount. When
P.W.1 wanted to handover the amount, A2 instructed P.W.1 to
handover the amount to A3.
20. In the post trap proceedings, Ex.P8, the statement of P.W.4
was not recorded. It was vaguely mentioned that P.W.4 stated what
P.W.1 has stated and corroborated P.W.1 on material aspects.
P.W.1 denied the statement recorded during post-trap proceedings
regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by A1. The sequence of
events that transpired in the office when they entered into the office
on trap day is also contradictory.
21. As already discussed, P.W.1 was declared hostile to the
prosecution case, since he did not stick to his earliest version. In
the back ground of different versions being given by P.W.1, it
cannot be said that the aspect of demand was proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, also in the back ground of
the municipal department not being the competent authority. The
hostility of P.W.1 can be ignored by the Court and it can look into
the other circumstances of the case to arrive at a conclusion about
the demand of bribe by the appellants.
22. The reason for lodging the complaint was for demolishing the
compound wall constructed by one Raju, who was not examined.
However, P.W.1 has not taken any steps to approach the civil Court
and file petition for removal of the wall, since it was an obstruction
to the ingress of the complainant. P.W.3, who is the Commissioner,
has stated that the power to demolish was not lying with the
appellants, but it is the revenue authorities who had to take action.
When the appellants did not have the power to demolish, the
allegation of demand of Rs.10,000/- each by the appellants A1 and
A2 becomes doubtful for the reason of not only P.W.1 giving
contradictory versions in the statements during investigation and
before the Court, but also for the reason of the appellants not
having any power to demolish the compound wall. Even according
to Ex.P1 complaint, P.W.1 approached the revenue authorities for
demolition of compound wall. Apparently, P.W.1 had knowledge
that the revenue authorities had the power to act on his grievance.
He also filed complaint with police.
23. Following the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
K.Shanthamma's case and P.Satyanarayana Murthy's case
(supra), the recovery of the amount cannot form basis to infer that
demand was made, when the demand of bribe by A1 and A2 could
not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that mere acceptance of the amount dehorse proof of the
demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under
Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
the Corruption Act, 1988.
24. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.17 of 2007
dated 20.04.2012 is set aside and the appellants are acquitted.
Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand
cancelled.
25. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.02.2025
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.375 and 376 of 2012
Date: 05.02.2025
kvs
