Telangana High Court
S.K. Yakoob, vs The Stae Of Ap Rep By Its Spl Pp Hyd., For ... on 5 February, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.734 OF 2007
Between:
S.K.Yakoob ... Appellant
And
State ACB, City Range. ... Respondents
AND
Criminal Appeal No.735 OF 2007
Between:
C.Mahender ... 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. 734 OF 2007
% Dated 05.02.2025
Between
# S.K.Yakoob ... Appellant
And
$ State ACB, City Range. ... Respondent
+ Crl.A. No. 735 OF 2007
# C.Mahender ... Appellant
And
$ State ACB, City Range. ... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri
Cherukuri Masthan Naidu
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Spl. Public
Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2024 (3) ALD (Crl.) 96 ) (TS)
2
(2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 574
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.734 and 735 OF 2007
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Appeal No.734 of 2007 was filed by A1 and Criminal
Appeal No.735 of 2007 was filed by A2. A1 was convicted for the
offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months and one year, respectively
under both counts. A2 was convicted under Section 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months vide judgment in
C.C.No.19 of 2003 dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Principal
Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same
judgment of Special Court, both the appeals are disposed off by way
of this Common Judgment.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that A1 worked as Senior
Assistant in RTA Office, Central Zone, Khairatabad and A2 was a
registered RTA Agent. The defacto complainant is P.W.1. He lodged
complaint with the ACB on 07.03.2001 at 10.30 a.m. According to
P.W.1, he was authorized agent in the RTA. A licence was issued by
the Joint Commissioner of RTA, Hyderabad, to render services as
an agent in the RTA Office. P.W.1 applied for reassignment of lorry
bearing No.KRZ 5936 on behalf of Kerala Transport Company. One
P.K.Nair was the representative of the said transport company. The
application, relevant papers and challan were handed over to A1 on
01.03.2001. Two days after giving application, P.W.1 met A1, who
demanded Rs.500/- as bribe for doing the work. Again on
05.03.2001, P.W.1 met A1 and asked him about the R.C.book, for
which A1 demanded to pay bribe of Rs.500/- for delivering the R.C
book and asked P.W.1 to come on 07.03.2001 with the bribe
amount.
3. On 07.03.2001, P.W.1 went to the ACB office and met
DSP/P.W.5. P.W.1 lodged a written complaint Ex.P11. The said
complaint was filed at 10.30 a.m and the trap was arranged within
2 ½ hours i.e., at 1.00 p.m. P.W.5 arranged for independent
witnesses, P.W.2 and another. The trap party including P.Ws.1, 2, 5
and others gathered in the ACB office at 2.00 p.m. P.W.2 namely
Yadaiah was asked to accompany P.W.1 to the office of A1 to
observe what transpires in between A1 and P.W.1.
4. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party
went to the office of RTA at Khairatabad at 3.45 p.m. Both P.Ws.1
and 2 went inside the office, and about 4.00 p.m, P.W.1 came out
and relayed signal indicating acceptance of bribe. When the trap
party entered into the office of A1, A2 was found sitting opposite A1.
Sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on the hands of A1
to verify whether he handled the bribe amount, which proved
negative. A2 was asked to rinse his hand in sodium carbonate
solution and the solution turned pink in colour indicating that the
bribe amount was handled by him. A2 produced the tainted
currency notes from his left side shirt pocket.
5. The relevant file was seized including the attendance register.
DSP questioned A1, A2, P.Ws.1 and 2, and their statements were
recorded in the second mediators report. After concluding the
second mediators report Ex.P9, A1 and A2 were arrested.
Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.6. P.W.6
examined witnesses, collected relevant documents and filed charge
sheet after obtaining sanction order from the competent authority.
6. P.W.1 deposed about the demand of bribe prior to lodging
complaint. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 stated about demand and acceptance
of bribe by A1 on the date of trap, and A1 asking A2 to collect the
amount.
7. P.W.1 was a licenced agent in the office of RTA at Khairatabad.
A2 was also a licenced RTA agent as admitted by P.W.1 and the
Investigating Officer/P.W.6. A2 entered into the witness box and
examined himself as D.W.1. He stated that the application in
question was processed when entrusted by A1, and for processing
the said application filed by P.W.1, A1promised to pay him Rs.500/-
towards A2's service charges. When the application was made by
P.W.1 on 01.03.2001, A2 was also present. P.W.1 stated that
service charge of Rs.500/- as demanded by A2 was high. Both A2
and P.W.1 approached A1, but A1 asked P.W.1 and A2 to settle
their issues. The vehicle was inspected on 03.03.2001 and the file
was processed. As on 05.03.2001, work was complete and a new
number was assigned to the vehicle on the basis of application
made by P.W.1. A2 took the R.C book to his house on 05.03.2001
to hand it over to P.W.1. However, when A2 attempted to give
R.C.book (Ex.P2) to P.W.1, P.W.1 informed that he would collect the
R.C book on 07.03.2001.
8. D.W.1/A2 further stated that on the date of trap i.e.,
07.03.2001, P.W.1 paid Rs.500/- to him in between 2.30 p.m to
3.00 p.m as a service charge outside the RTO office and wanted to
apologize to A1 and also thank him. Both A2 and P.W.1 then went
and met A1 in his office. Immediately, the ACB personnel entered
into the office and conducted test. Though, A2 explained the events
that transpired, the DSP, ACB did not pay attention to his version.
9. P.W.1 did not state in his complaint Ex.P1, which was made
on 07.03.2001 i.e., that application for assigning new registration
number was processed on 03.03.2001. On 03.03.2001, inspection
of the vehicle was complete and certified by the Motor Vehicle
Inspector. The said file was processed and the new number was
assigned on 05.03.2001 itself.
10. P.W.3, who worked as Assistant Secretary at Khairatabad and
in-charge of the relevant file Ex.P3, admitted as follows:
"It is true that as seen from Ex.P3 file the application at page
No.13 was received in our office on 01.03.01 and it was put up
by AO1 on the very same date for orders to inspect the vehicle. I
ordered for the inspection of the vehicle on 01.03.01.
Thereafter, the file was sent to concerned MVI for inspection of
the vehicle. Only on production of vehicle before the MVI he will
verify the chasis and engine number of the vehicle with
reference to the RC book and then he will endorse about his
inspection mentioning the details. As seen on the reverse of
page No.1 of Ex.P3 file the MVI inspected the vehicle and
certified on 03.03.01. Again on 03.03.01 after such an
inspection of vehicle by MVI AO1 had put up the file before me
for reassignment and transfer of ownership of vehicle on
03.03.01 and on the very same date I passed orders.
Thereafter, AO1 had put the file before me on 05.03.01
assigning new number AP9W-4936. Accordingly, I passed
orders on 05.03.01. Ex.P7 is the attendance register of our
office and as seen from Ex.P7, 4.03.01 was SUNDAY. After my
orders of reassigning new number, the file was sent to computer
section for data entry.
After entering the data in the computers the entries will made in
RC book. In Ex.P2 at page No.6 the entries were made by AO1
on 05.03.01 and through section superintendent it was placed
before me on the same day and accordingly I signed as
registering authority. There was no delay on the part of AO1
inputting up the file before me at any stage. Only after
signature on Ex.P2 dt.05.03.01 it was ready for delivering to
the concerned party."
11. P.W.1 specifically mentioned in his complaint that on
05.03.2001, there was a demand of bribe to handover the RC book,
however he did not state the fact that the file was processed and the
inspection was also complete.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
would submit that the complaint was falsified and even according to
the Assistant Secretary, the entire processing was complete. Once
the process was complete, it cannot be said that there was a
demand for bribe. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the back
ground of the case and all the surrounding circumstances in a case
have to be looked into, and not only the events that transpired on
the trap day. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court
in A.Kishan Rao v. State of Telangana1. Further, learned counsel
relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
K.Shanthamma v. State of Telangana 2 and argued that unless
demand of bribe is proved, only on the basis of recovery of the
amount, accused cannot be convicted.
13. The grievance of the complainant/P.W.1 is that the application
was made on 01.03.2001 and when P.W.1 met A1 on 05.03.2001,
A1 demanded Rs.500/- for delivering the RC book.
14. It is not in dispute that it is for A1 to deliver the RC book to
the concerned party. P.W.1 was an authorized agent and according
2024 (3) ALD (Crl.) 96 ) (TS)
(2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 574
to P.W.3, the Assistant Secretary of the RTA office, stated that as on
05.03.2001, RC book Ex.P2 was ready and only after signature, RC
book will be ready to be delivered to the concerned party. P.W.3
stated that he had signed on Ex.P2 on 05.03.01. However, the RC
book was not handed over to P.W.1. The grievance of P.W.1 is that
for delivering the RC book, Rs.500/- was demanded. On the date of
trap, P.W.2, who is an independent person accompanied P.W.1. In
the presence of P.W.2, A1 demanded the amount and asked A2 to
receive the said amount. After A2 received the amount, Ex.P2 RC
book was handed over to P.W.1.
15. The processing of file and entries in the R.C book being
completed on 05.03.01, corroborates with the version of P.W.1 that
A1 demanded Rs.500/- to be paid for delivering R.C book to P.W.1.
On the date of trap, after A1 demanded the amount and directed it
to be paid to A2, and after A2 received the amount, RC book Ex.P2
was handed over to P.W.1. There leaves no room for doubt that the
prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by A1.
16. The case of A1 is that there was a departmental enquiry and
P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in the said departmental enquiry. However,
the certified copies of the earlier statements made during
departmental enquiry were neither filed nor confronted to P.Ws.1
and 2. The version of A2/D.W.1 is that the R.C.book/Ex.P2 was
collected by him on 05.03.2001 to hand it over to P.W.1. However,
P.W.1 insisted that he would come to the office and collect the R.C
book on 07.03.2001. In his chief examination, D.W.1 stated that in
between 2.30 p.m to 3.00 p.m on the date of trap, P.W.1 met him
outside the office and handed over the tainted currency of Rs.500/-
to him. Thereafter, both of them went to A1, since P.W.1 wanted to
apologize to A1. The defence of A1 that P.W.1 met A2 outside the
office on the date of trap cannot be believed. According to the
prosecution, the first mediators' report was drafted from 2.00 p.m
to 3.15 p.m and the trap party started from the office of DSP, ACB
at 3.15 p.m. When P.W.1 was in the office of ACB in between 2.30
p.m to 3.00 p.m, the question of P.W.1 meeting A2 outside the office
and handing over the bribe amount, does not arise. Apparently,
D.W.1 entered into the witness box to help A1. The defence of A1
that P.W.1 met A2 outside the office was not even suggested to
P.W.2/independent mediator nor the trap laying officer/P.W.5. It is
an admitted fact that A1 was not competent to issue reassignment
number and transfer of the ownership. However, A1 was the person
to hand over the R.C. book which was completed in all respects to
the concerned party. The defence taken by A1, that A2 had taken
the RC book on 05.03.2001 itself and thereafter, on the date of trap
i.e., on 07.03.2001 money was handed over to A2 and thereafter,
both A2 and P.W.1 met A1 is falsified, as evident from the record.
17. A2 was also an agent in the office of RTA. He was not named
in the complaint by P.W.1 nor is it the case of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that
on the date of trap, A2 had either demanded or accepted the
amount on behalf of A1. Admittedly, A2 was sitting at the table of
A1 opposite to him. A2 innocently handled the bribe amount at the
instance of A1, which was passed on by P.W.1 to him, when A1
directed to collect the amount. A2 took the amount and placed in
his pocket.
18. A2 was convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. For the sake of convenience, the same is
extracted:
"12. Punishment for abetment of offences defined in
Sections 7 or 11. - Whoever abets any offence
punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 whether or not
that offence is committed in consequences of that
abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall be not less than six months but which
may extent to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
19. Abetment is an act involving knowledge and mensrea.
Abetment is not defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Section 107 of IPC defines what constitutes abetment. Section 108
of IPC defines who is an abettor. The offence of abetment is a
separate and distinct offence. Abetment can be gathered from (1)
Instigation of any person to commit an offence. (2) engaging with
one or more persons to commit such offence. (3) intentionally aiding
or by any act or illegal omission being involved in the commission of
such offence.
20. None of the above ingredients are satisfied in the present case.
On the date of trap, when A2 was sitting in front of A1, A2 handled
the bribe amount as directed by A1. In the said circumstances, it
cannot be said that merely accepting the amount would amount to
either instigating A1 or engaging with him or aiding the act of
accepting bribe. For the said reasons, no case under Section 12 of
the Act is made out for abetment against A2.
21. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.734 of 2007 is dismissed.
Since the appellant is on bail, the concerned Court is directed to
cause appearance of A1 and send him to prison to serve out the
remaining period of sentence.
22. Criminal Appeal No.735 of 2007 is allowed setting aside the
conviction of A2 in C.C.No.19 of 2003 dated 04.06.2007. Since A2 is
on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.02.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.734 and 735 of 2007
Date: 05.02.2025
kvs
