Telangana High Court
M. Sanjeeva Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 February, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.211 And 212 OF 2013
Crl.A.No.211 of 2013:
Between:
1.M.Sanjeeva Rao ....Appellant/A1
(Died Per L.Rs.2 to 6)
2. M.Vijaya Laxmi
3. M.Sharanya
4. M.Ravi Theja
5. M.Shruthi
6. M.Sai Theja Appellants/L.Rs. of A1
And
The State of A.P.
... Respondent
Crl.A.No.212 of 2013
Between:
Seshi Reddy ... Appellant/A2
And
The State of A.P. ... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12.02.2025
Submitted for approval.
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
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.211 AND 212 OF 2013
% Dated 12.02.2025
Crl.A.No.211 of 2013
# 1.M.Sanjeeva Rao ....Appellant/A1
(Died Per L.Rs.2 to 6)
2. M.Vijaya Laxmi
3. M.Sharanya
4. M.Ravi Theja
5. M.Shruthi
6. M.Sai Theja Appellants/L.Rs. of A1
And
$ The State of Telangana,
... Respondent/complainant
Crl.A.No.212 of 2013:
# Seshi Reddy ... Appellant/A2
And
$ The State of A.P. ... Respondent
.
! Counsel for the Appellant
in Crl.A.No.211/2013 : Sri D.Madhava Rao
! Counsel for the Appellant in
Crl.A.No.212/2013 : Sri Karri Murali Krishna
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Learned Asst.Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.211 and 212 OF 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Crl.A.211 of 2013 is filed by appellant/Accused No.1 aggrieved
by the conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for SPE & ACB
Cases, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.40 of 2007, dated 15.02.2013, for the
offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years, on each count for the offence under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- on each count (total
Rs.20,000/-). A1 and A2 were tried in the same CC and both were
convicted.
2. Crl.A.No.212 of 2013 is filed by appellant/Accused No.2
aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge, for
the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, r/w.34 of IPC, Section 201 of the Indian penal Code and
sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years
and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 12 of
the PC Act, 1988 r/w.34 of IPC; and to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-for the
offence under Section 201 of IPC. Further, both the sentences shall
run concurrently.
3. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the findings of the
learned Special Judge in the same case, both the appeals are
disposed off by way of this common Judgment.
4. Since appellant/A1 in Crl.A.211 of 2013 died, this Court by
order dated 11.11.2024 in IA.No.2 of 2024 permitted petitioners 2 to
6 to come on record as appellant Nos.2 to 6, to prosecute appeal
No.211 of 2013.
5. Heard Sri D.Madhava Rao for the appellant/A1 in
Crl.A.No.211/2013 and Sri Karri Murali Krishna, for the
appellant/A2 in Crl.A.No.212/2013 and Sri M.Balamohan Reddy
and Sri M.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appearing for ACB.
6. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW.1 is the defacto
complainant. He approached the DSP-ACB-PW.7 and lodged a
written complaint. According to the complaint, he executed the work
of 'providing chain link fencing to irrigation channel along Moosi
River from Taggi Jall Chaderghat to Krishnanagar slum in
Kachiguda Division'. The work was under progress. PW.1
approached Srinivas, Assistant Executive Engineer (PW.9), for
recording the measurements to claim part payment. PW.9 prepared
bill and put the same before A1 who was Executive Engineer, for
checking measurement in the measurement book and to forward
the bill to the Executive Engineer, Division-V, MCH for passing and
payment of the bill.
7. On 28.04.2006 A1 inspected the work. When PW.1 requested
A1 for recording the check measurements of the work done by him
in the measurement book, A1 demanded an amount of Rs.6,000/-
and stated that unless the bribe was paid, he would not record
entries in the measurement book.
8. On the same day, i.e., 28.04.2006, PW.1 approached the DSP-
ACB-PW.7 and filed the complaint at 3.00 p.m. The DSP asked PW.1
to come on the next day i.e., 29.04.2006 on which the trap was
arranged. PW.7-DSP secured the presence of mediators-PW.2 and
another. The trap party met in the office of the DSP-ACB-PW.7 at
11.00 A.M. The proceedings were conducted in the ACB office before
proceeding to trap. The pre-trap proceedings were drafted, which is
Ex.P2.
9. PW.7 asked PW.1 to enquire about the whereabouts of A1.
PW.1 contacted A1 and A1 informed PW.1 that he wanted PW.1 to
come to office at Ward No.3, GHMC, Hyderabad situated at East
Zone Circle, Barkatpura, at 4.00 p.m. The trap party started from
the ACB office and reached the MCH office at Barkatpura at 4.00
p.m. PW.1 went inside the office, while PW.6 and other trap party
members waited outside the office. PW.1 came out of the office and
informed PW.7 that A1 was not available and once again PW.1
contacted A1 on the cell phone. A1 informed PW.1 that he would be
in the office around 5.00 p.m. However, A1 did not turn up. PW.1
again called A1 around 5.10 p.m. A1 asked PW.1 to meet him near
Nallakunta bridge where he was attending Prajapatham programme.
Further A1 asked PW.1 to come to the said location along with A2
and with the concerned documents. PW.1 and A2 went to
Nallakunta bridge, followed by the trap party.
10. PW.1 and A2 met A1 while the trap party members also
reached the premises and took vantage positions near Nallakunta
bridge. PW.1 relayed signal indicating demand and acceptance of
bribe by A1. Immediately, DSP-PW.7 and other trap party members
went nearby A1 and stopped him. Since it was on the main road, A1
was asked to enter into the TATA Sumo vehicle and he was taken to
his office near Lingampally park.
11. According to PW.1, when he along with A2 went and met A1,
along with M-book, A1 asked PW.1 whether he brought the bribe
amount. PW.1 handed over the bribe amount to A1, who accepted
the currency notes and gave it to A2. Then A1 took the M-book and
file from A2 and endorsed the signatures on the M-book and file. A1,
after signing the M-book, returned the file to A2 and asked him to
give it in the Divisional Office. A2 transferred the M-book and file to
PW.1 and requested PW.1 to hand it over to Divisional Office. Then
A2 left the place. Thereafter, according to PW.1, he relayed signal to
the trap party.
12. After A1 was taken to the office, the Sodium Carbonate
solution test was conducted in order to ascertain whether the
Phenolphthalein smeared currency notes were handled by A1. The
right hand test proved positive, however, the left hand test remained
negative. PW.1 was called and Ex.P3-M-book and Ex.P4-concerned
file of PW.1 were seized. A1 was arrested and produced before the
Special Judge.
13. PW.7 then instructed Ravinder Reddy, Inspector (not
examined) to apprehend A2. A2 was apprehended on 01.05.2006.
He was interrogated and according to the prosecution case, the
amount of Rs.6,000/- bribe which was handed over by A1 to A2,
was thrown in the 'Nala' by A2. Though, the location where the
amount was allegedly thrown by A2, was searched by ACB
personnel, however, notes were not found. A2 was also arrested and
produced before the concerned Court.
14. The investigation was then handed over to PW.10-Inspector,
ACB.
15. PW.10 having taken up investigation on 03.0.2006 examined
some witnesses and also collected Exs.P17 and P18, which are
incoming and outgoing calls from the phone number of A1, to
establish the communication in between A1 and PW.1. 9949922235
is the phone number of PW.1 and 9391391406 is that of A1. PW.10
then handed over investigation to PW.13. PW.13 concluded
investigation and obtained sanction orders to prosecute Accused
Nos.1 and 2, and then filed charge sheet.
16. The learned Special Judge having concluded trial, found
favour with the version of the prosecution and accordingly convicted
both A1 and A2.
17. The grievance of PW.1 is that A1 demanded the amount of
Rs.6,000/- to endorse in the measurement book to the extent of the
entries made insofar as the extent of work completed. Ex.P3 is the
Measurement book. In the second sheet of the Measurement Book,
it is endorsed as 'check measured page No.1 and 2' by A1 on
24.03.2006. Similarly in the 3rd and 4th sheets of the M-book, the
signatures of A1 appear with the date as 28.04.2006.
18. PW.1 stated in his cross-examination that:
".......The A.E. recorded the measurements in the M-book
and I signed in the M-book. In the M-book A1 signed on
24.03.2006, check measured at page Nos.1 to 2 of items in
the M-book. In the M-book the abstract of the bill was
prepared for Rs.3,40,722/- and it bears my signature
Dt.28.04.2006. It is true that the signature of A.O.1 was
on the abstract of the bill on 28.04.2006. the M-book
abstract showing Rs.3,40,722/- is to be sent to the
Division Office for payment to me."
19. PW.2 stated in his cross-examination that:
"We have seized Ex.P3 at the time of post-trap
proceedings. We did not verify the contents of Ex.P3. We
have not seen the check measurements were made on
24.03.2006 by the A.O.1 and the abstract of the bill being
prepared on 27.04.2006, and the total amount of bill was
Rs.3,40,722/-."
20. As seen from the M-book-Ex.P3 and also the admission of
PWs.1 and 2, the entries in the M-book were made and A1 had
signed on 24.03.2006 and 28.04.2006. The complaint was filed on
28.03.2006 on which date, A1 had already signed in the M-book-
Ex.P3. The trap was laid on 29.04.2006.
21. Initially, PW.1 entered into the office twice and thereafter, he
along with A2, who carried the M-book and the file went and met A1
near Nallakunta Bridge. According to PW.2-Mediator, PW.7-DSP,
and PW.1, the demand and acceptance of bribe took place on the
road and A1 endorsed in the M-book on the date of trap i.e.,
29.04.2006. However, the signature of A1 with date 29.04.2006
does not find place in Ex.P3. The signatures of A1 in Ex.P3 were
prior in time to the trap date. There is no explanation about the
details of entries made in M-book on the date of trap by A1.
Curiously, the trap party was also on the road watching PW.1.
However, neither PW.2-mediator, nor PW.7-DSP stated anything
about observing A1 making entries in the M-book or A1 handing
over cash to A2. However, they could see the signal by PW.1, which
version is highly doubtful. It is not known as to why the entries by
A1 and passing of money by PW.1 to A1 and thereafter A1 to A2 was
not witnessed by any member of the trap party, but they could
witness the signal of PW.1. The said version of the prosecution
creates doubt regarding the manner in which the incident was
narrated and projected by prosecution. As already discussed, the
alleged entries by A1 on the trap date are not available in the M-
book. After the signal, A2 went away and the trap party, without
testing the hands of A1 at the scene took him to the office at
Barkatpura in the jeep. PW.2 admits that there were nearly 8 ACB
officials who were sitting in the jeep. It is not the case of either PW.7
or PW.2 that the hands of A1 were not touched in any manner while
taking him from Nallakunta Bridge to the office. In the absence of
DSP taking any precaution while going from scene of offence to the
office at Barkatpura, the test that was conducted in the office at
Barkatpura, becomes doubtful.
22. The version of PW.1 during his examination and also what was
stated in the complaint is that demand was made for making entries
in the M-book on 28.03.2006 and on the same day, complaint was
filed. The fact remains that the entries were already done by
28.03.2006, and there was never any endorsement made on
29.03.2006 as claimed by PW.1.
23. It is admitted by PW.1 that at no point of time, A2 had
demanded any amount from PW.1 or that A2 had any knowledge
about the demand made by A1.
24. PW.1 stated in his cross-examination that:
"..........It is true that AO.2 never visited the work spot
where I was undertaking to execute the contract work. It is
true that I did not make any complaint against AO.2 before
the ACB officials. Similarly, it is also a fact that AO.2 never
made any demand for the bribe nor he accepted any
gratification from me at any point of time."
25. Admittedly, the alleged amount was not recovered by the ACB.
On the date of trap, though everything transpired on the road i.e.,
handing over of bribe to A1 by PW.1, A1 making endorsement in the
measurement book and thereafter A1 handing over amount to A2,
however, nothing was seen by any of the trap party members.
26. In the background of the endorsements already been made,
the question of demanding the bribe becomes doubtful. Further, the
events that transpired on the date of trap on the road creates any
amount of doubt regarding the version as projected by the
prosecution before the Court. Once the official work was already
done on 28.03.2006, the question of any work pending either at the
time of lodging complaint on 28th or on the trap date i.e.,
29.03.2006, does not arise. At the cost of repetition, the version of
prosecution that endorsements were made on 29th are proved to be
false, which is evident from Ex.P3. The demand of bribe by A1 is not
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
27. The prosecution has failed to prove the version of demand and
acceptance by A1. The discrepancies, as discussed, go to the root of
the case and suppression of actual facts is evident.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the appeals deserve
to be allowed.
29. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.211 of 2013 filed by A1 and
Crl.A.No.212 of 2013 filed by A2 are allowed setting aside the
conviction recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases,
Hyderabad, in C.C.No.40 of 2007, dated 15.02.2013. Both Accused
Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted. Since both appellants/A1 and A2 are on
bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date:12.02.2025
tk
