Telangana High Court

Sri Linga Narsing Rao And Another, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Spl.Pp., on 26 March, 2025

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1828 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant/A1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2), and A2 was convicted

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

six months under Section 12 r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment in C.C.No.61 of 2005, dated

18.12.2009, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for

trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellants filed the present

appeal.

2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned Counsel for the

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

Prosecutor for ACB.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the

complainant. According to him, he purchased a residential

apartment in Srinivasa Nagar, Secunderabad, and he got it

registered in the name of his daughter, Meenakumari (not

examined). After occupying the apartment, for the purpose of tax

assessment, he approached MCH office at Secunderabad on

26.02.2004. A1 was working as the Tax Inspector. Upon enquiry,

A1 informed that Rs.3,430/- tax has to be paid. On 27.02.2004,

P.W.1 again met A1 at 3.30 p.m in his office, and A1 allegedly

demanded Rs.2,500/- towards bribe to process the application

for the transfer of ownership of the document in the name of

Meenakumari. Aggrieved by the said demand for bribe, P.W.1

went and met the DSP, ACB/P.W.5, and gave Ex.P1-complaint.

P.W.5 then asked P.W.1 to come on the next day, i.e., on

28.02.2004.

4. On 28.02.2004, the trap party assembled in the office of

DSP, ACB. P.W.2 is an independent mediator, who was

summoned by the DSP to act as a witness to the trap

proceedings. P.W.2 was asked to accompany P.W.1 when he

meets A1 to observe what transpires between them. The trap

proceedings were concluded in the office of the DSP around 2.30

p.m. Thereafter, the trap party left for MCH office. They reached

the MCH office, Secunderabad at 3.30 p.m. Both P.Ws.1 and 2

went inside the office. A1 then gave a receipt to P.W.1 to obtain a

photocopy of the said receipt. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 came out and

informed the DSP, and after taking the photocopy, they again

entered the chambers of A1. There, A2 was present in the room

of A1. A1 took the photocopy from P.W.1, and demanded the

bribe. While P.W.1 was giving the amount to A1, A1 asked P.W.1

to handover the amount to A2. A2 took the amount and kept it in

his pocket, and thereafter, P.W.1 went outside and conveyed the

signal to the trap party indicating the demand and acceptance of

the bribe amount.

5. The DSP and other trap party members then entered the

office and enquired with P.W.1, and P.W.1 informed that he

handed over the amount to A2 at the instance of A1. A test was

conducted on the hands of A2, which turned positive, and the

amount was recovered from the pant pocket of A2. The relevant

papers, including made up file of P.W.1- Ex.P8 were seized.

6. The post trap proceedings were concluded in the office of

MCH, and thereafter, the investigation was handed over to

P.W.6/Inspector. P.W.6 concluded the investigation, and filed a

charge sheet against A1 and A2.

7. Learned Special Judge, having recorded the evidence on

both sides and having considered the version of the prosecution

and the accused, found both A1 and A2 guilty.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit

that as per the evidence of P.W.1, A1 gave him a handwritten chit

on 26.02.2004 stating that Rs.3,430/- had to be paid as tax. The

same was not produced before the Court even though P.W.1

deposed that he gave the same to the ACB officials. P.W.1

deposed that on the date of the trap, he gave the cheque and

other documents to A1. A1 issued Ex.P2 (same as that of

Ex.P12a) receipt, and asked P.W.1 to get a Xerox of the same.

However, P.W.4 deposed that the said receipt was in the hand

writing of one Narsaiah, (not examined) bill collector, and it

contained his signature. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 that he

gave the cheque and other documents to A1 and that A1 asked

him to get a Xerox of the same is false.

9. Learned counsel argued that A2 is a private person, who is

working as an assistant to one Suresh, Bill Collector, for Rs.50/-

per day. He is not a known person to A1. P.W.4 deposed that he

saw A2 for the first time in the office on the date of the trap. He

deposed that he also saw A1 crying, stating that he did not do

anything and that he did not demand any bribe. It was

suggested to P.W.5 that when P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Xerox

shop, they met the trap party and informed them that A1 did not

demand any bribe.

10. Learned counsel submits that P.W.4 deposed that the Bill

Collector and the Tax Inspector are not responsible for mutation

proceedings. P.W.5 admitted that it is the Commissioner, who is

competent to issue mutation proceedings. P.W.2 admitted that

there is no specific mention in the post trap proceedings that he

accompanied P.W.1 into the office of A1 after taking photo copy of

Ex.P2. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 that he was an eye-witness

to the demand and acceptance cannot be accepted. The entire

case of the prosecution is false and A1 has been falsely

implicated though he has nothing to do with P.W.1's file. Instead

of examining or prosecuting Narsaiah, Bill Collector, who signed

on Ex.P2 and asked P.W.1 to get Xerox copy, A1 has been

implicated.

11. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied on the

following judgments:

a) P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police,

State of Andhra Pradesh and another1

(2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152

b) V.Sejappa v. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta,

Chitradurga 2

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

12. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the ACB would submit that the amount of

Rs.2,500/- was received as a bribe for taking care of the entire

proceedings relating to the transfer of ownership in favour of the

daughter of P.W.1. As argued by the learned counsel for the

appellant, that A1 was not competent to mutate the name of the

beneficiary is of no consequence.

13. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Gujarat v.

Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi and others 4. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court was dealing with a case wherein the trial Court had

convicted the accused. However, the conviction was set aside by

the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the

finding of the High Court, and restored the conviction recorded

by the trial Court mainly on the basis that the burden placed on

the accused, against whom the presumption under Section 20 of

(2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 150

(2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 779

(2018) 9 Supreme Court Cases 242

the Act applies, was not discharged even by the preponderance of

probability, and there was no explanation to rebut such

presumption.

14. P.W.1 and P.W.2 entered the office of the appellants and

met A1. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, A1 received the cheque

drawn towards tax, issued the receipt, and asked P.W.1 to get a

photocopy. It is not the case that when P.W.1 first met A1, there

was any demand by A1. Without demanding the amount, the

receipt/Ex.P12a was passed on. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the

receipt/Ex.P12a, which is the duplicate of Ex.P2/photocopy of

the receipt, was issued by A1. However, P.W.4 stated that the

receipt was in the hand writing of Narsaiah. It is admitted that

the said Narsaiah was working in the same office, however, the

said Narsaiah was not examined by ACB. The version of P.W.4

that the receipt was written by Narsaiah was not disputed by the

prosecution. In the receipt/Ex.P2/P12a, the details of the cheque

given by P.W.1 are recorded. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 came out with

the receipt, informed the DSP, and again went inside the office

after taking the photocopy. P.W.1 and P.W.2 admitted that it was

A1 who wrote the receipt Ex.P2/P12a and handed it over to

P.W.1, which statements are incorrect, when evidence of P.W.4 is

considered.

15. P.W.1 in his chief examination stated "AO1 issued a receipt

and asked to take a Xerox copy of the receipt from outside." P.W.2

stated in his cross-examination that "AO1 scribed the provisional

receipt."

16. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that

what transpired in the office was deliberately suppressed by

P.Ws.1 and 2 appears to be correct. No reasons are given as to

why Narsaiah, who has written the receipt, was not examined. It

is further not clear as to why P.Ws.1 and 2 suppressed the fact

that the receipt was written by Narsaiah and deliberately gave a

false version that it was A1 who had issued the receipt.

17. P.W.2, in his cross-examination, stated that there is no

mention in the post-trap proceedings that, after P.W.1 obtained

the Xerox copy of the receipt and while entering the office for the

second time, P.W.2 also accompanied P.W.1. P.W.2 specifically

stated that it was A1, who scribed the provisional receipt

Ex.P2/P12a. The defence of the appellants is that A1 was falsely

implicated, and on the date of the trap, there was no demand and

acceptance by A1, and that the amount was forcibly thrust into

the pocket of A2.

18. P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination as follows:

"Commissioner is the competent authority to issue the proceedings. AO1 is the tax inspector. His duty is to collect house tax."

19. P.W.4 admitted in his cross-examination as follows:

"As per the Act, Commissioner is the competent person to issue Mutation orders and he can also delegate to Deputy Commissioner. AO1 is no way concerned with the mutation orders. Narsaiah Bill Collector is the in charge of the Ward-11 Block-3, Srinivasnagar. Ex.P12is the provisional receipt book, is in the hand writing of Narsaiah. Ex.P12(a) is also in the hand writing of Narasaiah and it also contain the signature."

20. P.W.5 admitted in his cross-examination as follows:

"It is true Commissioner Municipality is alone competent to issue the mutation proceedings. ....

I have not seized any slip given by AO1 to P.W.1 else to give the particulars of tax amount. I am not aware whether the receipts Ex.P12 are not scribed by AO1. .. As per the record A2 is attached to a bill collector by name Suresh."

21. Admittedly, A1 was not the competent person to issue

mutation orders, but it was the Commissioner or Deputy

Commissioner, and further, A1 was in no way concerned with the

mutation orders. It is to the knowledge of P.W.1 that the

Commissioner is the competent authority to issue the

proceedings, and A1 was the Tax Inspector and his duty was to

collect tax. When it is within the knowledge of P.W.1 that A1 was

not competent to issue mutation proceedings, it is not known as

to why P.W.1 did not meet anyone else in the office for the

mutation proceedings. The alleged demand was made on

27.02.2004, the complaint was filed at 5.45 p.m on the same day,

and the trap was arranged on the afternoon of the next day.