Telangana High Court
Rekya Chowhan, Khammam Dt., vs The State Of Ap., Rep Spl.Pp For Acb ... on 14 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1179 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
The appeal is filed by the appellant/accused aggrieved by the
conviction recorded by the I Addl.Special Judge for SPE & ACB
Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, in
CC.No.26 of 2015, dated 18.11.2016, for the offences under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of one year and to pay Rs.500/- for the offence under
Section 7 of PC Act; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section
13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act.
2. Heard Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Sridhar Lonkala, for the appellant and Sri V.Ravi
Kiran Rao, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 27.9.2010, at
1:00 PM, a complaint (Ex.P1) was lodged by PW.1 before the ACB,
Khammam against Sri Rekya Chowhan, the Accused Officer
(Appellant herein), who was working as a Superintendent Officer in
the Office of the Assistant Director, District Insurance, Khammam.
PW.1, in his complaint, stated that his father, Md. Shamsuddin,
had worked as a Community Health Officer in the Department of
Medical and Health at Julurupad Mandal and retired on
31.12.2009 upon superannuation. After retirement, his father filed
an application before the Assistant Director, District Insurance,
Khammam, requesting payment of his APGLI Policy amount. The
policy number was 635864-A. Meanwhile, on 22.5.2010, PW.1's
father passed away due to a heart attack. In August 2010, PW.1
and his mother received a letter from the APGLI office directing
them to file a fresh application in the name of PW.1's mother.
Accordingly, PW.1's mother filed a fresh application in the APGLI
office on 3.9.2010, enclosing a legal heir certificate (Ex.P12). The
appellant was working as a Superintendent in the said office, and
when PW.1 and his mother met appellant, requesting the release of
survival benefits, appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- as a bribe to
process the claim. PW.1 expressed his inability to pay such a huge
amount.
4. Again, on 20.9.2010, PW.1 and his mother visited appellant's
office. Appellant informed them that the process was ongoing and
inquired whether PW.1 had brought the bribe amount. PW.1 once
again expressed his inability to pay. On 27.9.2010, PW.1 and his
mother visited the office again, but this time PW.1 alone met
appellant. Appellant informed PW.1 that the work was completed,
the DD was prepared, and demanded the bribe. When PW.1
expressed his inability to pay, appellant reduced the bribe amount
to Rs 6,000 and instructed PW.1 to bring the amount to his office
the next day. PW.1 left, stating he would return the next day with
the money.
5. PW.1 informed his mother, who advised him to approach the
ACB officials. Since PW.1 was unwilling to pay the bribe, he
approached the ACB officials. Upon receiving the complaint, LW.12
- Inspector of Police, ACB, Khammam informed PW.8 - DSP, ACB,
Warangal over the telephone. PW.8 instructed LW.12 to conduct an
inquiry. After conducting the inquiry, PW.8 received the complaint
from LW.12, registered a case in Cr. No. 8/ACB-WKH/2010 under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and obtained
permission from the competent authority on 28.9.2010, at 2:30
PM, before taking up the investigation.
6. During the investigation on 28.9.2010, PW.8 secured the
services of PW.2 and LW.3 as mediators and organized a trap
against appellant. The pre-trap formalities--such as applying
phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, explaining its
significance, noting down the serial numbers and denominations of
the currency notes, etc.--were completed in the presence of
mediators, and the proceedings were recorded in Ex.P4 (Pre-Trap
Proceedings).
7. On 28.9.2010, PW.1, PW.2, LW.3, PW.8, and his team
proceeded to appellant's office. PW.1 entered appellant's office,
where appellant was found sitting in his seat. Appellant allegedly
demanded the bribe amount, and PW.1 handed over Rs.6,000/- to
appellant. Appellant received it with his right hand and asked PW.1
to come the next day to collect the DD. PW.1 then exited the office
and gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap party members. Upon
receiving the signal, PW.8 rushed into appellant's office. PW.8
prepared a sodium carbonate solution, and when appellant dipped
his fingers into the solution, the right-hand wash turned pink,
while the left-hand wash remained colorless, vide MOs.3 and 4.
8. When DSP inquired about the tainted amount, appellant
allegedly led them to the record room and pointed to the money,
which was found placed between the files. PW.8 seized the
currency notes/MO.5 from the files and subjected the contact
portion of the files to a chemical test, which yielded a positive
result, vide MO.7. Further, upon verification, the mediators
confirmed that the currency notes tallied. In addition to seizing
MOs. 1 to 7, Exs.P5 to P8 were also seized, and post-trap
proceedings were concluded and recorded in Ex.P10. PW.8 also
prepared a rough sketch of the scene of the offence, which is Ex.P9.
Thereafter, appellant was arrested and produced before the Hon'ble
II Addl. Special Judge.
9. Sanction to prosecute appellnt was granted by the Principal
Secretary of the Government, Finance (Admn-II) Department, AP,
Hyderabad, being the competent authority to remove appellant.
After completing the investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted
for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.
10. The learned Special Judge having considered the evidence of
the witnesses and also the documentary evidence, found that the
prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant, and accordingly
convicted him.
11. The defence of the appellant is that the initial burden was not
discharged by the prosecution. He argued that unless the
prosecution proves the demand and acceptance of the bribe
amount through acceptable evidence, the presumption under
Section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn automatically. Appellant
stated that there was no evidence on record to show that he had
demanded the bribe and that, apart from PW.1's self-serving
statement, there was no corroboration regarding the alleged
demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. The prosecution,
according to Appellant, failed to prove that there was a voluntary
acceptance of the tainted amount. Appellant asserted that the
police had brought the amount and falsely shown its recovery from
the record room. He further claimed that the spontaneous
explanation given by him was deliberately suppressed in the post-
trap proceedings.
12. Appellant also argued that he was not the competent
authority to release the survival benefits and that the Assistant
Director, District Insurance Office, was solely responsible for
processing and releasing the policy amount. He contended that no
official favour was pending before him on the date of the alleged
trap, i.e., 28.9.2010, and that the Demand Draft relating to PW.1
under Ex.P6 had already been dispatched to the relevant section
on 27.9.2010.
13. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the appellant is not the competent person to release
the government benefits etc., pertaining to the defacto
complainant. In fact, PW.1-defacto complainant, PW.2-mediator,
PW.3-Senior Assistant in the District Insurance Office and PW.5-
Attender-cum-Dispatch Clerk were declared hostile to the
prosecution case. The prosecution failed to prove that there was
firstly, demand of bribe and secondly, that any official favour with
respect to the defacto complainant was pending as on the date of
trap.
14. Learned Counsel further argued that the Demand Draft
relating to PW.1 under Ex.P6 was already sent to the dispatch
section on 27.09.2010 which is before the date of trap. The relevant
entry was also referred as Ex.P7 in the Outward Register. Except
the version of PW.1 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe,
there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1. PW.1 stated that
on the date of trap he kept the amount on the table and shook
hands with the appellant. PW.3 stated that the appellant and his
brother-in-law came to their office and thereafter, all three of them
went outside to have tea. And while they were sipping tea, five or
six persons came and caught hold of appellant and took him away.
Similar is the evidence of PW.5. The Counsel further argued that
the appellant gave his explanation instantaneously at the time of
post-trap proceedings, that he is not aware about anything, and
PW.1 has deliberately joined hands with some of his colleagues and
involved him in a false case.
15. Learned Counsel relied on the following Judgments rendered
by the Honourable Supreme Court, High Court for the State of
Telangana, and High Court of Judicature, A.P. at Hyderabad:
1. Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P. 1
2. A.Subair v. State of Kerala 2
3. B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 3
4. P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. Dist.Inspector of Police and
another 4
5. Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. Central Bureau of
Investigation 5
6. K.Shanthamma v. State of Telangana 6
7. K.Shankar v. Stte of Andhra Pradesh 7
8. C.Giriprasad Babu v. State, ACB, Nizamabad Range,
Nizamabad 8
9. Sk.Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh 9
10. J.Srinivasa Rao and others V. State of Andhra Pradesh 10
11. K.Ramakrishna v. State 11
AIR 2024 SC 3356
2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 497 (SC)
2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC)
2015 (2) ALD (Crl.) 883 (SC)
2018(2)ALD(Crl.)952(SC)
2022 (2) ALD (Crl.) 43 (SC)
2023 (2) ALD (Crl.) 983 (TS)
2022 (1) ALD (Crl.) 96 (TS)
2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 917 (TS)
2020 (1) ALD (Crl.) 507 (TS)
12. State v. R.Krishnaiah 12
13. Addala Subrahmanyam v. State 13
16. Learned Public Prosecutor countered the argument of the
defence counsel and stated that there is no reason as to why PW.1
would implicate the appellant in a false case. The fact remains that
the Demand Draft had to be given to PW.1, and the appellant being
the concerned officer, was responsible to issue the same.
17. The allegation against the appellant is that he demanded
bribe for processing the application submitted for withdrawal of
PW.1's father's policy amount. As on the date of trap, the Demand
Draft was not issued to PW.1. Ex.P6 is the copy of the Demand
Draft seized on the date of trap. According to DSP, when the
appellant was asked to produce Demand Draft pertaining to the
Policy amount of PW.1's father, the appellant called PW.5 and
informed that he was handling the dispatch section. PW.5
produced the Demand Draft-Ex.P6 dated 22.09.2010 for an
amount of Rs.87,033/- drawn in favour of PW.1's mother. On
enquiry, PW.5 stated that, the Demand Draft was not dispatched
because on 27.9.2010, appellant gave him the said Demand Draft
and informed him to not give the same to PW1 until he gives
2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 125
2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 331 (AP)
2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 934 (AP)
instructions. Ex.P5 is the copy of Outward Register and the entry
relating to PW.1's Demand Draft is marked as Ex.P7. PW.5
however, turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not state
that the Demand Draft was asked to be retained by the appellant.
According to PW6, in ExP5, it is mentioned that the cheque was
handed over to the outward clerk on 27.9.2010 itself. PW.2, the
independent mediator stated that all the official documents, letters,
communications etc., would be handed over to the parties under
their acknowledgments.
18. From the record Ex.P5, and the entry-Ex.P7 coupled with the
evidence of PW.6, it is evident that the appellant had handed over
the cheque to the Outward Clerk on 27.09.2010 itself. PW.5
deposed that Srinivasa Rao was the Section Superintendent of the
outward sections and the appellant had nothing to do with the
section from which the Demand Draft had to be dispatched.
Similar is the evidence of PW.6, who stated that Srinivasa is the
Superintendent, who was incharge of inward and outward sections.
19. PW.8-Trap Laying Officer stated that he neither collected any
duty chart of the appellant, nor investigated regarding the
authority of the appellant over the inward and outward sections.
20. In view of the above discussion, the case of the prosecution
that the Demand Draft was deliberately withheld at the instance of
the appellant, was not proved by the prosecution.
21. Another aspect which has to be looked into is the complaint
which was lodged with PW6, against Sk. Babu, data entry operator
who was engaged on an outsourcing basis. It was alleged that
complaints were received stating that the said Sk. Babu was
demanding bribes from the parties stating that they were meant for
the staff. In Ex.D1, which is dated 29.10.2010 it is mentioned that
Sk. Babu demanded bribe from the legal heirs of policy members of
policy number 635864. From ExP7, it is evident that PW1 is the
holder of policy number 635864.
22. PW.6 deposed that on 29.10.2010, the ACB Inspector came to
his office and warned the said Sk. Babu not to interfere with the
office affairs and reprimanded him for demanding Rs.5,000/- from
the legal heirs of the policy holder of Policy number 635864. PW.6
further stated that he wrote a letter to his Director on 29.09.2010
narrating about the complaints against Sk. Babu and requested to
transfer Sk. Babu to another office. PW6 also admitted that ExD1
is the Xerox copy of the letter he wrote.
23. PW.3 is another witness who stated that Sk.Babu was
working in the office on an outsourcing basis. It was informed that
he was demanding bribes from the parties and all of them
complained about Sk.Babu to the Assistant Director and the
Director, Insurance. After the trap, Sk.Babu was transferred to
another place. In the present facts of the case, the probability of
Sk. Babu asking the bribe on behalf of the appellant cannot be
ruled out.
24. PW.1 stated that on the date of trap i.e., 28.09.2010, when he
entered into the office, he found the appellant in the record room.
He later clarified stating that the appellant was in his seat when
the demand was made. After demanding the amount, the appellant
took PW.1 downstairs, observed the surroundings and again took
PW.1 upstairs. On the way, appellant asked PW.1 for the money
and PW.1 handed it over to the appellant. Appellant received the
same, and asked PW.1 to collect the Demand Draft on the next
day. Immediately, PW.1 gave signal to the trap party. Whether the
demand was made is doubtful, and it is also doubtful whether the
demand was in the room of the appellant or the record room. In the
chief-examination, PW.1 stated that Appellant took PW.1
downstairs and then accepted the amount. However, in his cross-
examination, PW.1 stated that he placed the amount on the table
and shook hands with the appellant. PW.1 was declared hostile to
the prosecution case after cross-examination by the counsel for the
appellant. In the cross-examination by the Special Public
Prosecutor, PW.1 admitted that he has not stated about placing the
amount on the table in his earlier statements.
25. PW.1 is the only witness to the alleged demand and
acceptance of bribe by the appellant. He has given two different
versions before the Court below. Once the contradictory versions
are looked into, the evidence of PW.1 becomes doubtful and cannot
be accepted, unless there is corroborating evidence regarding the
demand. The reason for demanding bribe is for handing over the
Demand Draft. Even according to the prosecution case, prior to the
trap date itself, the Demand Draft was prepared and handed over
in the inward and outward section as admitted by the witnesses
PWs. 3, 5 and 6. The appellant had no authority over the inward
and outward section. The recovery of the tainted currency was in
between the files that was recovered at the instance of the
appellant. The defence of the appellant is that PW.1 or the ACB
officials might have placed the money in the record files. In the
background of PW.1's admission that he had placed the money on
the table and shook hands with the appellant, there arises a doubt
regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant,
and the consequent recovery. Other than the evidence of trap party
members, the independent witnesses PWs.3 and 5, do not speak
about the claim of the prosecution that the amount was recovered
from the record files.
26. In view of the said discrepancies, regarding PW1's evidence of
the admission of bribe, for which there is no other corroboration,
and in view of the work pending with the appellant being
completed, there arises doubt regarding the correctness of the
prosecution version.
27. In view of the discrepant evidence, benefit of doubt is
extended to the appellant.
28. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the
conviction recorded by I Additional Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB
Cases-cum-V Addl.Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. The appellant is
acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 14.02.2025
tk
