Telangana High Court
Ch.Ganesh, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Spl.Pp., on 19 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1064 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for
short 'the Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period
of three years under each count, vide judgment in C.C.No.16 of
2008 dated 24.08.2010, passed by the Additional Special Judge for
SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present
appeal is filed.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was
working as Senior Assistant, Malkajgiri Circle, GHMC. P.W.1 has
been working as a Public Health Worker, Malkajgiri Circle, GHMC
since 03.06.2005. P.W.1 was being paid Rs.4,200/- per month as
salary out of which, Rs.509/- was deducted for LIC premium.
However, from October, 2006, he was being paid a total sum of
Rs.3,700/-. P.W.1 was not paid the salary as per the new pay scale
as contemplated by the Pay Revision Commission since the year
2005. P.W.1 approached the appellant for payment of his salary as
per the new Pay Scale, and also approached P.W.3 for the same. In
the month of December, 2006, the appellant demanded a bribe of
Rs.20,000/- to revise the salary of P.W.1, and subsequently,
reduced the bribe to Rs.5,000/-. Unwilling to pay the bribe, P.W.1
gave a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau on 24.07.2007. A
trap was laid on 26.07.2007 in the office of the appellant. The
tainted bribe amount was recovered from the top rack of the
almirah situated behind the table of the appellant. The tainted
amount was found in a Xerox paper cover. Both the hands of the
appellant tested positive in the phenolphthalein test. The Xerox
paper cover that came into contact with the tainted amount also
tested positive.
3. P.W.1 deposed that the appellant was not paying his salary as
per the new Pay Scale. However, as per the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3,
and 4, an option form has to be submitted to implement the new
pay scales. P.Ws.2 and 7 admitted that the file of P.W.1 that was
allegedly recovered from the appellant did not contain the option
form. P.W.3 deposed that P.W.1 submitted his option form after the
date of trap, in the month of September, 2007.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that P.W.1 has not
submitted an option form to implement the new Pay Scale as per
the pay revision commission. P.W.3 admitted that the said option
form was submitted by P.W.1 after the date of trap. Hence, there is
no favour pending with the appellant. The allegation that the
appellant demanded bribe in December, 2006 is not believable.
Moreover, the report to the ACB was given on 24.07.2007 with a
delay of seven months. There is no explanation given by P.W.1 for
the said delay.
5. Learned counsel further argued that D.W.1, who is the
security guard in the office of the appellant, deposed that the
appellant was in a meeting in another office, and P.W.1 went inside
the office of the appellant in his absence. D.W.2, who works in the
same office room as the appellant, deposed that P.W.1 kept the
currency notes in the top rack of the almirah in the absence of the
appellant, as the almirah was open at that time. He further deposed
that when the appellant came back to the office, P.W.1 caught hold
of both the hands of the appellant, and pleaded to do his work, and
went away.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that P.W.8
deposed that the appellant gave explanation to him that the money
was kept in the almirah in his absence, and that he was falsely
implicated due to office union rivalry. D.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that
the appellant is the Vice-President of the MRPS Organization. P.W.1
deposed that he is a member of Harijana Mala Community. It is the
defence of the appellant that there are ill-feelings between both the
communities, and therefore, a false report was given against him.
Learned counsel further argued that the spontaneous explanation
by the appellant was suppressed in the second mediators report.
The prosecution failed to prove demand, acceptance, and recovery
of the bribe amount. None of the ingredients of Section 7 or Section
13(1)(d) of the PC Act are made out.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that Ex.P11, which is the
Chart giving details of the salary of the appellant, reflects that the
new pay scale was implemented but the benefits were not given to
P.W.1. Accordingly, the trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant.
8. The crux of the complaint is that new Pay Scale was not
implemented by the appellant and benefits were not given to P.W.1.
P.W.1 deposed as follows:
"To effect pay revision the employee has to exercise his
option. I got made the necessary entries in my service book
with manager of office by name Easabuddin Khalid. I have
submitted my option form in the office to the Manager,
Easabuddin Khalid."
9. P.W.3 deposed as follows:
"It is true as per the procedure for pay fixation one has to
exercise option and submit option form. I am not aware whether
P.W.1 has submitted any option form for pay fixation till the
date of trap. It is true P.W.1 has given option form after the date
of trap in the month of 9/07."
10. The Investigating Officer/P.W.8 deposed as follows:
"The allegation made by P.W.1 in his report is with regard
to fixation of pay as per revised pay scales of 2005. It is true to
effect revised pay scales the employee has to submit option
form expressing his desire to adopt new pay scales. I seized the
relevant file from the possession of AO and I have gone through
it but I do not find said option form in the said file. The said file
was seized on the date of trap i.e., on 26.07.2007. I cannot say
whether P.W.1 submitted option form prior to 26.07.2007 since I
did not find the same in the file seized."
11. The allegation of the appellant demanding bribe was in the
month of December, 2006, according to P.W.1, and thereafter, there
is nothing in the complaint or in the evidence of P.W.1 for the Court
to infer that any demand was made by the appellant between
December, 2006 and the date of complaint, i.e., 24.07.2007.
Further, to effect the pay revision, P.W.1 did not exercise his option
of submitting option form, nor was any option form found. Though,
P.W.1 stated that he has submitted his option form to P.W.3,
however, P.W.3 did not speak about P.W.1 submitting any pay
fixation form. P.W.1 is also an employee in the very same office. In
the absence of any option that was exercised or any request made
by P.W.1, the question of the appellant implementing the new pay
scales does not arise.
12. It is for the prosecution to prove the 'demand' made by the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The allegation of demand for
bribe is nearly seven months prior to the complaint, which gives
rise to any amount of doubt regarding the correctness of the
allegation of demand by the appellant. There is no explanation by
P.W.1 as to why he waited for more than seven months to lodge a
complaint. What transpired over the seven months is also not
explained by P.W.1.
13. In P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police,
State of A.P 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that mere
acceptance of any amount dehors proof of demand would not be
sufficient to bring home charge under Section 7 and Section
13(1)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the conviction was reversed.
14. In B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that mere recovery of the amount cannot form
basis to constitute the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
15. The recovery of the amount was from the top rack of the
almirah, which was situated behind the table of the appellant.
P.W.2, who is an independent mediator, did not accompany P.W.1
when he met the appellant in the office. According to P.W.2, the
appellant showed place where the tainted currency was kept. As
instructed by the Inspector, P.W.2 picked up the tainted currency
notes from the Xerox cover which was on top of the almirah behind
the seat of the appellant.
(2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152
(2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 55
16. D.W.2 is an outsourcing employee, who was working in the
said office. He was looking after the issue of birth and death
certificates, and also trade licence, etc. According to D.W.2, his seat
was opposite to the seat of the appellant. According to D.W.2, on
the date of incident, P.W.1 came to the office, and enquired about
the appellant, and when he was not present, he went towards the
table of the appellant, and kept the currency notes in the top rack
of the almirah. When D.W.2 was going outside, the appellant
entered the room, in the meantime. P.W.1 questioned him about his
PRC, to which the appellant asked him to submit the option form
first. Then, P.W.1 held the hands of the appellant, and pleaded him
to do his work, and went away. Immediately, the ACB officials
entered into the office.
16. The evidence of D.W.2 cannot be brushed aside only for the
reason of him being a defence witness. Defence witnesses are
entitled to equal treatment on par with prosecution witnesses. No
reason is given as to why P.W.2 was not asked to accompany P.W.1
to observe what transpires in between P.W.1 and the appellant.
P.W.1 is an employee in the same office, as such, the question of
D.W.2 objecting to P.W.1 accessing the almirah in the office does
not arise. D.W.2's evidence is probable in the present facts of the
case.
17. Mere recovery of the amount cannot form basis to infer that
the appellant demanded and accepted the amount towards bribe
when the demand itself was not proved by the prosecution, and the
very version of demanding bribe is doubtful. The Public Prosecutor
argued that Ex.P11 reflects implementation of revised pay scale. If
the pay scale was already implemented, the question of lodging a
complaint does not arise. It is the specific case of the prosecution
that pay scale was not implemented.
18. When P.W.1 was questioned, he admitted that he belongs to
Harijana Mala community, however, he denied having knowledge
about the appellant actively participating in Union activities and
also working as Vice-President of MRPS employees wing. He further
denied having knowledge about any differences in between the
Union lead by MRPS activists and Union lead by the activists of
Mala Mahanadu (Union including SC and ST employees). It is,
however, not disputed by P.W.1 that there were two rival Unions in
the office and he was the member of one of the Unions.
19. The false implication of the appellant cannot be ruled out in
the present facts of the case. As already discussed, the demand
itself was not proved by the prosecution and the consequent
recovery cannot form basis to find the appellant guilty. In view of
the above discussion, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
20. In the result, the judgment of trial Court in C.C.No.16 of 2008
dated 24.08.2010 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE &
ACB Cases, Hyderabad is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted.
Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
21. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 19.03.2025
kvs
