Telangana High Court
G.Devadanam, Gadamgadda, Karimnagar vs The State, Rep.By Cbi, Hyd For Cbi Cases, ... on 28 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1544 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/Accused
challenging the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.11 of 2005, dated 13.12.2010, for the
offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that a case--RC No.
03(A)/2005--was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act against Sri G. Devadanam, Telephone Mechanic
(Accused Officer, hereinafter referred to as the Appellant), on
16.2.2005, based on a written complaint (Ex.P2) lodged by PW.1
on the same day. In his complaint, PW.1 alleged that the Appellant
demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- for providing a
CCB PT connection at Amzad Cycle Tela/Taxi, A-Power House,
Ramgundam.
3. The complaint was received by PW.8/Police Inspector, CBI
on 16.2.2005 at 1:30 PM at Jyoti Bhawan Guest House, NTPC,
Ramagundam. After verifying the complaint, it was faxed to the
SP, CBI at 2:10 PM, and PW.9 was directed to register the case.
PW.8 was instructed to proceed with further investigation.
4. On 16.2.2005, PW.8 - Trap Laying Officer summoned two
independent witnesses to act as mediators--PW.2 and another
witness, Sri Shankaraiah (not examined). They were introduced to
PW.1, and Ex.P2 was shown to them. Subsequently, PW.8
recorded the pre-trap proceedings in the First Mediators Report
(Ex.P3) on 16.2.2005. The trap organized by PW.8 was successful,
and the Appellant was caught red-handed when he demanded and
accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from PW.1 near
Ashok Engineering Workshop on 16.2.2005. Both hand washes of
the Appellant were collected, and when subjected to a chemical
test, they yielded a positive result. The tainted bribe amount was
seized from the T-shirt pocket of the Appellant.
5. The investigation prima facie revealed that the appellant had
demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from
PW.1 in exchange for the official favour of providing a CCB PT
connection. Following this, after obtaining the sanction from PW.7
- Dy. General Manager to prosecute the Appellant, a charge sheet
was filed against him for offenses punishable under Sections 7,
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. First, it must be determined whether the prosecution has
proven the demand and acceptance on the date of the trap beyond
reasonable doubt.
6.1. According to PW.1, on the trap date, he and PW.2 both went
on a scooter, while the remaining trap party members arrived in a
Sumo at the appellant's workplace. The Sumo was stopped at the
power house, approximately 100 yards from the telephone
exchange at Ramagundam. PW.1 stated that they stopped their
scooter at the telephone exchange, which belonged to PW.2. PW.1
and PW.2 then entered the telephone exchange, where PW.1 called
the appellant by his name. The appellant came out of the
telephone exchange, took his scooter, and PW.1 sat on the back.
The appellant then took him to the centre of Ramagundam, with
PW.2 following them on his scooter and the trap party following in
the Sumo.
6.2. PW.1 stated that the appellant stopped his scooter at Ashok
Engineer Works, where PW.2 and the CBI team also stopped at a
distance. PW.1 stated that at this point, the appellant asked him
whether he had brought the amount. PW.1 then handed over the
amount to the appellant, who took it with his left hand, counted it
with both hands, and placed it in his left T-shirt pocket. PW.1
further stated that the appellant told him that the connection
would be provided the next day. However, during cross-
examination, PW.1 stated that on the date of the trap, the
appellant had taken him on his scooter to the location for
providing the telephone connection. This contradicts the claim
that the appellant was taking him to a secret location specifically
for collecting the bribe. Moreover, the location where the bribe was
allegedly accepted was not pre-determined by the appellant.
6.3 PW.1, in his cross-examination, stated that he had not paid
any amount to the appellant when the appellant took him on the
scooter to the location for giving the telephone connection. He
further stated that the appellant stopped the scooter only at his
request after traveling half a kilometer, as PW.1 informed him that
he had urgent work and needed to take his child to Bellampally
due to illness. Upon PW.1's request, the appellant stopped the
scooter by the side of the main road, in front of Ashok Engineer
Works. PW.8 also admitted that, as per Ex.P4, the appellant took
PW.1 on his two-wheeler to provide the connection, and it was
PW.1 who stopped him midway on the pretext of urgent work and
then paid the amount of Rs.1,000/-.
6.4. PW.2, the mediator and accompanying witness, stated that
PW.1 sat on the appellant's scooter, and he (PW.2) started PW.1's
scooter and followed them along with a CBI constable,
Brahmananda Reddy. He further stated that the appellant and
PW.1 stopped their scooter at the shop of Ashok Engineer Works,
and he also stopped his scooter at some distance. He observed
that the appellant and PW.1 were talking to each other, while the
CBI team stopped at a distance. PW.2 stated that PW.1 took out
the amount from his left shirt pocket with his right hand and
handed it over to the appellant, who took the money, counted it
with both hands, and kept it in his left shirt pocket.
6.5 Both PW.s 1 and 2 deposed that immediately after the
exchange of money, PW.9 arrived and caught hold of the
appellant's hands above the wrist level. However, there is no
testimony regarding PW.2 giving any prior arranged signal
indicating the demand and acceptance of a bribe. Even PW.8, the
CBI Inspector, did not depose about PW.2 making any such
signal.
6.6 Further, PW.2 stated that he was not aware of the
conversation between PW.1 and the appellant after the scooter
was stopped. PW.8 also stated that PW.2 did not hear any
conversation between PW.1 and the appellant, as he was at a
distance of 100 yards. PW.8 admitted that PW.2 also stated that
when PW.1 met the appellant and inquired about the DD and
telephone connection, PW.2 did not mention any demand made by
the appellant at that point. PW.8 also admitted that he himself did
not hear any conversation between PW.1 and the appellant.
6.7 Thus, besides PW.1, no one has spoken about any demand
for money made by the appellant. Moreover, PW.2 stated that
PW.1 had kept a cassette recorder in his right pant pocket. The
same was removed, played, and the recorded conversation was
transferred to another cassette. PW.2 admitted that this cassette
was played during the post-trap recording. He further admitted
that they heard the conversation recorded by the digital voice
recorder, but the conversation was not transcribed into writing in
the post-trap proceedings.
6.8 PW.8 admitted that he had provided a digital voice recorder
to PW.1 with instructions to record the conversation between
PW.1 and the appellant. He further stated that he recovered the
recorder during the post-trap proceedings from PW.1. PW.1 had
switched on the digital voice recorder, and PW.8 had transferred
the recorded conversation from the digital recorder to a new audio
cassette recorder. However, he stated that the conversation found
in the digital voice recorder was not incorporated in ExP4.
6.9. From the above, it is clear that the place of demand and
acceptance of the bribe was not pre-planned by the appellant. The
appellant had stopped the scooter only on PW.1's request, midway
to the location where the telephone connection was to be provided.
Further, even though PW.2 was an accompanying witness and
followed PW.1, he did not make any signal nor testify regarding
any demand made by the appellant. Lastly, although a cassette
recorder was provided to PW.1 to record the conversation between
PW.1 and the appellant, and though it was played during the post-
trap proceedings, PW.8 admitted that the conversation was never
transcribed into writing in the post-trap report, nor was the new
audio cassette filed as evidence. Moreover, PW.2 initially claimed
the conversation was inaudible but later admitted that there was
no mention in ExP4 regarding the inaudibility of the recording.
7. PW.1 stated that the CBI officer arrived immediately, caught
hold of both the hands of the appellant at the wrist level, and took
him aside from the road. The amount was seized, and from there,
the appellant was brought to the telephone exchange at
Ramagundam.
7.1. PW.2 stated that after the exchange of the amount, PW.9
immediately caught hold of the hands of the appellant. He further
stated that he and Brahmananda Reddy also reached there
immediately. Both the hands of the appellant were dipped in the
solution, which turned pink. PW.2 further stated that they then
proceeded to the telephone exchange, where they met PW.3 and
informed him that they had caught the appellant accepting a
bribe. It was at this point that PW.2 picked up the amount from
the appellant's T-shirt pocket.
7.2 There is a clear contradiction between the testimonies of
PW.s 1 and 2, as evident from the above. Firstly, according to
PW.1, the amount was seized at the scene where the exchange of
the bribe took place, and only thereafter was the appellant
brought to the telephone exchange. However, PW.2 stated that
they first brought the appellant to the telephone exchange, where
they met PW.3, and only then was the amount recovered from the
appellant. Further, PW.1 initially stated that the inspector picked
up the amount from the appellant, but later added that it was
PW.2 who picked up the amount under the instruction of the CBI
officer.
7.3 Moreover, according to PW.1, the appellant took the bribe
amount with his left hand, counted it with both hands, and then
placed it in his left T-shirt pocket. However, PW.2 admitted that,
as per ExP4, when the TLO asked the appellant about the amount
received from PW.1, the appellant stated that the amount was in
his right-hand T-shirt pocket and showed the amount in that
pocket. Despite this, PW.2 also admitted that on page 3 of ExP4
(post-trap proceedings), it is mentioned that the tainted amount
was recovered from the left-side pocket of the appellant's T-shirt.
This discrepancy regarding whether the amount was recovered
from the left-side pocket, as mentioned in ExP4, or from the right-
side pocket, as indicated by the appellant in response to the TLO's
questioning, is significant.
7.4 Furthermore, PW.2, in his chief examination, stated that
immediately after the exchange of the amount, PW.9 caught hold
of the appellant's hands, following which he and Brahmananda
Reddy also reached there. He stated that both hands of the
appellant were dipped in the solution, which turned pink.
Thereafter, they proceeded to the telephone exchange, where the
money was recovered. However, during cross-examination, PW.2
admitted that both hands of the appellant were subjected to the
sodium carbonate solution test only after the appellant himself
showed the amount. This inconsistency in PW.2's testimony
regarding the sequence of events raises concerns.
7.5 Additionally, PW.1's evidence establishes that the appellant
took the bribe amount from PW.1 with his left hand, counted it
with both hands, and then placed it in his left T-shirt pocket.
PW.3, the Junior Telecom Officer, stated that the appellant's
hands were washed in his room itself. Given that the appellant
had counted the bribe amount with both hands, the solution was
bound to turn pink.
7.6 PWs. 2 and 3 admitted that, as per Ex.P3, after all members
washed their hands with soap and water, a phenolphthalein
powder packet was left at the guest house. They also admitted
that Ex.P3 does not mention carrying sodium carbonate and
phenolphthalein powders for future use. If Ex.P3 does not record
that sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powders were carried
for future use, it raises questions regarding whether the solution
used in the trap test was properly prepared and accounted for.
7.7 Lastly, PW.2 stated that no proceedings were drafted at
Ashoka Engineering Workshop, where the appellant was
apprehended. PW.8 also admitted that Ex.P4 proceedings were
prepared on JTO/PW.3's computer and that no proceedings were
drafted at the actual place where the appellant was apprehended.
Furthermore, there is no testimony indicating that rough notes or
draft notes were prepared by PW.8, the inspector, during the post-
trap proceedings. The fact that Ex.P4 was typed only after the
proceedings had concluded casts doubt on the truthfulness of the
proceedings, especially given that no notes were prepared by the
trap party members.
Official Favour:
8. Now, it must be examined whether the appellant had any
pending official favour on the date of the trap.
8.1 According to PW.1, he made an application for a coin
box collection telephone, and the appellant demanded a bribe for
providing the CCB PT connection. PW.3, the then Junior Telecom
Officer (JTO), stated that after the trap, the CBI officer enquired
whether the telephone connection was given to PW.1. PW.3
informed that the work had been completed on 12.02.2005 and
also provided a printout from the computer to show that the work
was completed on that date.
8.2 PW.4, the then DE, stated that after laying the trap,
they verified the telephone exchange at Ramagundam and found
that the dial tone was functioning in the exchange. They then
proceeded to the pillar and found that the dial tone at the pillar
was also functioning. From there, they went to the distribution
point and found that 50 meters of wire had been drawn against
the required 90 meters. He further stated that the delay in
providing the connection was due to the unavailability of 40
meters of drop wire, and that in the absence of the 40 meters of
drop wire, the connection could not be given to PW.1's CCB PT.
8.3 PW.3 also stated that except for the drop wire, the rest
of the work up to Five Star Pan Shop had been completed by the
date of the trap incident. He confirmed that, as per ExP.20
proceedings, 40 meters of drop wire was required to give the
connection to PW.1's CCB PT.
8.4 PW.4 further stated that, as per Ex.P20, there was 40
meters of drop wire available in the Ramagundam telephone
exchange. Ex.P20 proceedings are the observation proceedings
drafted after the trap party, along with PW.3 and PW.4, visited
Pillar Nos. 24 and 29. In Ex.P20, it was opined that 40 meters of
drop wire was required to provide the connection and that, to
date, the connection had not been provided despite sufficient drop
wire allegedly being available at the exchange.
8.5 The prosecution's case is that, as per Ex.P22 (store
indent), although one bundle of drop wire was available in the
store, the appellant did not make use of it. Since it is the evidence
of PWs. 3 and 4 that 40 meters of drop wire was required to give
the connection to PW.1's CCB PT, the prosecution claims that the
delay was intentional.
8.6 PW.4 stated that the JTO is the custodian of the drop
wire and that stock registers are maintained to record the
availability of stock. However, he also stated that the CBI officer
did not verify the stock register, and the prosecution did not
present this register as evidence. He admitted that he was not
shown any record except the Ex.P20 proceedings, which stated
that recovered drop wire was available in the exchange.
8.7 Further, PW.3 admitted that Ex.P20 does not mention
that CBI officials verified the stores and found sufficient drop wire
in the exchange. It is also the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 that,
although Ex.P22 states that drop wire was available, it does not
mention that CBI officials verified the stores and confirmed the
availability of sufficient wire. Moreover, PW.3 stated that he had
no record to show that the material mentioned under Ex.P22 had
been delivered by the date of the trap in this case. He added that,
after being shown Ex.P22, he collected the material from the
stores. However, there is no record to confirm that he had
collected the material from the stores based on Ex.P22.
8.8 Thus, aside from mentions in Ex.P20 and Ex.P22 by
the trap party, there is no other record to prove that the wire was
actually available. It is unclear why the stock register maintained
by the SDE, who is the store in charge, was neither collected nor
presented in evidence. According to PW.3, the SDE maintains a
record of stock availability. However, the record was not collected,
nor the SDE was examined. PW.8 himself admitted that he had
not physically verified the stock of drop wire in the exchange.
PW.3 further admitted that he was not shown any record
pertaining to the stores of the SDE's office.
8.9 Additionally, even though 40 meters of drop wire was
allegedly available, PW.4 admitted that the 40 meters of drop wire
in the Ramagundam exchange was used and recovered wire. He
further stated that any damaged wire cannot be used. PW.3 also
admitted that recovered wire from disconnections could be in a
damaged condition. Thus, even if the wire was available, the
appellant could not have used it if it was found to be damaged.
8.10 Lastly, PW.3 also stated that their department would only
supply 50 meters of drop wire. If additional wire was needed,
recovered drop wire would have to be used. However, he admitted
that he had no record to show that recovered drop wire was
available in their office. He added that while recovery wire was
available, no records were maintained for it. When the store itself
did not have any recorded recovery drop wire available, the
question of appellant completing the work by laying down 40
meters of drop wire does not arise.
8.11 Nevertheless, PW.3, in his cross-examination, clearly denied
that the required drop wire was available and that the service
connection of PW.1 is not completed for want of drop wire.
8.12 What is most significant is that, PW.3 stated that the
subscriber had to purchase a coin box telephone before the CCB
PT connection could be provided. He further stated that even if the
drop wire was available, the connection could not be given without
the installation of the coin box telephone.
8.13 PW.3 himself admitted that after the trap, they inspected the
line up to the drop wire and the location where the connection was
to be given, and they did not find any coin box instrument there.
Thus, the lack of drop wire was not the primary issue because,
even if the drop wire had been available, a coin box telephone
would still have been required to provide the connection to the
CCB PT.
The prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.5 to establish
that PW.1 had purchased a coin box telephone from him. PW.5
stated that under Ex.P12 (cash receipt), he sold the instrument to
PW.1 on 10.02.2005. However, it remains unclear why PW.1 did
not provide the coin box telephone to the appellant before the date
of the trap, despite having purchased it on 10.02.2005. PW.1
himself admitted that by the date of the trap, he had not handed
over the coin box to the appellant.
8.14 Moreover, the prosecution did not allege that even after PW.1
provided the coin box telephone, the appellant deliberately
withheld the connection. This is evident from PW.1's testimony.
PW.1 stated that after receiving Rs.1,000/-, the appellant asked
him to accompany him to the location for providing the
connection. However, PW.1 informed the appellant that he needed
to take his child to Bellampally. The appellant then asked him to
at least send his brother with the coin box so that the connection
could be given immediately. At that moment, the CBI officials
rushed in and caught hold of the appellant's hands. PW.1 further
stated that on the date of the trap, the appellant asked him to
bring the coin box so the connection could be provided. However,
PW.1 told him that he was going to Bellampally due to his child's
ill health. PW.1 again admitted that the appellant asked him to
send his brother along with the coin box so that the connection
could be provided immediately.
8.15 PW.8 also admitted that the appellant had asked PW.1 to
bring the coin box and that PW.1 had left immediately, citing his
child's illness as the reason.
8.16 It is evident from PW.1's own statements that the appellant
repeatedly requested him to provide the coin box so that the
connection could be given. The appellant even asked PW.1 to send
the coin box via his brother.
8.17 Furthermore, PW.1's claim that he could not bring the coin
box to the location because he was going to Bellampally due to his
child's ill health appears to be false. PW.8 stated that PW.1 never
mentioned his son's illness to him, either during Ex.P3 or at any
time thereafter.Moreover, PW.2 admitted that PW.1 stated in
Ex.P4 that he enquired the appellant about the DD and telephone
connection, and that the appellant informed him that his work
was over, and that the appellant took PW.1 on his scooter to go to
the location for giving connection.
8.18 Therefore, while an official favour was pending with the
appellant--i.e., providing the CCB PT connection--it is evident
that the delay was not due to the appellant's actions but rather
due to PW.1's reluctance to hand over the coin box telephone,
which was necessary for providing the connection. This is further
supported by the fact that the appellant was more than willing to
provide the connection, as the wiring had already been laid, with
only 40 meters of drop wire remaining, and all other work had
been completed.
9. It has to be seen whether the appellant demand bribe
on 10.02.2005 and 15.02.2005:
9.1 As per PW.1's complaint, on 10.2.2005, he met the
appellant, who demanded a bribe of Rs 1000 for providing the
connection. Again, on 15.2.2005, a day before filing the complaint,
the appellant allegedly made the same demand.
9.2 However, in his testimony before the court, PW.1
stated that on 15.2.2005, the appellant increased the demand to
Rs 1500 for giving the CCB PT connection. PW.1 further said that
the appellant warned that the connection would not be provided
unless he paid Rs 1500. He also stated that since he did not have
enough money, he provided Rs 1000 to the CBI during the pre-
trap proceedings. PW.1 then said that the appellant came to his
house, saw that his father was unwell, and reduced the amount to
Rs 1200. He also mentioned that the appellant asked him to pay
Rs 200 later, after the connection was given.
9.3 During cross-examination, PW.1 stated that the
appellant did not demand Rs.1,500/- from him on 15.2.2005. He
said that the appellant initially asked for Rs.1,000/- but later, on
the day of payment, asked for an extra Rs.500/-. PW.1 also
admitted that in Ex.P2, he did not mention that the appellant
increased the demand to Rs.1500/- on 15.2.2005. He further
admitted that Ex.P2 does not mention that the appellant came to
his house, saw his father was sick, reduced the demand to
Rs.1200/-, or asked for Rs.200/- to be paid later.
9.4 PW.8 confirmed that PW.1's complaint (Ex.P2) does not
mention that the appellant increased the demand from Rs.1000/-
to Rs.1,500/-, later reduced it to Rs.1,200/-, or said that Rs.200/-
should be paid after getting the connection. PW.8 also stated that
PW.1 gave a written complaint (Ex.P2) at 1:30 PM to the SP, CBI,
Hyderabad, stating that the appellant demanded Rs.1,000/- for
providing a CCB PT coin box public telephone.PW.9, the CBI
Inspector, also admitted that PW.1 did not mention in his
complaint that the appellant first demanded Rs.1,200/-, increased
it to Rs.1,500/-, and then reduced it to Rs.1000/-.
9.5 Further, PW.8 admitted that as per Ex.P4, PW.1 stated
that after he gave Rs.1,000/- to the appellant, the appellant took
it and put it in his T-shirt, saying that the remaining Rs.200/-
should be paid later. PW.9 also admitted that in Ex.P4, PW.1
stated that the appellant first asked for Rs.1,500/- instead of
Rs.1,000/-, but on PW.1's request, agreed to reduce it to
Rs.1,200/-, took Rs.1,000/-, and asked him to pay the remaining
amount later. However, PW.9 denied that he recorded in PW.1's
Section 161 Cr.P.C statement that the appellant demanded
Rs.1,500/- and later reduced it to Rs.1200/- before the complaint
was filed.
9.6 From PW.1's statements, it is clear that he has
changed his version regarding the bribe amount, giving different
figures at different times. There is no clarity on whether the
appellant demanded Rs.1500/-, Rs.1200/-, or Rs.1000/-, as PW.1
has given varying statements in court, in his complaint, and in
Ex.P4 (post-trap proceedings).
9.7 If the complaint is to be believed and the appellant
initially demanded Rs.1,000/-, it does not make sense why he
would later ask for an additional Rs.200/- on the trap day,
especially when PW.1 claimed it was pre-decided. The complaint
does not mention any prior agreement that PW.1 would pay
Rs.1,000/- first and Rs.200/- later after the connection was
provided.
9.8 Similarly, if the bribe amount was Rs.1,500/-, the
complaint does not specify when the demand was increased from
Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/-. Though PW.1, in his chief examination,
stated that the appellant raised the demand to Rs.1,500/- on
15.2.2005, he contradicted this in cross-examination, stating that
no such demand was made on that date.
9.9 Because of these contradictions and inconsistencies,
the prosecution has failed to prove the demand for the bribe
beyond a reasonable doubt. The discrepancies in PW.1's
statements are significant, especially in light of the appellant's
defence. The defence contends that the appellant received
Rs.1,000/- as part of the security deposit he had paid on behalf of
PW.1 and that the case was foisted upon him because he was
demanding repayment. PW.1 admitted that a customer cannot
obtain a connection without paying Rs.1,200/- as a security
deposit and that this deposit is made only after a demand note is
issued. PW.4 confirmed that Ex.P24 (demand note) was issued by
him on 3.2.2005. During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that
once a demand note is issued, Rs.1,200/- must be deposited. As
per Ex.P1 (receipt for Rs.1,200/-), this amount was deposited on
4.2.2005. He further stated that anyone could make this payment
as long as the demand note was received. PW.7, the then Deputy
General Manager who approved the prosecution sanction,
admitted during cross-examination that, as per Ex.P19 (demand
note issued by the telephone department), a demand note was
issued to PW.1 for Rs.1,200/- as a security deposit. He also
confirmed that anyone could pay the amount on behalf of the
subscriber and that the office would issue a receipt upon receiving
this payment.
9.10 Thus, the appellant's defence is that PW.4 issued a
demand note, and he paid Rs.1,200/- as a security deposit on
behalf of PW.1, as permitted under the process. The receipt for
this payment, Ex.P1, was obtained.
9.11 PW.1 initially testified that he gave Rs.1,200/- to the
appellant as a deposit for a Coin Box Collection (CCB) telephone,
that the appellant deposited the amount for the telephone
connection, and that he later provided Ex.P1 (receipt) as proof of
payment. PW.1 also admitted that he did not pay any amount at
the time of applying and that the demand note was issued later
after processing the application. However, in his complaint, PW.1
stated that on 10.2.2005, the appellant gave him a demand note
dated 3.2.2005, informing him that Rs.1,200/- was paid via
demand draft (DD) and that Phone No. 255616 was allotted to
him. This claim contradicts Ex.P1, which shows the amount was
paid in cash.
9.12 During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that Ex.P1
is a cash receipt issued by BSNL, yet he did not enclose Ex.P1
with his complaint. He further admitted that he never mentioned
Ex.P1 in Ex.P2 (his complaint), Ex.P4 (post-trap proceedings), or
his Section 161 CrPC statement. The first time he referred to
Ex.P1 was during his court testimony.
9.13 Though PW.1 claimed that he gave Rs.1,200/- to the
appellant 2-3 days after submitting his application, he also
admitted that, apart from his oral statement, there is no proof that
he paid Rs.1,200/- to the appellant as a security deposit. His
evidence cannot be relied upon due to the following reasons: first,
there is a clear discrepancy regarding whether the amount was
paid via DD or in cash, as evidenced by ExP1. Second, ExP1 was
neither referred to in the complaint nor filed by PW.1. Moreover,
PW.2 admitted that ExP1 was recovered from the appellant. In
light of PW.4 and PW.7's evidence, which confirms that the
security deposit could be paid by anyone on behalf of the
subscriber and that the office issues a receipt upon receiving the
payment, the appellant's defence appears probable.
9.14 PW.2's evidence also confirms that, in Ex.P4, PW.1
stated that he inquired with the appellant about the DD and
telephone connection, and the appellant informed him that his
work was completed before taking PW.1 on his scooter to the
location for providing the connection. Further, PW.2 admitted that
Ex.P4 recorded PW.1 inquiring about the DD and telephone
connection in his presence. If ExP1, the cash receipt, is dated
4.2.2005, there is no reason why PW.1 would be asking about the
DD on the trap day. Though PW.2 admitted that Ex.P1 was
recovered from the appellant on the trap day, PW.8 contradicted
this by stating that he received Ex.P1 along with the
complaint/Ex.P2. PW.8 even denied that Ex.P1 was seized from
the appellant on the date of the trap. If Ex.P1 was indeed
recovered from the appellant and PW.8 also admitted that Ex.P1 is
the receipt for Rs.1,200/- dated 4.2.2005, it is evident that the
appellant paid the amount in cash. PW.8's evidence clearly
contradicts PW.2's. PW.1's claim that the amount was paid via DD
is proven false when compared to the evidence on record. PW.8
admitted that while Ex.P2 mentions a DD payment, Ex.P1
establishes that the amount was actually paid in cash.
9.15 Furthermore, PW.8 admitted that PW.1 had not
enclosed any proof of payment of Rs.1,200/- towards the security
deposit for his telephone connection, as per the demand note
enclosed with Ex.P2. He also admitted that PW.1 neither
mentioned nor enclosed Ex.P1 in his complaint/Ex.P2. PW.8
further conceded that he did not mention the recovery of Ex.P1 in
either the pre-trap or post-trap proceedings (Ex.P3 or Ex.P4). It is
unclear why the prosecution suppressed the recovery of Ex.P1
from the appellant on the date of the trap.
9.16 Additionally, PW.8 admitted that PW.1 did not specify
when he paid Rs.1,200/- to the appellant and that, apart from the
contents of Ex.P2, there is no other evidence to establish that
PW.1 paid Rs.1,200/- to the appellant towards the security
deposit before the trap. PW.8 clearly stated that, as per Ex.P1, the
appellant himself paid Rs.1,200/- towards the security deposit.
9.17 Additionally, as per Ex.P4, PW.1 stated that after
handing over Rs.1,000/- to the appellant, the appellant took the
amount, placed it in his T-shirt, and stated that the remaining
Rs.200/- should be paid later. Notably, the complaint mentions a
demand of Rs.1,000/-, yet PW.1 later claimed that the appellant
demanded an additional Rs.200/- on the trap day. This
discrepancy strengthens the appellant's defence--that he accepted
the money from PW.1 as part of the security deposit which was
paid byhim, rather than as a bribe.
9.18 Though this defence is not explicitly recorded in Ex.P4,
it gains credibility in light of PW.8's admission that Ex.P1's
recovery was not documented in Ex.P4. This omission further
weakens Ex.P4's reliability. Moreover, since Ex.P4 was typed later
on PW.3's computer after the proceedings were completed--
without referring to any rough notes and with no such notes being
made--it cannot be entirely relied upon as an accurate record of
events.
10. Regarding the complaint, PW.1 stated that as he was
unwilling to pay the bribe, he called the CBI office, and officers
arrived at the NTPC guest house in Ramagundam on 16.2.2005.
However, he later added that on 15.2.2005, SI Rama Rao (who
was not examined) came to Bhagyanagar along with two
constables. PW.1 further stated that on 16.2.2005, two other
officers came to the NTPC guest house. He also reiterated that he
met Rama Rao on 15.2.2005 at 10:00 PM at a guest house in
Bhagyanagar, where the officer questioned him about his
allegation and whether he had lodged the complaint due to
personal grudge. PW.1 then stated that on 16.2.2005, he went to
the NTPC guest house, met Rama Rao again, and submitted a
written complaint (Ex.P2) in the presence of PWs. 8 and 9. A
panchanama was prepared, and he handed over Rs.1,000/- to the
CBI officer.
10.1 However, in his cross-examination, PW.8 denied being
at NTPC guest house, Ramagundam, on 15.2.2005. He admitted
that Rama Rao was a member of the trap team, but he denied that
Rama Rao was present with two constables at NTPC guest house
on 15.2.2005, contradicting PW.1's claim that he met them there.
10.2 There is a clear contradiction between PW.1 and
PW.8's statements. Further, it remains unexplained why PW.1 did
not lodge the complaint on 15.2.2005 itself when he allegedly met
Rama Rao, and instead, Ex.P2 was only filed on 16.2.2005 before
PW.8.
10.3 Moreover, the prosecution's case is that the complaint
was received at 1:30 PM on 16.2.2005, as endorsed on Ex.P2, and
was received via fax at 2:10 PM for registration, as endorsed on
ExP27/FIR. Further, according to PW.8, after the complaint was
received at 1:30 PM and sent for registration to SP, CBI via fax at
2:10 PM, discreet enquiries were made in the meantime.
Thereafter, Ex.P3 was drafted, with proceedings commencing at
3:00 PM and concluding at 4:15 PM.
10.4 From the above, there arises a doubt as to how PW.8
could have completed his enquiries regarding the genuineness of
the complaint within 1 to 1 ½ hours. It appears that the case was
registered hastily without a preliminary enquiry.
11. The facts of a case must be considered in their
entirety, and individual circumstances cannot be relied upon in
isolation.
12. Though recovery was made in this case, the aspect of
demand has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover,
PW.1's evidence is unreliable for proving demand on the trap date,
as his statement contains discrepancies and improvements.
Lastly, while the appellant did accept money from PW.1, his
defence that the amount was taken as a security deposit appears
credible, especially in light of Ex.P1's recovery from him.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police 1
,
and in N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu 2, held that the
burden is on the prosecution to prove the aspect of demand
beyond reasonable doubt and mere recovery of the amount
divorced from the circumstances cannot form basis to convict the
accused.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellant could prove
his defence. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the
conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for
CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.11 of 2005, dated 13.12.2010.
Since the appellant/Accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 28.03.2025
tk
(2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152
2021 CRI.L.J1353
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1544 OF 2010
Date: 28.03.2025
tk
