Telangana High Court
State, Rep. By Inspector Of Police, Acb, ... vs Bogapati Babaiah, Yousufguda, ... on 6 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.477 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal was filed by Anti-Corruption Beureau
questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused Nos.1 & 2 for the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short the Act), of
respondent/accused No.1 and for offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act
against A.2.
2. Accused No.1 was working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer.
PW-1, the defacto complainant lodged complaint with the A.C.B. stating
that an application was filed with the Commercial Tax Officer, Charminar
Circle, for issuance of APGST & CST registration certificate and obtained
receipt. Thereafter accused No.1 visited the house of the defacto
complainant for verification on 07.02.2004 and asked PW1 to meet him in
his office on 09.02.2004 @ 11:00 A.M. PW1 approached A.1 and when
enquired accused No.1 about his work, there was demand for Rs.3,000/- as
bribe, however A.1 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,500/- and asked
PW-1 to pay the said amount to accused No.2. The said grievance was
carried to the A.C.B. and PW-1 filed written complaint dated 09.02.2004.
The D.S.P., A.C.B., City Range-1, Hyderabad, having received the said
complaint laid trap against accused No.1. On the very same day, the trap
party proceeded to the office of the accused No.1. PW-1 handed over the
amount of Rs.1,500/- to accused No.2 who is a private person towards
payment of challan for the service charges and fee payable to the advocate
@ Rs.500/-.
3. The learned Special Judge acquitted accused No.1 mainly on the
basis of there being no work pending with accused No.1. Accused No.1 had
already prepared the certificate of registration which is Ex-P7 after making
inquiries and had also sent the said certificate to the dealers service center
on 09.02.2004 itself. Once the certificate was already sent, the question of
any pending work with accused No.1 does not arise.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though
the accused No.1 had already sent the certificate, however, the demand was
made two days prior to the date of trap and his intention was clear
regarding the bribe amount.
5. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi
Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, held that
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to
consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one,
particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing
the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
6. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles
of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal,
held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other
appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles
crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or
otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the
trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling
reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would
have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial
court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist
when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is
palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of
law;
iii)The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave
miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the
evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and
unreasonable;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying
declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and
consideration o the findings of the trial court.
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to
acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts
must rule in favour of the accused."
7. Though it is alleged that the demand for bribe was made, however,
accused No.1 had already completed his work and dispatched the certificate
of registration to the dealer service center even prior to the trap being laid.
In the said circumstances it cannot be said that the prosecution was able to
prove the demand for the reason of doing any official work pending with
accused No.1
8. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the finding of the
learned Special Judge while acquitting accused Nos.1 & 2. Accordingly,
the instant appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt.:06.01.2025
aqs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 477 OF 2012
Dt. 06.01.2025
aqs
