Telangana High Court

Sri P. Balaiah A1, Hyderabad. vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Spl.P.P., ... on 19 March, 2025

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.941 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant-A1 and another person, A2, were prosecuted by

the ACB on the allegation of demanding and accepting a bribe. After

trial, the learned Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB

Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, acquitted A2 and convicted A1

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

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts

vide judgment in C.C.No.33 of 2004, dated 30.07.2010. Aggrieved

by the said conviction, A1 filed the present appeal.

2. Heard Sri Ch.Venkat Raman, learned Counsel for the

appellant and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public

Prosecutor for ACB.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto

complainant/P.W.1 was running a medical and general stores,

namely "Sri Sai Medical and General Stores" at Mallapur, after

obtaining a drug licence from the office of Assistant Drug

Controller, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. His cousin brother,

Srisailam, (not examined) also wanted to establish a medical and

general stores at Parvathnagar, Borabanda. Since the said

Srisailam was not aware of the procedure, P.W.1 accompanied

Srisailam for submitting an application in the office of the Drug

Inspector. The application was filed on 05.02.2002 and on

25.02.2002, the Drug Inspector inspected the shop premises. The

concerned file was then forwarded to the Superintendent, office of

the Assistant Drug Controller, Ranga Reddy District, at Vengal Rao

Nagar, Hyderabad. On 01.03.2002, P.W.1 and Srisailam met the

appellant, who was working as the Superintendent in the said

office. P.W.1 enquired about the passing of file and the appellant

demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe for processing the file. P.W.1 and

Srisailam requested the appellant to issue the licence and further

told him that they cannot pay the bribe amount. However, the

appellant insisted that the amount has to be paid. On 07.03.2002,

P.W.1 contacted the appellant on phone and the appellant allegedly

informed that the licence was ready and asked P.W.1 to pay the

bribe amount. On the very same day, P.W.1 went to the ACB office

and lodged a complaint Ex.P1, with the DSP, ACB.

4. The trap was arranged on the next day, i.e., on 08.03.2002.

P.W.1 went to the ACB office at 2.00 p.m, on 08.03.2002. There,

P.W.2/independent mediator, and P.W.7/Trap Laying Officer were

present, and the pre-trap proceedings were concluded. The trap

party then went to the office of the appellant at 4.10 p.m. P.Ws.1

and 2 entered the office of the appellant and found the appellant

sitting in his seat. P.W.1 enquired with the appellant about the drug

licence and the appellant informed that the licence was ready and

asked about the bribe amount. The appellant then took P.Ws.1 and

2 to the canteen and while going down the stairs, P.W.1 asked for a

photo copy of the drug licence, for which the appellant informed

that the drug licence was already given in the dispatch section.

P.W.1 asked for the details of the licence, then, the appellant went

inside the office, and wrote the details of the licence on a paper slip

(Ex.P2).

5. The appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the canteen where they

ordered for Tea. The appellant then asked P.W.1 to handover the

amount to A2. A2 received the amount and kept it in his left side

pant pocket. P.W.1 then went outside the canteen and signaled to

the trap party. The DSP entered the canteen and tested the hands

of the appellant with sodium carbonate solution. The test was

negative, and on being question by P.W.7/DSP, the appellant

informed that the amount was with A2. A2 was called and his

hands were tested with sodium carbonate solution. The test on both

hands of A2 proved positive. A2 then took the currency notes from

his left side pant pocket and handed them over to the DSP/P.W.7.

6. When P.W.7 questioned the appellant about the files, the

appellant informed that the file was in the dispatch section. Then,

the DSP, along with the trap party members, went to the dispatch

section, and the file was seized from P.W.3. The attendance register

was also seized. The post-trap proceedings were concluded in the

office.

7. P.W.7/DSP then handed over the investigation to Ramesh

Naidu (not examined since he died). The investigation was taken

over from Ramesh Naidu by P.W.8, Inspector of Police. A charge

sheet was filed by P.W.8 against the appellant and also against A2.

8. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and the recovery of the amount,

formed basis for the learned Special Judge to convict the appellant.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that no work was pending with the appellant, which is admitted by

the prosecution witnesses, P.Ws.3 and 4. Even according to

P.W.7/Trap Laying Officer, file was seized from the dispatch section.

In the said circumstances, when there is no pending work, the

alleged demand for bribe becomes doubtful.

10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the ACB

would submit that Ex.P2 is the slip given by the appellant,

providing details of the licence, and thereafter, the money was

asked to be passed on to A2. Admittedly, the appellant was the

person who had initially processed the file, and the demand for

bribe is probablized. Once the prosecution has proved the demand

aspect, and the recovery was also at the instance of the appellant,

the ingredients of bribe,h i.e., the demand and acceptance, are

proved.

11. According to P.W.1, the application for the drug licence was

meant for his cousin, namely Srisailam. According to P.W.1,

Srisailam went to the office of the Drug Inspector for applying for

the licence. However, said Srisailam was not examined by the

prosecution during the course of investigation. No reasons are given

as to why the person giving the application for the drug licence was

not examined. The evidence of the said Srisailam would have lent

credibility to the prosecution case.

12. The role of Srisailam, as stated by P.W.1, was limited to going

to the office and giving application in the office. The said Srisailam

did not accompany P.W.1 to file a complaint before the ACB. The

DSP/P.W.7 did not ask for the presence of Srisailam, nor did he

enquire with Srisailam about the demand for bribe by the appellant.

There is nothing on record for the Court to infer that the said

Srisailam had asked P.W.1 to pursue the processing of his licence

in the office of the Drug Inspector. Even the bribe amount was

arranged by P.W.1.

13. It is admitted by the prosecution that the file was forwarded to

the Assistant Director through A1 on 05.03.2002, and on

07.03.2002, the file was received by the Superintendent (A1).

P.W.3-Junior Assistant, deposed as follows:

"On 28.2.2002 after receiving and scrutinizing the proof license form20 and 21 the fair license of the was got prepared by the computer section and was forwarded to the Asst. Director signature through superintendent AO1 on 5.3.2002. On 7.3.2002 the file was received by the superintendent AO1 with the signature on the fair copy of the license. On the same day evening the license were handed over to me with instructions to process an dispatch the license to the concerned parties. On 8.3.2002 I send the file to Sr.Md.Shareef,Jr.Asst. along with the other files for dispatch. On 8.3.2002 after 4.00 PM two persons came and met AO1 and enquried about the Drug License pertaining to M/s.Sri Sai Medical and Gen. stores parvath nagar on which AO1 enquired with me about the said license and I informed to AO1 that the license were already sent for the dispatch. After some time the said two persons went out of the office room followed by AO1."

" It is true A.O after receipt of the file on 07.03.2002 he handed over me in the after noon to dispatch along with several other licenses and files and I handed over Ex.P6 with the other files to Shareef (P.W.4) for dispatch. He has to enter into the dispatch register and then dispatch. When once the files goes to the dispatch section, we have no role to play including A.O. I handed over the files and licenses along with Ex.P6 to P.W.4 on

08.03.2002 for dispatch. None informed me not to dispatch the licenses. P.W.1 visits our office once in a while. When P.W.1 came and inquired with the A.O.1, A.O.1 inquired from me and informed that the license were already sent for dispatch Licenses would be dispatched only through post and they will not be handed over to the parties."

14. P.W.4, who is the Junior Assistant in the same office, stated

as follows:

"By the time I was examined by ACB officials on the date of trap I have made ready for dispatch of the license of the Ex.P6 file and when once the dispatch process commence there is nothing to do with the license."

15. P.W.6-Joint Director, Drugs Control and Administration,

deposed as follows:

"The application of Srisailam was received on 08-02-2002 by P.W.3 and he had put up before me on 11-02-2002 through A.O and I approved on the same date i.e., on 11-02-2002 to send the application for Drug Inspector report and inspection and the Drug Inspector report was received on 27-02-2002. On the same day, P.W.3 had put up a note before me for issue of license and the file was not routed through A.O and on 27-02- 2002, I approved for issuance of license. Even in the absence of noting on the file of the Supdt./A.O, I can directly pass the orders for issuance of license. The fair copies of the license is prepared by the P.W.3 on 28-02-2002 and the same was put up before me through A.O on 05-03-2002. On the same day, I also approved for issuance of license in other cases."

16. It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that even prior to

the date of trap, the entire processing of the file was complete, and

the license was prepared and ready for dispatch. The said license

will not be handed over to the party, but it would be sent directly to

the address given by the party.

17. P.W.1 had earlier obtained the license and has knowledge

about the processing of the license. He mentioned in his complaint

and also deposed before the Court that, on 07.03.2002 itself, he

knew about the file being processed and that the license was ready.

Once the license was ready and dispatched to the concerned party,

even according to the prosecution witnesses, one fails to

understand why P.W.1, having knowledge of the license being

prepared, lodged a complaint with the ACB. Admittedly, the license

would have gone to the address of the said Srisailam. In his cross-

examination, P.W.1 admitted that P.W.3 was the concerned clerk,

who processed the entire file, and the appellant, as the

Superintendent, is not competent to reject or stop the license.

P.W.1 deposed in his cross-examination, as follows:

"The application has to be submitted to the Asst. Director for issuing of Drug license. The Asst. Director will mark the application to concerned clerk at that time P.W.3 was the concerned clerk. After the note is put up on the file the file would be sent to the concerned area drug inspector for inspection and report. The Drug Inspector after inspection would submit his report to Asst.Director and thereafter PW3 will process the file. And ultimately after Asst. Director passes order the Drug license will be issued. And the license will also be signed by the Asst. Director. And thereafter the same will be dispatched to the concerned by post. Md. Shareef was the dispatch clerk. P.W.3 is the concerned clerk, who process the entire file. AO1 as office superintendent is not competent to issue reject or stop the license."

18. P.W.1, having knowledge about the appellant not being

competent to either issue, reject, or stop the license, and further

having knowledge that P.W.3 was the person, who would dispatch

the license by post, had lodged a complaint with the ACB. In the

back ground of the non-examination of Srisailam, who is the

beneficiary, and P.W.1, after coming to know that the file was

already processed and that the license would be dispatched from

the dispatch section, lodged the complaint with the ACB, it is clear

that P.W.1 had deliberately lodged a complaint with the ACB to

implicate the appellant in the bribery case.

19. The claim of demand itself cannot be believed in the present

circumstances, given P.W.1's admission regarding the procedure