State Rep., By Inspeoctor Of Police Acb, ... vs G.Sathaiah
2025 Latest Caselaw 2211 Tel

Telangana High Court

State Rep., By Inspeoctor Of Police Acb, ... vs G.Sathaiah on 17 February, 2025

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.947 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:

1. The State-ACB, aggrieved by the acquittal of the

respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)

r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide

judgment in C.C.No.38 of 2010, dated 14.05.2013, passed by the First

Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed the present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent/accused was

working as a Senior Assistant and was also in-charge of Sub Registrar

Office in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Allampur in Mahabubnagar

District. P.W.2, who is the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant,

purchased Acs.2.38 guntas of land in Undavally village of

Manavapadu Mandal in Mahabubnagar District from D.W.1. Both

P.Ws.1 and 2 visited the office of the Sub-Registrar on 24.06.2009,

and met the accused regarding the registration of the sale deed. The

accused demanded bribe of Rs.9,000/- to complete the process of

registering the sale deed. Since the accused insisted that the bribe

amount has to be paid, both P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the ACB office in

the evening of the same day at 4.30 p.m, and lodged Ex.P1 complaint.

The complaint was given to the Joint Director, ACB. The Joint

Director, ACB in turn, entrusted the complaint of P.W.1, to P.W.7 for

taking necessary action.

3. P.W.7/DSP then asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to come on the next day

morning along with the proposed bribe amount. The next day

morning, crime was registered at 10.00 a.m. Pre-trap proceedings were

concluded in the presence of P.Ws.1, 3, 7, and other trap party

members.

4. After concluding the pre-trap proceedings, all the trap party

members went to the office of the accused. Around 4.30 p.m, P.W.1

and D.W.1, who is the vendor, entered into the office. P.W.1 enquired

with the accused about the bribe amount. Thereafter, registration of

sale deed Ex.P5 was completed. Then, on demand, the amount was

handed over by P.W.1, and accused placed it in the right side table

drawer.

5. P.W.1, then went outside and relayed the signal to the trap

party. The trap party entered into the office, and DSP/P.W.7

confronted the accused about the demand and acceptance of bribe.

Then, the hands of accused were tested with sodium carbonate

solution to find out whether the accused handled the bribe amount,

which was smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The test on both the

hands proved positive.

6. The accused, when questioned during post-trap proceedings,

stated that he has not demanded any amount from P.W.1, and that he

went to washroom outside the office. In his absence, the amount

must have been kept in his table drawer.

7. Having concluded the post trap proceedings, the DSP/P.W.7,

seized the registration documents etc., which are relevant to the case.

Thereafter, investigation was handed over to P.W.8. After obtaining

sanction orders, charge sheet was filed by P.W.8.

8. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 8, marked Exs.P1 to

P18 and MOs.1 to 7 on behalf of the prosecution. The accused

examined the vendor of the property, who sold the property to P.W.2,

as D.W.1. During trial, Exs.D1 to D5 were also marked on behalf of

the accused.

9. Learned Special Judge acquitted the accused on the following

grounds:

1) P.W.1 was a friend of TV reporter of TV9, who took him to the

ACB office, and introduced him to the Joint Director, ACB. The

complaint was filed on 24.06.2009, in the evening, and the trap party

gathered at 6.00 a.m, the next day morning. There was no occasion for

the DSP, to make any discrete enquiries regarding correctness of the

complaint.

2) The accused, at the earliest point of time explained, that he

was briefly absent from his chambers and went to attend nature's call,

and during that time, P.W.1 must have planted the amount in his

table drawer, which is probable.

3) The vendor of the plot was examined as D.W.1. According to

him, he and P.W.1 went inside the office and there, the thumb

impressions etc., were taken in the concerned register. Thereafter,

D.W.1 went out, and he stated that in his presence, the accused never

demanded any amount.

4) P.W.4, attender in the office, is another crucial witness, who

stated about P.W.1 and D.W.1's presence in the office on the said day.

After P.W.4 obtained thumb impressions of the vendors and the

vendee in the sale deed and other registers, document-Ex.P5 was

handed over to P.W.1. The accused went outside to attend nature's

call, which is situated outside the office, according to P.W.4. The

prosecution did not declare P.W.4 as hostile to the prosecution case.

10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of ACB

would submit that the hands of the accused turned positive. The

money was found in the table drawer of the accused. There is no

reason why P.W.1 would speak false against the appellant, unless

bribe was demanded. In the back ground of the amount being

recovered at the instance of the accused, presumption has to be drawn

that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe amount.

11. Learned Special Judge, having discussed the facts of the case,

found that the accused had given spontaneous explanation, that he

went outside and he was not aware of the tainted currency, which was

in his table drawer. Learned Special Judge further found that the

evidence of P.W.7, P.W.3, and P.W.1 was inconsistent. According to

P.W.3/mediator, the currency of Rs.9,000/- was recovered from the

table drawer of the accused. P.W.3 deposed that after conducting test,

the accused was asked about the amount by the DSP. However,

P.W.7/DSP initially stated that he asked accused about the bribe

amount, then the accused produced the same from his right side table

drawer. However, P.W.7 changed his version before the Court below

and stated that, initially, tests were conducted and thereafter, the

amount was recovered at the instance of the accused.

12. The discrepant evidence of P.Ws.3 and 7 coupled with the

explanation of the accused regarding his absence gives rise to the

probability of P.W.1 planting amount in the table drawer of the

accused, in his absence. P.W.4 stated during his examination that

after handing over the documents, accused went out to the bath room,

which is outside the office room. The absence of the accused in his

office room is admitted and not disputed by the prosecution.

13. In Mallappa and others v. State of Karnataka 1 , the

Honourable Supreme Court summarised the principles whereby

appeals against acquittals can be interfered with. At para-42 of the

Judgment, it was held as follows;

"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."

(2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 544

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Vijayakumar

v. State of T.N.2 held as hereunder:--

"20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a "possible view", having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the appeal against conviction. By considering the long line of earlier cases this Court in the judgment in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, [(2007) 4 SCC 415] has laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para 42 of the judgment which is relevant reads as under: (SCC p.

432) "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.

Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the

(2021) 3 SCC 687

fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

15. The reasons given by the learned Special Judge are probable and

on the basis of the admissions made by the witnesses during the

course of trial. As argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the

recovery, cannot form basis to draw presumption that it was the

accused, who had demanded and accepted the bribe amount. As

already discussed, the handing over of the amount by the accused is

discrepant insofar as the evidence of P.W.3/mediator and P.W.7/DSP

is concerned. Moreover, in the back ground of there being no initial

inquiry that was conducted and in due haste with which trap was laid,

the same would only lend credibility to the version of the defence of

the accused. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the

acquittal of the accused.

16. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 17.02.2025 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.947 of 2013

Date: 17.02.2025

kvs