Telangana High Court
Sri Dugem Narsinga Rao, Hyderabad vs State Of Ap,Rep Inspector Of Police ... on 26 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1042 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 7
and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one
year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.58 of 2004 dated
31.08.2010, passed by the Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE
and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the
same, present appeal is filed.
2. Heard Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, 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 appellant, while
working as the Junior Assistant in the office of District Educational
Office, Sangareddy, demanded and accepted an amount of
Rs.10,000/- from P.W.1 for preparation of the first phase of the
transport bill in respect of the supply of National Text Books by
P.W.1 in month of May 2002. The demand was made for obtaining a
demand draft for providing transportation of text books and was
meant to be delivered to P.W.1. P.W.1 went to the ACB Office and
met P.W.6/DSP, and lodged a Telugu written complaint Ex.P1. In
the complaint, P.W.1 narrated that he transported National Text
Books in 45 Mandals of the District by engaging 2 lorries, and as
per the transport agreement, he was entitled to an amount of
Rs.3,20,000/- towards the transport charges. An amount of
Rs.50,000/- was paid, and the bill for Rs.1,52,702/- was prepared
for payment to P.W.1. However, a demand was made for
Rs.10,000/- by the appellant towards a bribe. When the appellant
refused to hand over the demand draft and insisted for payment of
the bribe amount, P.W.1 approached the ACB, DSP, and filed a
complaint.
4. On the basis of the complaint filed on 17.10.2002 at 9.00 a.m,
the DSP, ACB registered the complaint and laid a trap on
18.10.2002. On the date of the trap, after concluding the pre-trap
proceedings, the trap party went to the office of the appellant. Both
P.W.1-complainant and P.W.2-accompanying witness entered the
office of the appellant around 12.00 noon, and at about 12.45 p.m,
P.Ws.1 and 2 came out from the examination wing of the building
and went into the office of the DEO at about 1.15 p.m. P.W.1 and
the appellant came out of the office and left on a motor cycle. After
half an hour, i.e., at 1.45 p.m, P.W.1 and the appellant returned to
the office, and the appellant parked his vehicle in the parking area.
Thereafter, P.W.1 and the appellant entered the DEO's building,
and after some time, P.W.1 came out and conveyed the pre-
arranged signal to the trap party. The trap party then questioned
the appellant about the bribe amount, and the same was recovered
from him. Test on the hands of the appellant turned positive.
Having concluded the post-trap proceedings, the relevant
documents were seized. The investigation was then handed over to
P.W.7-Inspector of Police, who concluded the investigation, and filed
a charge sheet.
5. Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant, even though
P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution case, mainly on the
ground that the appellant was the person in-charge of handing over
the demand draft, the amount of which had to be paid to P.W.1.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that
P.Ws.1, 2, and 4 have turned hostile to the prosecution case. There
is neither proof of demand nor any evidence to show that there was
any pending work with the appellant. In the absence of proof of
demand, the recovery of the amount is of no consequence. The
learned counsel relied on the following judgments:
a) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of
Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another1.
b) V.Sejappa v. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta,
Chitradurga 2.
c) C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of
Kerala3.
7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that though it
was placed on record that the appellant was transferred from the C-
6 section, however, the prosecution proved that the appellant was
looking after C-6 section on the date of the trap. In fact, the
hostility of the witnesses is of no consequence, and the documents
that were seized during the course of investigation are sufficient to
find the appellant guilty, which was rightly done by the trial Court.
(2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152
(2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 150
(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779
8. The case of the prosecution is that the first demand was on
16.10.2002 and then again on 17.10.2002. On the same day, i.e.,
on 17.10.2002, P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB and lodged a
complaint. P.W.1/defacto complainant was examined before the
Court at the time of his first chief examination on 29.07.2008. He
stated that he met the appellant two or three times and the
appellant informed that the accounts officer and the DEO were the
persons responsible to give the demand draft, and when P.W.1 met
the appellant for the fourth time, the appellant handed over the
demand draft. The chief examination was deferred since the Court
observed that the witness was reluctant to answer the questions
put by the Special Public Prosecutor. Ex.P1 was marked and the
chief examination was deferred.
9. P.W.1 was again recalled and examined on 11.09.2008. P.W.1
stated that the bill had to be routed through DEO, STO and the
Accounts Officer. On 14th or 15th October 2002, the appellant
informed that the work was complete and that only on payment of
bribe of Rs.10,000/-, the DD would be handed over to him. P.W.1
informed the appellant that he would pay the share of the appellant
and then pursue with the DEO and the Accounts Officer. P.W.1
then met the D.E.O, who again asked P.W.1 to meet the appellant.
The appellant, in turn, informed that he would hand over
Rs.10,000/- to the DEO. Thereafter, he went and lodged a
complaint against the DEO. However, the trap failed, and the DSP
advised P.W.1 to file a case against the appellant. At this stage,
P.W.1 was declared hostile to the prosecution case. During the
course of P.W.1's cross-examination, the version given in the
complaint was denied by P.W.1. However, he stated that after going
through the contents of the complaint he signed it, and added that
it was the DSP who dictated the complaint. P.W.1, in his cross-
examination by the appellant's counsel, admitted that he gave a
complaint to the ACB Officials against the DEO, Srisailam, and that
the trap failed. Thereafter, the DSP, ACB dictated the complaint-
Ex.P1 and obtained P.W.1's signature. P.W.1 further admitted that
from 09.09.2002, P.W.4/Narsimulu was looking after the C6
Section. He further admitted that on 16.10.2002, a cheque for
Rs.1,52,702/- was received by him, and it was acknowledged by
P.W.1. P.W.1 also verified the signature in the concerned file at
page 68. He reiterated that the appellant did not demand any bribe
amount.
10. P.W.2 is the accompanying witness who did not state anything
about the demand and acceptance by the appellant. However,
P.W.2, in his cross-examination, stated that P.W.1 wanted to give a
complaint against the DEO and that the appellant did not demand
any bribe. On the date of the trap, according to the admission of
P.W.2, he met the appellant along with P.W.1, and the appellant
informed him that he cannot do any favour since he was transferred
from the Section.
11. P.W.3 is the independent mediator who neither accompanied
P.W.1 nor witnessed any demand or acceptance of the bribe by the
appellant. P.W.4 is the Junior Assistant who had taken over the C6
Section from the appellant. According to him, the transport bill
pertaining to P.W.1 was handled by the appellant, and P.W.1 used
to meet the appellant.
12. In his chief examination, P.W.4 stated that he did not witness
P.W.1 meeting the appellant. However, he admitted that he had
initialed the note file for the sanction of a bill of Rs.1,52,707/- to be
paid to P.W.1. The witness was declared hostile, and cross-
examined by the public prosecutor. He has denied the suggestions
put forth by the public prosecutor. However, P.W.4, in his cross-
examination by the counsel for the appellant, admitted that the
DEO issued proceedings dated 18.07.2002, entrusting the C6
section to P.W.4, and the said proceedings are marked as D1. The
appellant handed over the detailed charge on 09.09.2002, and the
entire records of the C6 section, including the files of P.W.1, were
taken over by P.W.4, and taking over charge is Ex.D2. P.W.4 further
admitted that after 09.09.2002 the appellant did not handle files,
and there are no signatures of the appellant in the file of P.W.1.
13. P.W.6 is the DSP who admitted that he was aware of the DEO,
Sangareddy, issuing proceedings on 18.07.2002 entrusting the C6
Section to P.W.4 vide Ex.D1. He also admitted that the charge was
taken over by P.W.4 on 09.09.2002, and there were no initials of the
appellant after 09.09.2002 in the file of P.W.1. P.W.6 further
admitted that P.W.1 and others had endorsed on the file of P.W.1
that the DD was received on 16.10.2002 itself. Similarly, P.W.8,
who is the Administrative Officer of the DEO, admitted Exs.D1 and
D2.
14. The version of the prosecution is that the appellant demanded
bribe from P.W.1 for the purpose of handling the outstanding
amount. All the witnesses, P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.6, and P.W.8,
admitted that after 09.09.2002, the appellant did not have any say
in the C6 section, where the file of P.W.1 was pending. P.W.1
admitted that he received his cheque on 16.10.2002, i.e., two days
prior to the trap, and he endorsed it on the file.
15. In the background of the hostility of P.Ws.1, 2, and 4, and the
admission by the DSP and the Investigating officer that the
appellant was not in charge of the C6 section, the question of the
prosecution proving demand does not arise. In the absence of proof
of demand, and with evidence in the prosecution case itself that the
appellant was not in charge of the C6 section, the recovery of the
bribe amount from the appellant is of no consequence. P.W.1
admitted that he received the D.D for the outstanding amount on
16.10.2002, which is one day prior to lodging the complaint. The
prosecution failed to prove demand and also that the appellant was
incharge of the C6 Section.
16. In the result, the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.58 of
2004 dated 31.08.2010, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
17. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 26.03.2025
kvs
