Telangana High Court
G.Keshavulu, Adilabad District vs The State Of Ap.Through Inspector Of ... on 12 February, 2025
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.106 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7
and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay Rs.500/-
for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, 1988; to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Further
both the sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is preferred.
2. The appellant was trapped while he was working as a Junior
Assistant in the office of MRO, Boath, Adilabad District on the basis
of complaint filed by PW.1 alleging demand of bribe against the
appellant for providing copies of Pahanis to the wife of PW.1.
3. The complaint was filed on 04.01.2004 by PW.1 with the ACB
Inspector-PW.6. In the said complaint, PW.1 narrated that his
brother-in-law i.e., brother of his wife, owned 28 Acres of land at
Kolhari village at Gudihathnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. He gifted
Ac.8.12 guntas in the name of PW.1's wife namely Susheela.
However, the land of his brother-in-law was occupied by the
villagers in his absence. His brother-in-law gave GPA to the wife of
PW.1 to take legal action against the encroachers on the land.
PW.1's wife submitted an application-Ex.P2 for providing the
certified copies of Pahanis of the land for the years 1951-1952,
1952-1953. The said application was made on 30.07.2003. PW.1
went and met the office superintendent (Ramulu) in the MRO office.
The Superintendent asked PW.1 to meet the appellant. When PW.1
meet the appellant, the appellant informed that Rs.600/- has to be
paid to the Superintendent and Rs.200/- to him. PW.1 requested to
issue Pahanis, since he did not have money, however, the appellant
insisted that unless Rs.800/- was paid, copies of Pahanis will not
be given.
4. Neither in the complaint, nor in the statement before the
Court, any specific dates in between 30.07.2003 i.e., date of
application Ex.P2 and 04.01.2009, date of complaint, are
mentioned regarding the demand made by the appellant.
5. PW.6 registered the crime on 06.01.2004. The trap was
arranged on the same day. The trap party members gathered in the
office around 7:00 A.M. All the formalities required to be followed
before proceeding to the trap were completed. Ex.P6 was drafted,
which is pre-trap proceedings.
6. PW.1 and his friend PW.2 along with trap party members went
to the office of the appellant around 10:00 A.M. PWs.1 and 2 went
inside the office, while the other trap party members waited outside.
Ten minutes after entering into the office, PW.2 came out of the
office and signaled to the trap party, indicating the bribe being
passed on to the appellant. The trap party entered into the office
and questioned the appellant. Sodium Carbonate Solution test was
conducted and both the hands of appellant proved positive,
indicating that the appellant handled the currency notes which was
smeared with Phenolphthalein powder. On questioning the
appellant, the amount was taken out from the back pocket of the
appellant and handed it over to the trap party.
7. According to PW.1, the appellant explained during post-trap
proceedings that PW.1 thrust the amount into his back pocket. The
panahis which were sought by PW.1 were in 'Modi' language. The
copies had to be translated into Telugu language by an official
translator and without translation into Telugu, Pahanis cannot be
issued. Further the appellant also stated as admitted by PW.1, that
appellant prepared Pahanis and the same had to be signed by the
Superintendent-Ramulu.
8. PW.1 during the course of his evidence before the Court was
declared hostile and cross examined by Public Prosecutor. The
reason for declaring PW.1 as hostile to the prosecution case was
that PW.1 stated that he entered into the office of the MRO and met
Superintendent. The Superintendent enquired with PW.1 whether
he brought the amount. PW.1 informed that he brought the
amount, then, the Superintendent stated that Rs.600/- was for him
and Rs.200/- for the appellant. The Superintendent called the
appellant and directed PW.1 to hand over the amount to appellant.
Thereafter, the amount was handed over to the appellant. The
appellant then took PW.1 to the record room, but the Pahani copies
were not given.
9. PW.2 who was 'poojari' in the village accompanied PW.1 on
the date of trap and according to his evidence, he witnessed the
demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. PW.6-DSP
admitted during cross-examination that there is no mention in the
pre-trap proceedings that PW.2 was asked to accompany PW.1.
PW.6 further admitted that he did not instruct PW.1 to get PW.2.
10. The defence of the appellant is that the Pahanis were in 'Modi'
language and the official translator did not translate then into
Telugu language, as such, the Deputy MRO could not furnish the
copies of Pahanis.
11. It is admitted that Pahanis pertaining to the year 1951 to 1953
were in 'Modi' language. On the date of trap, the pahanis in 'Modi'
language, which are Exs.P7 to P9 without any date and Exs.P13
and P14 which are in Telugu language were seized.
12. PW.4 worked as MRO during the relevant time. He admitted in
his cross examination as folows:
"To translate the 'Modi' language record into Telugu an
official translator is required. PW.1 brought one person and
he made a copy of 'Modi' language pahani neatly. Then
Superintendent is one Ramulu. A.O. prepared the copies
and sent to Ramulu by 2.12.2003. The file is pending with
Ramulu since 2.12.2003 as Ex.P9 do not contain the
signature of Ramulu as he has to sign as Superintendent. In
the prior entries in Ex.P12 the signatures of Ramulu
Superintendent contains. As per Ex.P12 Register AO made
the entries and sent the same to Ramulu Superintendent for
his signature."
13. As evident from the statement made by PW.4, the file was
pending with Ramulu, Superintendent, since 02.12.2003. In
Ex.P12-Register, the appellant made entries and sent the same to
the Superintendent for his signature. However, the Superintendent,
Ramulu was not examined. The reason for not examining the
Superintendent Ramulu has not been explained by the prosecution
and the same has an adverse impact on the prosecution case.
Firstly, PW.1 in his complaint-Ex.P1 stated that initially he met
Ramulu, Superintendent who asked PW.1 to meet the appellant.
Then the appellant asked Rs.600/- for the said Ramulu and
Rs.200/- for himself. During the course of trial, PW.1 stated that on
the date of trap he met Ramulu, Superintendent who informed that
Rs.600/- were meant for him and Rs.200/- for the appellant. On
the instructions of Ramulu, the trap amount was handed over to
the appellant. According to PW.4, the file was pending with Ramulu,
since 02.12.2003. The prosecution had neither arrayed the said
Ramulu Superintendent as an accused, nor examined him. The
non-examination of the said Ramulu is fatal to the case of the
prosecution, in the background of the events that transpired in the
case and the relevant file for issuance of pahanis being pending
with Ramulu, after being sent by the appellant.
14. The Honourable Supreme Court in N.Vijayakumar v. State of
Tamil Nadu, 1 held that mere recovery of the amount divorced from the
circumstances cannot form basis to convict, when the substantive
evidence in the case was not reliable.
15. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police,
State of A.P (2015(10) SCC 152), a three judge bench of the
Supreme Court held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is
the gravamen of the offences punishable under Sections 7 &
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in the
absence of the same, the charge would fail. It was also held that
2021 CRI.L.J 1353
mere acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification would not
be sufficient to prove the above charges.
16. The demand aspect has to be proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. If any doubt arises in the facts of a case,
benefit has to be extended to the appellant.
17. At the earliest point of time, the appellant explained that
Pahanis were in 'Modi' language and had to be translated by official
translator. It is admitted that on 02.12.2003 itself, the relevant file
was handed over to Ramulu-Superintendent after the appellant
made entries in Ex.P12-register. The reasons for not examining
Ramulu are not given. Further, the file was pending with Ramulu
and no official translator had translated the Pahanis. PW.1 turned
hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In the
background of the infirmities in the case as already discussed, the
evidence of PW.2, cannot form basis to infer demand and
acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, benefit of doubt is
extended to the appellant.
19. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction
recorded by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases at
Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.12 of 2010, dated 21.01.2011, is
set aside. The appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail,
his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 12.02.2025
tk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.106 OF 2011
Date: 12.02.2025
tk
