State, Rep By Its Inspector Of Police, vs C.Venugopal
2025 Latest Caselaw 4226 Tel

Telangana High Court

State, Rep By Its Inspector Of Police, vs C.Venugopal on 25 June, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.827 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant

challenging the judgment dated 13.01.2014 passed by the learned

First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases-cum-V

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in C.C.No.11 of

2011, whereby the learned Judge found the accused not guilty for the

offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The appellant herein is the complainant and respondent herein

is the accused before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience,

hereinafter parties are referred to as the complainant and the

accused.

3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:

The Accused was working as an Assistant Divisional Engineer,

APCPDCL, Shamshabad sub-division of Ranga Reddy District from

26.05.2007 to 05.01.2010. The de facto complainant intended to start

a plastic industry with the partnership of LW.5 and two others under

the name and style of "Ketan Woven Sacks" for the manufacturing of

plastic bags and for that they took two old sheds in Sy.No.29/E/1 in

Thondapally village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

The shed has old service connection of 74 HP load, but there was a

requirement of 407 HP load for running the industry. PW.1

approached the accused and made an application to that effect, the

Superintending Engineer issued proceedings under Ex.P.14, dated

21.10.2009 and directed PW.1 and his partners to comply with the

conditions therein. PW.1 exercised his option for execution of the

work of laying the lines. The accused engaged the registered

contractor Mr. Vasudeva Reddy for an estimated cost of Rs.2,00,000/.

Mr. Vasudeva Reddy completed the work and Deputy Chief Electrical

Inspector inspected the work and gave approval on 17.12.2009.

Thereafter, accused inspected the unit and demanded PW.1 to

arranged bribe of Rs.50,000/- for the work completion report. On

repeated requests made by PW.1, the accused reduced the bribe

amount to Rs.30,000/-. As his repeated visits did not yield any

result, the complainant approached the DG, Hyderabad and intimated

about the said issue on 05.01.2010 and lodged a complaint as in

Ex.P.16 on the basis of which, the Inspector of Police, registered a

case on the same day itself. P.W.7 and PW.8 secured the presence of

P.W.5 and another. Then P.W.7 prepared the pre-trap proceedings,

observed the formalities. He, along with the trap party, proceeded to

the office of the accused. The accused received the amount from

PW.1, kept the same in his right side pant pocket. Then, on the pre-

arranged signal given by P.W.1, PWs.2, 7, 8 and other members

rushed to the spot and caught the accused. P.W.7 conducted the

chemical test. When the accused hands were subjected to chemical

test, it yielded positive result. The amount was wrapped in a kerchief.

The pant pocket of the accused was also given positive test. The said

currency notes were compared, the numbers and denominations of

the currency notes mentioned in the first mediators report were found

tallied. The said currency notes were seized along with other items.

After observing formalities, P.W.7 arrested the accused, obtained

necessary sanction to prosecute the accused and after completion of

investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution

examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.16 and exhibited

M.Os.1 to 8. On behalf of defence, none examined and Exs.D.1 to D.4

were marked.

5. After hearing the parties on both sides and upon considering

the evidence on record, the trial Court opined that the prosecution

has miserably failed in placing cogent, convincing, reliable,

trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence so as to drive the Court to

come to irresistible conclusions on the guilt of accused for the offences

under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act arraigned

against them beyond reasonable doubt and under these

circumstances, accused is entitled to seek a strong benefit of doubt in

their favour. Hence, accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act and accordingly,

he was acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the offences under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.

6. Heard Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and

Special Public Prosecutor for ACB and Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the

record.

7. Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel and Special

Public Prosecutor for ACB, appearing for the appellant-State

submitted that the trial Court failed in appreciating the evidence

available on record and came to an erroneous conclusion that the

appellant-State has not placed sufficient evidence to prove the offence

punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2) of the

Act. Hence seeks to allow the present Criminal Appeal by setting

aside the judgment dated 13.01.2014 passed in C.C.No.11 of 2011.

8. To support his case, learned counsel relied upon the judgments

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 1. The state of

Karnataka vs. Chandrasha 1. The relevant paragraphs reads as

under:

"20. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent is that the bill was passed on 29.07.2009 and it was sent for preparation of cheque to P.W.4 on the same day itself and the cheque (Ex.P19) was also made ready on 30.07.2009 and hence, on the date of alleged trap i.e., on 05.08.2009, there was no work pending with the Respondent and he did not demand or accept bribe from the complainant. However, the said cheque was not issued to the complainant and neither any intimation in this regard was sent to the school authorities, till 05.08.2009 nor was the complainant informed that the cheque was already ready. That apart, no plausible reason was adduced on the side of the Respondent, as to why, it was retained in the office of the Sub Treasury without being issued to the party concerned. It is a common knowledge that when the bill was submitted to the office of Sub Treasury for sanction, only after issuance of the cheque to the concerned, the work will be treated as completed. In the instant case, no cheque was issued, and it was kept pending as on the date of trap. Therefore, the contention so made on the side of the Respondent cannot be countenanced by us.

21. It is settled law that the two basic facts viz., 'demand' and 'acceptance' of gratification have been proved, the presumption Under Section 20 can be invoked to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated Under Section 7 of the Act. However, such presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the Accused can rebut the same. In the present case, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, in respect of the 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the bribe amount from the complainant and recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the Respondent. The said operation is preceded by recording of the demand in the tape recorder. In such circumstances, the Respondent has to rebut the presumption by disproving the case of the prosecution either in the cross- examination of the prosecution side witnesses or by adducing material evidence that the receipt of Rs. 2,000/- was not a bribe amount, but a legal fee or repayment of loan. However, he failed to do so and on the contrary, we find the prosecution to have proved the case beyond any doubt."

2014(4) Crimes 409(SC), 2024 INSC 928

2. Vinod Kumar Garg vs. Government of national Capital

Territory of Delhi (criminal Appeal No.1781 of 2009). The

relevant paragraphs reads as under:

"11. The contradictions that have crept in the testimonies of Nand Lal (PW-2) and Hemant Kurmur (PW-3) noticed above and on the question of the total amount demanded or whether Nand Lal (PW-2) had earlier paid Rs.500/- are immaterial and inconsequential as it is indisputable that the bribe was demanded and taken by the Appellant on 30th August, 1994 at about 10:30 am. The variations as highlighted lose significance in view of the proven facts on the recovery of bribe money from the pant pocket of the Appellant, on which depositions of Nand Lal (PW-2), Hemant Kumar (PW-3) and Rohtash Singh (PW-5) are identical and not at variance. The money recovered was the currency notes that were treated and noted in the pre-raid proceedings vide Exhibit PW-2/G. The aspect of demand and payment of the bribe has been examined and dealt with above. The contradictions as pointed out to us and noted are insignificant when juxtaposed with the vivid and eloquent narration of incriminating facts proved and established beyond doubt and debate. It would be sound to be cognitive of the time gap between the date of occurrence, 3rd August 1994, and the dates when the testimony of Nand Lal (PW-2) was recorded, 9th July 1999 and 14th September 1999, and that Hemant Kumar's (PW-3) testimony was recorded on 18th December 2000 and 30th January, 2001. Given the time gap of five to six years, minor contradictions on some details are bound to occur and are natural. The witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time. Picayune variations do not in any way negate and contradict the main and core incriminatory evidence of the demand of bribe, reason why the bribe was demanded and the actual taking of the bribe that was paid, which are the ingredients of the offence Under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, that as noticed above and hereinafter, have been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. Documents prepared contemporaneously noticed above affirm the primary and ocular evidence. We, therefore, find no good ground and reason to upset and set aside the findings recorded by the trial court that have been upheld by the High Court. Relevant in this context would be to refer to the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. v. Dr. G.K. Ghosh

MANU/SC/0357/1984: (1984) | SCC 254 wherein it was held that in a case involving an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case, it my be safe to accept the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the Accused and inconsistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction.

20. This Court in Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim MANU/SC/0156/2011: (2011) 4 SCC 402 referring to the earlier precedents has observed that a defect or irregularity in investigation however serious, would have no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial Where the cognizance of the case has already been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless a miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. Similar is the position with regard to the validity of the sanction. A mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Section 19(1) of the Act is matter of procedure and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction and once the cognizance has been taken by the court under the Code, it cannot be said that an invalid police report is the foundation of jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance and for that matter the trial."

9. Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the respondent would contend that the trial Court, upon

appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record in

right perspective passed the judgment and the interference of this

Court at this stage is unwarranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the

present Criminal Appeal.109. In the case on hand, there is no

convincing evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the demand

and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. The judgments relied

upon by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to that

facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

10. There are no grounds much less valid grounds to interfere with

the well considered judgment of the trial Court and accordingly, this

Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned

counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, this

Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned

judgment dated 13.01.2014 passed in C.C.No.11 of 2011.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V. VENUGOPAL, J

Date: 25.06.2025 VSU