A. Srinivas vs The State Of A.P.,
2025 Latest Caselaw 3412 Tel

Telangana High Court

A. Srinivas vs The State Of A.P., on 26 March, 2025

        HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                    AT HYDERABAD

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.690 OF 2010
                             *****
Between:
A.Srinivas                                          ... Appellant

                                And

The State rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, CIU, Hyderabad                                 ... Respondent

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.691 OF 2010
Between:
N.Lakshmi Narayana                              ... Appellant
                                And
The State rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, CIU, Hyderabad                                  ...Respondent

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 26.03.2025

Submitted for approval.

                 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

1     Whether    Reporters    of     Local
      newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
      Judgments?

2     Whether the copies of judgment may
      be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3     Whether   Their Ladyship/Lordship
      wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
      Judgment?


                                                       __________________
                                                        K.SURENDER, J
                                       2



                     * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No.690 OF 2010

% Dated 26.03.2025


# A.Srinivas                                        ... Appellant.

                                    And

$ The State rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, CIU, Hyderabad                                 ... Respondent

                       +CRIMINAL APPEAL No.691 OF 2010


# N.Lakshmi Narayana.                               ... Appellant.

                                    And

$ The State rep. by Inspector of Police,
ACB, CIU, Hyderabad                                 ... Respondent

! Counsel for the Appellants: Ms.P.Sree Ramya for A1
                              Sri Mastan Vali Shaik for A2

^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy
                                      Spl. Public Prosecutor for ACB
>HEAD NOTE:
1
  AIR 2021 SC 766
2
  (2014) 13 SCC 55
3
    AIR 2009 SC 2022
                                 3


             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.690 and 691 of 2010
COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Criminal Appeal No.691 of 2010 is filed by appellant/A1,and

Criminal Appeal No.690 of 2010 is filed by appellant/A2. The

appellants A1 and A2 are questioning their conviction vide

judgment in C.C.No.40 of 2007 dated 29.04.2010, passed by the

Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB, City Civil Courts,

Hyderabad.

2. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the same

judgment in C.C.No.40 of 2007, they are being heard together

and disposed of by way of this Common Judgment.

3. The appellant/A1 died, and this Court, by order dated

07.02.2013 allowed Crl.M.P.No.194 of 2013, and the legal heirs

of A1 were brought on record to contest the appeal.

4. Heard Ms.P.Sree Ramya, the learned counsel for A1 (since

deceased), represented by legal representatives as appellant Nos

2 to 5, in Crl.A.No. 691 of 2010, Sri Mastan Vali Shaik, the

learned counsel for A2 in Crl.A.No. 690 of 2010, and Sri M.Bala

Mohan Reddy, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.

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

complainant/P.W.1 is a resident of MIG 216, KPHB Colony,

Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, and he is residing with his

parents. The father of P.W.1, namely Ch.Srihari (P.W.2),

constructed three shops in the front portion of his house, and

one shop was let out to one Srinivas and his brother Naveen in

the year 2001. Subsequently, Srinivas was asked to vacate the

shop as it was required for the personal occupation of P.W.1.

However, instead of vacating the shop, Srinivas approached the

rent control court. While the matter was pending before the rent

Control Court, at the instance of Srinivas, it was settled between

Srinivas and P.W.2. In pursuance of the said settlement, Srinivas

vacated the said shop in the month of October 2006.

6. In the first week of November 2006, the police, Kukatpally

police station, came to the house of P.W.1 and took him and his

father, P.W.2, to the police station based on a report given by

Srinivas. P.W.1 and his father explained the facts of the dispute

to the Inspector, and then, the Inspector of Kukatpally Police

Station allowed them to leave since the matter was pending

before the Rent Control Court. However, after a few days, the

Police, Kukatpally Police Station, started harassing P.W.1.

7. On 19.01.2007, Md.Lal Ahmed (P.W.5), Police Constable,

working in the Police Station, Kukatpally, came along with A2 to

the house of P.W.1 and took him to the police station, where he

was produced before A1. A1 detained P.W.1 near the lock-up,

threatened him, and demanded Rs.6,000/- as a bribe for not

effecting his arrest along with his parents and also to initiate

action against said Srinivas. Since P.W.1 was not willing to pay

the demanded bribe amount, he approached the DSP, CIU, ACB,

Hyderabad, on 19.01.2007 and lodged a report against A1.

8. Having received the complaint on 19.01.2007, P.W.1 was

asked to come on the next day, on which a trap was arranged.

P.W.8 summoned independent mediators, P.W.3 and another. In

the presence of the entire trap party, the bribe amount was

smeared with phenolphthalein powder, and the DSP, ACB

explained the relevance of the phenolphthalein powder and also

sodium carbonate solution test. The tainted amount was kept in

the pocket of P.W.1, and all the trap party members then

proceeded to the Kukatpally Police Station. What transpired in

the office of DSP was drafted as first mediators' report, which is

Ex.P3. Having got down from the vehicle, P.W.1 went inside the

Kukatpally Police Station. According to P.W.1, he approached A1

at the police station, Kukatpally, and on seeing P.W.1, A1

enquired about the bribe amount of Rs.6,000/-, and on positive

reply given by P.W.1, A1 asked him to stay in the parking area of

Kukatpally Police Station. Around 1.00 p.m, A1 came out of the

police station, approached P.W.1, and demanded the bribe of

Rs.6,000/-. P.W.1 then took out the tainted amount of

Rs.6,000/- from his left-side shirt pocket and handed it over to

A1. A1 took the same with his right hand, counted it with both

hands, and called A2/Police Constable, who was working as the

Jeep Driver of the Inspector of Police, Kukatpally Police Station,

and handed over the said amount of Rs.6,000/- to A2 with

instructions to keep the amount with him, stating that A1 will

collect it afterwards. After that, A1 went inside the police station.

Immediately, P.W.1 came out of the police station and gave the

pre-arranged signal to the trap party members, who then rushed

to the police station. A sodium carbonate solution test was

conducted on both hand fingers of A1, which yielded a positive

result.

9. A1 was questioned about the trap amount, and thereafter,

the concerned file was also collected by the DSP, ACB. The

complainant/P.W.1 and A1 were questioned, and their version

was recorded in the second mediators' report. After conclusion of

the second mediators' report, the DSP and others went to the

house of A2. The house was locked, and thereafter, the wife of A2

(examined as P.W.11) and another person, Venkata Narayana

(examined as D.W.1), arrived near the house of A2. The

DSP/P.W.8 enquired with P.W.11 about A2. P.W.11 allowed the

search of A2's house. The bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- was found

underneath the mattress on the cot in the bedroom of A2, and

the amount was seized. The proceedings were concluded in the

house of A2 around 10.00 p.m.

10. The investigation was then handed over by P.W.8 to P.W.9.

P.W.9 was also part of the trap party. He conducted part of the

investigation and filed the charge sheet after obtaining sanction

orders for A1 and A2.

11. The learned Special Judge examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to

11, marked Exs.P1 to P16, and MOs.1 to 8. The appellants

examined D.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.D1 to D3. The defence of

A1 is that he never demanded or received any bribe from P.W.1.

On the date of the trap, while he was working at the police

station, ACB personnel entered the office, and when questioned

about the bribe amount, A1 spontaneously replied that he never

demanded or accepted any bribe.

12. A2 stated that the trap party had visited his house on the

next day, i.e., 21.01.2007, and prepared false proceedings stating

that the amount was seized underneath the bed on the previous

day. He claimed that the said bribe amount was planted by the

ACB and he did not have any role to play as far as P.W.1 was

concerned.

13. Learned Special Judge, having considered the evidence of

the prosecution and the defence versions, found both A1 and A2

guilty of demanding and accepting the bribe amount from P.W.1.

14. Learned counsel appearing for A1 and A2 would submit that

a false case was filed against the appellants at the instance of

P.W.1. In fact, P.W.1 had disputes with one Srinivas and his

brother Naveen, and Srinivas had filed a complaint against P.W.1

and his father. Then the Kukatpally Police started enquiring into

the complaint lodged by the said Srinivas, along with a private

complaint filed by him. P.W.1 resorted to filing a false complaint

with the ACB. A2 was not even present in the police station when

the incident happened. According to P.W.6, who is the jeep

driver, he relieved A2 at 9.30 a.m on 20.01.2007. However, he

was made to falsely state by the ACB that A2 was present in the

police station untill 1.15 p.m. The aspect of demand was not

proved by the prosecution, and since the recovery of the amount

was not at the instance of any of the appellants, convicting the

appellants solely on the basis of the recovery is incorrect.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following

judgments:

1) In N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that mere recovery of the amount, divorced

from the circumstances, cannot form the basis to convict, when

the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable.

2) In B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, insofar as the offence under Section 7 is

concerned, held that it is a settled position in law that the

demand for illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the

said offence. Mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute

an offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all

AIR 2021 SC 766

(2014) 13 SCC 55

reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the

money, knowing it to be a bribe.

3) In C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of

Kerala3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of

tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which it

was paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the

substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Mere recovery, by

itself, cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the

accused in the absence of any demand.

16. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf

of the ACB would submit that there were disputes between the

tenants, Srinivas and his brother Naveen, and P.W.1 and his

father. The allegation of demand for a bribe was clearly

mentioned in the complaint. The first demand was made on

19.01.2007, when P.W.1 was asked to sit near the lockup, and

A1 threatened him to pay the bribe amount, failing which he and

his father would be arrested. The colour test on the hands of A1

turned positive, and the money was recovered from the house of

A2. P.W.6 stated about the presence of A2 in the police station

until the trap was executed. As such, the events narrated by the

AIR 2009 SC 2022

prosecution clearly make out a case against A1 and A2. The

evidence of P.Ws.4, 5, 6, and 7, who were police personnel

working in the same police station, clearly indicated the conduct

of A1 in detaining P.W.1 and demanding a bribe. In support of

his contentions, the Public Prosecutor relied upon the following

judgments of this Court: 1) Criminal Appeal No.1213 of 2008

dated 10.08.2022; 2) Criminal Appeal No.1115 of 2007; and

batch dated 10.08.2022.

17. The grievance of P.W.1 is that he had disputes with one

Srinivas and his brother Naveen, who were his tenants. It is

admitted by P.W.1 that there were disputes with Srinivas, and he

had also lodged a complaint with the Kukatpally Police Station.

The Kukatpally Police Station started harassing P.W.1, and on

19.01.2007, P.W.1 was taken to the Police Station, Kukatpally,

and asked to sit near the lock-up. Neither the said Srinivas nor

his brother Naveen were examined by the ACB. P.W.5, the

Constable in the police station, stated that P.W.1 was brought to

the police station at the instance of A1.

18. On 19.01.2007, A1 demanded an amount of Rs.6,000/- for

not arresting P.W.1 and his parents, and also for taking action

against Srinivas. On the same day, around 3.00 p.m, P.W.1 went

to the ACB office and lodged a complaint, and the trap was

arranged on the next day.

19. On the date of trap, P.W.1 entered the police station around

11.45 a.m. According to him, he went to the chambers of A1,

where A1 enquired about the bribe. P.W.1 then informed that he

had brought the amount, and A1 asked him to wait near the jeep

parking area in the police station premises. Around 1.15 p.m, A1

came out of the police station, approached P.W.1, and asked him

to give the amount. When P.W.1 handed over the amount to A1,

A1, in turn, handed over the amount to A2.

20. The prosecution has not explained as to where P.W.1 was

standing or waiting from 11.45 a.m to 1. 15 p.m, for 1 ½ hours

until the signal was relayed to the trap party. P.W.3, who is an

independent mediator, and DSP-P.W.8 spoke about P.W.1

entering the police station at 11.45 a.m, and relaying the signal

at 1.15 p.m.

21. The scene of offence is the police station. In Ex.P7, which is

a sketch of the police station, the locations- where the trap party

was waiting, where P.W.1 waited, where the jeep was parked,and

where A1 accepted the bribe and passed it on to A2 are not

shown. Neither P.W.1, P.W.3, nor P.W.8 narrates the details

regarding their exact positions or the place where the amount

was accepted. As per Ex.P7, there is only one gate for entry and

exit to the police station. None of the trap party members saw A2

exiting the police station. The signal was relayed around 1.15 p.m

when the DSP and other trap party members entered the police

station. Admittedly, P.W.1 did not inform the DSP or the trap

party about A1 handing over the amount to A2 and A2 leaving

the premises.

22. The DSP conducted tests on the hands of A1, and both

hands tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder.

According to P.W.3 and DSP/P.W.8, after concluding the second

mediators' report in the police station, Kukatpally, they went to

the house of A2 in the evening. The case of P.Ws.3 and 8 is that

they went to the house of A2, and upon reaching there, they

found the house locked. P.W.11, the wife of A2, arrived after ten

minutes. P.W.8 then enquired with P.W.11 about A2. P.W.8 and

other trap party members then entered the house of A2 and

conducted a search. A2 was not found, but the bribe amount was

recovered from underneath the mattress in the bedroom of A2.

23. It is not known how P.W.8 knew the premises of A2. P.W.8

states that he instructed P.W.7, who is a constable in the police

station, to enquire about A2. However, he also states that A2 had

already left the police station. None of the police officials from the

police station, Kukatpally, accompanied P.W.8 and other trap

party members.

24. The version given by P.W.8, that he went to A2's house,

found it locked, and thereafter, discovered the currency

underneath the mattress, creates suspicion regarding the

correctness of his version. A2 is also a constable. If he had

known that a trap was laid and A1 was trapped by the ACB

officials, he would not have gone to his house to keep the tainted

currency notes under the mattress and then absconded.

Moreover, A2, being a police constable, would not have left such

incriminating evidence in his house before absconding. The said

version by P.W.8 cannot be accepted. P.W.11, who is the wife of

A2, D.W.2, and D.W.5, who reside in the opposite house of A2,

stated that the police had come to the house of A2 on 21.01.2007

at 10.30 a.m and had taken the signatures of P.W.11 and D.W.1,

on 21.01.2007.