Telangana High Court
Mr.M.William vs The State Of Telangana on 5 February, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Appeal No.1889 OF 2018
Between:
M.William ... Appellant
And
The State of Telangana
Rep. by Public Prosecutor for ACB
and another ... Respondents
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. 1889 OF 2018
% Dated 05.02.2025
# M.William ... Appellant
And
$ The State of Telangana
Rep. by Public Prosecutor for ACB
and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Nyapathi Prashanth
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy,
Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1889 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant/A1 was convicted for the offences under Section
7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.122
of 2015 dated 29.06.2018 passed by the Special Judge for trial of
SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar. Aggrieved by the same, present
appeal is filed. A2 was acquitted by the trial Court.
2. Heard Sri Nyapathi Prashant, learned Counsel for the
appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW1/the
complainant, was employed as a driver for a TATA Sumo vehicle
that was assigned to Appellant. While working in the office of SDPO,
Nizamabad, as a driver, PW1 had marital disputes with his wife,
Smt. Vijaya Kumari. As a result, PW1's wife, who belongs to a
Scheduled Caste, filed a complaint against PW1 at V Town Police
Station, Nizamabad, accusing him of dowry harassment and
atrocity. Based on this complaint, a case was registered against
PW1 in V Town PS under Cr. No. 97/2006, invoking Section 498A
of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section
3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Appellant, in his
capacity as SDPO, undertook the investigation of the case filed
against PW1. During the course of the investigation, Appellant
arrested PW1 on 25.7.2006 and presented him before the court for
remand, leading to PW1's suspension from service by the
Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad. Subsequent to his release on
bail, PW1 approached Appellant, requesting reinstatement into
service. However, Appellant stated that he would assist PW1 while
filing the charge sheet and indicated that PW1 should be prepared
to incur some expenses. It is alleged that on 5.8.2006, at
approximately 9:30pm, Appellant, through A2(acquitted accused),
made a phone call to PW1, wherein A2 conveyed Appellant's
demand for Rs 20,000 in exchange for reducing the severity of the
offences in the charge sheet. PW1, citing financial constraints,
expressed his inability to pay such an amount. In an effort to
negotiate, PW1 visited Appellant's residence, where, upon PW1's
request, Appellant agreed to lower the bribe amount to Rs.15,000/-.
PW1 reluctantly consented to pay the reduced sum.
4. Unwilling to comply with the bribery demand, PW1
approached the Joint Director, ACB, Hyderabad, and reported the
incident. The Joint Director directed PW1 to meet DSP, ACB,
Karimnagar. Consequently, on 10.8.2006, at 7:00pm, PW1
submitted a complaint/ExP1 against Appellant to DSP, ACB,
Karimnagar.
5. LW13, Sri Laxminarayana, DSP, ACB (not examined), received
the complaint and conducted discreet inquiries into its authenticity
and the reputation of Appellant. These inquiries indicated that
Appellant had a corrupt background and was known for having a
bad reputation. Subsequently, LW13 registered the case as Cr. No.
11/ACB-KNR/2006 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act on 11.8.2006 at 6:30 am against Appellant and took charge of
the investigation. During the investigation, LW13 secured the
presence of mediators, PW2 and LW3, A. Ravinder Rao.
6. On 11.8.2006, at 7:00 am, LW13/DSP, along with mediators
PW2 and LW3, as well as inspectors PW11 and LW15--Madhu
Mohan--and PW1, assembled at the Guest House, Armoor,
Nizamabad, where they conducted the pre-trap proceedings, which
is ExP3. Following the completion of the pre-trap proceedings, the
trap party, comprising LW13, PW2, LW3, PW11, LW15, and PW1,
proceeded to the office-cum-residence of Appellant. Around 8:35
am, PW1 entered Appellant's office-cum-residence and met
Appellant in his master bedroom. Upon Appellant's demand, PW1
offered the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- to Appellant, but
Appellant refused to accept it and instead instructed PW1 to hand
over the amount to A2, who also refused to accept it. Subsequently,
Appellant allegedly directed PW1 to place the amount on the table
in his bedroom. PW1 came out from the premises and relayed signal
indicating demand and acceptance of bribe, upon which LW13,
accompanied by the trap party, entered into the office-cum-
residence of Appellant and knocked on the door of Appellant's
master bedroom. Appellant emerged holding a shaving brush in his
right hand and a bundle wrapped in a newspaper in his left hand.
Upon noticing the trap party officials, he allegedly placed the
bundle on the washbasin platform affixed to the wall of the master
bedroom.
7. LW13 apprehended Appellant and conducted a
phenolphthalein test separately on both of Appellant's hands. The
left-hand wash turned pink, whereas the right-hand wash remained
colorless. At the instance of Appellant, the tainted currency
amounting to Rs.15,000/- was recovered from the washbasin near
Appellant's master bedroom, where it was found wrapped in a local
newspaper. LW13 also conducted chemical tests on the contact
portions of the local newspaper and the table cover, both of which
yielded positive results. The post-trap proceedings were completed
and recorded in Ex.P4.
8. Appellant denied the allegations of demanding and accepting a
bribe of Rs.15,000/- from PW1 in exchange for an official favor. He
asserted that, based on a complaint filed by PW1's wife, a case was
registered against PW1, and Appellant, upon conducting the
investigation, arrested PW1 on 25.7.06 and produced him for
remand. Appellant stated that he had completed the investigation
and forwarded the charge sheet to V Town PS, Nizamabad, for filing
in the concerned court, leading PW1 to develop a grudge against
him and falsely implicate him in the trap case.
9. The defence of the appellant is that PW1, being fully aware
that Appellant had submitted the charge sheet against him, lodged
a false complaint with DSP, ACB, LW13 on 10.8.2006. As of
10.8.2006, Appellant had no pending official favor to extend to
PW1, and therefore, the question of demand and acceptance of a
bribe from PW1 did not arise.
10. Learned defence counsel marked Ex.D1, which is PW1's
statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in Cr. No. 97/2006,
subsequently numbered as S.C. No. 26 of 2007. In Ex.D1, PW1
stated that Appellant had signed the charge sheet on 10.8.2006.
Additionally, the defence contended that as per Ex.D1, PW1 alleged
that Appellant had initially demanded Rs.25,000/- instead of
Rs.20,000/-.
11. In this case, it is to be determined, firstly, whether Appellant
had already filed the charge sheet before 11.8.2006 or if he waited
until 11.8.2006 to receive the bribe from PW1 before filing the
charge sheet with reduced charges, and secondly, whether the
charge sheet, irrespective of when it was filed, contained minimized
offences or accurately reflected the charges alleged against PW1.
12. PW1 deposed that he had approached Appellant with a request
to pursue his reinstatement orders, admitting that Appellant did
not act on this request. PW1 deposed that Appellant assured he
would reduce the severity of the case. However, PW1 denied ever
requesting Appellant to do him any favors, given Appellant's role as
the investigating officer in the case filed by PW1's wife.
13. As per the testimonies of PWs 1, 3, and 9, Appellant could only
file the charge sheet after completing the investigation. PW5
deposed that Ex.P6 is the CD file in Cr. No. 97/2006. Appellant's
investigation in the said case is evident from Ex.P6. As per the
evidence of PWs. 9 and 12, it is clear that Appellant was ready with
a draft charge sheet on 9.8.2006 and forwarded it to PW9 for
corrections. The draft charge sheet included Sections 498-A IPC, 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and S.3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs
(POA) Act. PW9 made only one correction--changing S.3(1)(xi) to
S.3(1)(x)--and then approved the charge sheet. Since PW5 had
registered the case under Sections 498-A IPC, 3 and 4 of the DP
Act, and S.3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, the correction made
by PW9 was minor, as these Sections were already cited during
registration. Further, PW9 categorically deposed that appellant
neither reduced nor increased the gravity of the offences during the
investigation.
14. If Appellant had truly demanded a bribe to minimize the
offences, he would not have prepared and forwarded the draft
charge sheet on 9.8.2006, prior to receiving the bribe. Instead, he
would have withheld it under the pretext of an incomplete
investigation. The evidence on record confirms that the
investigation was completed, and Appellant prepared and forwarded
the draft charge sheet to PW9 for approval. No witness has testified
that Appellant intentionally withheld forwarding the charge sheet
on 10.8.2006 until the trap date, i.e., 11.8.2006. Moreover, PW11
admitted that the DSP does not personally hand over charge sheets
to the concerned police station but sends them through
subordinates. The prosecution has not examined any witness to
establish whether Appellant directed a subordinate to file the
charge sheet on 10.8.2006 or deliberately withheld it. A one-day
delay before the trap on 11.8.2006 cannot automatically be
construed as intentional withholding of the charge sheet. PW3
deposed that on 9.11.2006, the V Town Police, Nizamabad, filed the
charge sheet in Cr. No. 97/2006 for offences under Section 498-A
IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, and S.3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs
(POA) Act against PW1, based on his wife's complaint. The evidence
of PW3 confirms that the Sections mentioned in Appellant's draft
charge sheet were identical to those in the final charge sheet filed in
court. This further establishes that Appellant had prepared the
draft charge sheet on 9.8.2006--prior to receiving any bribe--
without reducing the offences and had already forwarded it to PW9.
Further, PW1 admitted that Appellant filed the charge sheet in
accordance with the Sections cited in the FIR.
15. PW2, independent mediator admitted that PW1 did not
disclose that Appellant was the investigating officer in the 498A IPC
case filed against him by his wife. Why would PW1 suppress such
crucial information. If the information was given to the DSP, it may
have had an impact on the decision to lay the trap. As per ExP1,
Appellant allegedly demanded money to minimize the offences in
the case against PW1. Ex.P6, the CD file, and PW9's testimony
about the draft charge sheet indicate that Appellant had already
completed his official duties regarding the case. It can be safely
inferred that no official favour was pending with the appellant.
16. P.W.1 stated that A2 (acquitted accused) called P.W.1 and
informed that DSP asked A2 to inform P.W.1 to meet the appellant.
A2 also stated that the appellant was going to file charge sheet
against P.W.1 and if the bribe amount was given, the case would be
diluted. P.W.12, investigating officer states that the telephone call
details does not confirm that appellant called P.W.1 on 05.08.2006.
However, from the record, it is evident that P.W.1 made a call on
05.08.2006 to the DSP Office from his cell phone No.93965 93933
to the land line number bearing No.8462231960. P.W.7 stated that
it was P.W.1 who contacted the appellant on 10.08.2006 from
P.W.1's cell phone. The prosecution did not file any evidence of A2's
phone number. P.W.1 asserted that he did not make a call to the
landline of the appellant on 10.08.2006, however, P.W.7 on the
basis of the call records stated that P.W.1 called to the land line of
the appellant. Since the prosecution did not prove that any call was
made by A2 to P.W.1 on 05.08.2006, the allegation of demand on
the said date becomes doubtful. Moreover, P.W.12/investigating
officer admitted during cross-examination that he did not have any
evidence to show that P.W.1 met the appellant on 05.08.2006.
17. The prosecution's case is that PW1 entered Appellant's office-
cum-residence, and when he was about to pick up the tainted
amount from his shirt pocket, Appellant stopped him, called A2,
and directed A2 to collect the same. However, A2 refused to collect
it and instead asked Appellant to collect it. When PW1 was about to
hand over the tainted amount to Appellant, he was instructed to
place it on a teapoy covered with a polythene sheet, which also had
a Christian idol placed on it. PW1 then placed the amount on the
teapoy, came out, and gave the signal.
18. PW1's testimony is doubtful due to discrepancies regarding
the alleged demand by Appellant on 5.8.2006 and the official favor
sought. Therefore, independent corroboration is necessary.
However, apart from PW1's testimony, no other evidence
corroborates the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe by
Appellant.
19. According to the evidence of P.W.2, the two constables present
in Appellant's house were not questioned. The failure to examine
these two constables at the scene to ascertain what transpired
between Appellant and PW1 raises concerns. This is particularly
significant as one of the constables was A2, and according to PW1,
Appellant initially asked A2 to receive the amount, but A2 refused,
leading PW1 to place the amount on the table. However, Ex.P4 does
not contain A2's version to corroborate PW1's testimony or
otherwise, nor does it include the version of the other constable.
20. In this context, it is also crucial to note that PW2 admitted
that Appellant stated to the DSP that he neither demanded nor
accepted any amount from PW1. Furthermore, PW11 also admitted
that Appellant spontaneously told the DSP that he never demanded
or accepted any amount from PW1. Even in Ex.P4, Appellant's
version is a complete denial of demand and acceptance. When
questioned by DSP, ACB, regarding the bribe amount allegedly
received from PW1, Appellant denied having received any amount
from the complainant. From the evidence on record, it is clear that,
the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the
bribe by Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
21. According to PWs 1, 2, and 11, PW1 had placed the amount on
the table. However, when the trap party entered, the amount was
found wrapped in a newspaper on the wash basin. Firstly, it is not
the case of the prosecution that PW1 placed the tainted amount in
a newspaper. Assuming that Appellant wrapped the tainted amount
in the newspaper, then both of his hands should have yielded a
positive result. PW11 himself admitted that it is not possible to
wrap money inside a newspaper using only one hand. He further
stated that the person who placed the amount inside the newspaper
must have wrapped it using both hands, which would have led to
phenolphthalein particles transferring to the outer portion of the
newspaper. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish who wrapped
the tainted amount in the newspaper.
22. Regarding the recovery, the prosecution's evidence does not
clearly establish that the amount was recovered at Appellant's
instance. The evidence shows that after conducting phenolphthalein
tests on Appellant's fingers, DSP, ACB, instructed LW3 to verify the
newspaper, and LW3 found the tainted amount of Rs. 15,000/-.
Moreover, PW.11 admitted that if a person had wrapped the tainted
amount in the newspaper, the outer surface would also contain
phenolphthalein particles. However, the prosecution only tested the
contacted portion of the newspaper, while the rest was not
subjected to any test, as deposed by P.W.11. Thus, the recovery of
the amount was not conclusively linked to Appellant. Furthermore,
the prosecution's case is that the tainted amount found inside the
newspaper was recovered from the wash basin. However, the
testimonies of PWs 1, 2, and 11 indicate that PW1 had placed the
amount on the table in the master bedroom.
23. As already discussed, it remains unclear who wrapped the
bundle in the newspaper. Since the evidence establishes that
Appellant could not have wrapped the bundle, as only one of his
hands yielded a positive result, the fact that the amount was
recovered in a newspaper on the wash basin cannot be a basis to
infer that Appellant had knowledge of the newspaper bundle or had
placed it on the wash basin. Even assuming that Appellant placed
the newspaper bundle containing the tainted amount on the wash
basin after seeing the ACB officials, as stated by PW2 and PW11,
the prosecution failed to clearly establish the exact location of the
wash basin. While PW2 and PW11 stated that it was near the door,
this was not depicted in the rough sketch. PW11 also admitted that
the table, wash basin, and newspaper were not shown in the
sketch. However, PW2 deposed that the tainted amount was
recovered from the platform of the wash basin, despite PW1 stating
to DSP that he had placed the amount on the table in the master
bedroom.
24. Furthermore, Appellant's defense remained consistent, as PW2
admitted that when questioned by DSP, ACB, regarding the tainted
amount, Appellant stated that he did not know how the amount
appeared on the wash basin platform. PW11 also admitted that
Appellant spontaneously told DSP that he was unaware of how the
currency notes wrapped in the newspaper ended up on the wash
basin platform.
25. The involvement of P.W.1 in the Criminal Case registered
against him by his wife is not disputed. Appellant arrested him and
produced him before the Court. Further, the charge sheet was
already sent to P.W.9, who was the then Public Prosecutor. It is his
evidence that the appellant did not reduce the gravity of the offence
or increase the gravity of the offence during the course of
investigation. The core issue for which reason complaint was lodged
is that the appellant promised to help in reducing the gravity of the
offence while filing the charge sheet. The said allegation cannot be
believed when the undisputed evidence of P.W.9 is looked into.
26. The Court has to look into the case in its entirety including the
back ground of the case. The appellant having already concluding
investigation and sending charge sheet to P.W.9 would only indicate
that he had done his investigation in the normal course, as such,
the question of demanding amount for reducing the gravity of the
offence or helping in filing the charge sheet as claimed in the
complaint becomes doubtful. In the present circumstances, it
cannot be said that the prosecution had proved that there was a
demand of bribe. As already discussed, the recovery aspect is also
suspicious. For the said reasons, the appellant succeeds.
27. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.122 of
2015 dated 29.06.2018 is hereby set aside and the appellant is
acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stands
discharged. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
28. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.02.2025
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
