Dismissed

G. S. Subrahmanya Sastry, v. the Spl. Pp for Acb, High Court of Ap Hyd.

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Dec 2021CRLA/1410/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court rejected the appellant's challenge to his conviction for corruption. The Court held that while the complainant's initial testimony lacked external corroboration, it was supported by the mediators and the circumstances of the trap. The Court found the appellant's defense that the money was a loan repayment to be false due to the complainant's own letter admitting the

What did the court decide?

Appellant's criminal appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/ confirmed.

G. S. Subrahmanya Sastry, Vs the Spl. Pp for Acb, High… — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The sole accused in C.C. No.11 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore, is the Appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [„ P.C. Act ‟] and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for five months under each count. The substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed under each count were directed to run concurrently. M.O.1 to M.O.3 and M.Os. 5 to 11 were directed to be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

¶5

The substance of the Charges against Accused Officer is that, on 19.03.1999, at the Regional Office at Cuddapah, the Accused Officer who was working as Regional Deputy Director, Indian Medicines & Homoeopathy Department, Cuddapah, demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- from PW1, which was subsequently reduced to Rs.1,000/-, as a reward for doing an official act [i.e., to issue proceedings sanctioning leave to PW1 and to regularize his leave account] and, accordingly, accepted the same on 22.03.1999 at 7.55 a.m. at his residence.

¶6

2 CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶7

The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under:

¶8

i) PW1 was working as a “Compounder” in Government Ayurvedic Vydyalaya from 18.05.1996. Previously, he worked as Compounder in Halvi Village, Kurnool District, from 01.06.1989 to 17.05.1996. While working as Compounder in Halvi Village, he abstained from attending duty due to ill-health from 18.07.1993 to 10.08.1993 and 16.08.1993 to 23.08.1993. The Medical Officer at Ayurvedic Hospital, Halvi Village, sent a report to Indian Medicine and Homeopathy Department, about his unauthorized absence. PW1 then submitted an application to the Director, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy, through his Medical Officer, with a request to regularize his unauthorized absence and treat the same as leave. His application was sanctioned and direction was given to Regional Deputy Director, Cuddapah, and, accordingly, orders were sent on 05.03.1999.

¶9

ii) On receipt of a copy of the order, PW1 met the Regional Deputy Director, by name, Subrahmanyam Sastry [Accused Officer], and requested him to regularize his unauthorized absence as „leave‟ and issue necessary proceedings. The Accused Officer is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- as bribe to issue proceedings, but, however, the same was reduced to Rs.1,000/-. PW1 was asked to pay the amount within two days at Accused Officer house.

¶10

iii) On 20.03.1999 at about 7.30 a.m., PW1 met the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., Kurnool, [PW8] and presented

¶11

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶12

¶13

a written report [Ex.P1]. He instructed PW1 to appear before A.C.B., Kurnool, with the proposed amount. PW8 caused preliminary enquiry and ascertained as to whether there was any ill-motive against the Accused Officer and the reputation of Accused Officer. Being satisfied, PW8 obtained permission to lay the trap. In pursuant thereof, he registered a case in Crime No. 5/ACB.Kurnool/1999, for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 11 of the P.C. Act., and took up investigation. He secured the presence of PW2 and S.V. Chowdeswara Rao to act as mediators, who assembled in his Chambers on 21.03.1999 at 8.40 a.m. PW8 introduced PW2 and others to PW1 and gave them a copy of the complaint, dated 20.03.1999, for perusal. On being satisfied with the contents of the complaint and the report being given voluntarily, PW1 was asked to give currency notes of Rs.1,000/-, which he intended to pay as bribe. The mediators counted the currency notes and noted down the denomination. Thereafter, the mediators as well as PW1 were informed the significance of phenolphthalein test. The numbers of the currency notes and the proceeding thereto were incorporated in the first mediator‟s report, which is placed on record as Ex.P2.

¶14

iv) Thereafter, at the instance of PW8, one Swamy Das, Head Constable, kept the bunch of currency notes in the left side shirt pocket of PW1 and he was instructed to give the said money to the Accused Officer only on demand. He was also instructed to give signal by whipping his face thrice with his handkerchief in case the Accused Officer accepts the amount.

¶15

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶16

¶17

The pre-trap proceeding were concluded at 10.00 a.m., and, thereafter, the entire trap party proceeded in a Government vehicle bearing no. AP 9U 8706 to Cuddapah. They picked up the Inspector of A.C.B., Cuddapah, and proceeded to the residence of Accused Officer by 3.00 p.m. The trap party took vantage position and instructed PW1 to approach the Accused Officer and pay the bribe amount only on his demand.

¶18

v) PW1 left the trap party and went to the residence of Accused Officer. He waited there till 7.00 p.m. and then came out of the house, when he was informed by the wife of Accused Officer that Accused Officer is in a camp and he will not be available on that day. Accordingly, the trap party decided to lay the trap on the next day morning. Hence, the mediators along with staff drafted the proceedings mentioning the above facts under Ex.P3. Thereafter, they proceeded to Police Guest House. PW1 was instructed not to meddle with the currency notes.

¶19

vi) On the next day, i.e., 22.03.1999, PW8, the mediators, staff and PW1 assembled in Suite No. 2 of Police Guest House, Cuddapah, and again at the instance of PW8, one K. Pulla Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, prepared a fresh sodium carbonate in a glass tumbler and then phenolphthalein test was conducted. PW1 was instructed not to touch the bribe amount and pay the amount on demand by Accused Officer and, thereafter, to send the pre-arranged signal. Ex.P4 is the report of the proceedings. After completion of proceedings in the Guest House, the trap party left to the house of the Accused Officer

¶20

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶21

¶22

and reached Sankarapuram area, where the Accused Officer house is located. PW1 went in to the house of Accused Officer, came out of the house at 7.55 a.m. and then gave the prearranged signal. On receiving the signal, they rushed into the house of the Accused Officer. They noticed one person sitting on a cot facing towards North, wearing white dhoti. PW8 disclosed his identity and others and after ascertaining the identity of the Accused Officer, sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the Accused Officer was asked to rinse his right hand fingers. On doing so, the solution turned pink in colour. Thereafter, the Accused Officer was asked to rinse his left hand fingers in a glass tumbler and the said solution also turned in pink colour. M.O.5 and M.O.6 are the resultant solution. When questioned about the bribe amount, the Accused Officer showed the amount that was kept underneath his right thigh on the cot. At the instance of one of the mediator, the amount was picked up and when compared, the serial numbers and the denomination tallied with those mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings. The surface of the cot was also subjected to phenolphthalein test, which proved positive. The dhoti of the Accused Officer was also subjected to test, which yielded positive result. M.O.7 and M.O.8 are the resultant solution. The explanation given by the Accused Officer with regard to possession of money came to be incorporated in Ex.P6. After completing the pre-trap proceedings, PW8 prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is placed on record as Ex.P5, and the details of scene were also

¶23

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶24

¶25

incorporated in Ex.P6. The wife of the Accused Officer, by name, Sarada Devi, was examined and what all she stated was incorporated in Ex.P6. In the meanwhile, the Attender, who was deputed to fetch the file relating to PW1 came back and reported that the file is under lock-and-key and that the key was not available in the Office. The Accused Officer informed that he is in possession of a duplicate key of the said rack and produced the file. House search was also conducted, but, nothing incriminating was recovered.

¶26

vii) In the Office of the Accused Officer, one Suseela Rani, produced the file relating to PW1 containing 269 pages. One P.Murali, produced Inward Register [Ex.P10], and Tapal Distribution Register [Ex.P14]. The explanation given by the Accused Officer with regard to the file of PW1 was incorporated in the proceedings [Ex.P13]. Thereafter, the Accused Officer was arrested and released on bail and the entire proceedings concluded at 1.15 p.m., on 22.03.1999. Further investigation, in this case, was taken up by Deputy Superintendent of Police [PW9], who examined PW3 to PW5, recorded their statements and after finalization of investigation, submitted his report to the Head Office on 15.12.1999 and, thereafter, on 23.08.2000, he filed a charge-sheet, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 11 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE and A.C.B. Cases, Nellore.

¶27

On appearance of the Accused Officer, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were

¶28

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶29

¶30

furnished and later on Charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused Officer, to which he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

¶31

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18(A), apart from marking M.O.1 to M.O.11. The Court marked Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, and third party documents as Ex.X1 and Ex.X2. After completing the prosecution evidence, the Accused Officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. He, however, got examined DW1 to DW3 and got marked Ex.D1 in support of his plea.

¶32

Relying upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with the evidence of the Investigating Officer, the trial Court convicted the Accused Officer. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

¶33

(i) Sri. K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the Appellant mainly submits that, demanding a sum of Rs.1,000/for regularizing services of PW1 by Joint Director appears to be quite unnatural. Apart from that, he would contend that, the evidence on record amply establish that there was nothing which the Accused Officer could have done, as entire process of regularizing the services of PW1 was over by the time he contacted PW1.

¶34

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶35

¶36

(ii) He further submits that, if really Accused Officer demanded the amount on 19.03.1999, as stated by PW1, the same would have been reflected in the Visitor‟s Book Register maintained in the Office of the Accused Officer. But, since, the Register Book is silent as to the visit of PW1 to the Office of Accused Officer on that day, a doubt arises as to whether there was really a demand made by Accused Officer on the said date.

¶37

(iii) He further submits that, the Trial Court did not take into consideration the letter dated, 21.01.2000, addressed by PW1 to the A.C.B. According to him, if the contents of the letter are taken into consideration, there arises any amount of doubt about as to the laying of the trap, as the evidence of DW3 would establish that the letter was written by PW1.

¶38

(iv) The learned Counsel further submits that, since there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and he being interested to see that the trap is successfully laid, cannot be believed in the absence of any corroboration to his evidence.

¶39

(v) He further submits that, the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- paid by PW1 is repayment of loan to him. Hence, viewed from any angle, he would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused Officer, more so, when the evidence of PW1 is not corroborated from any quarters.

¶40

On the other hand, Sri. S.M. Subhani, learned Standing Counsel for the A.C.B., would contend that, a perusal of Ex.D1 letter, which is now pressed into service long after the trap indicates as if the Accused Officer never demanded any bribe or

¶41

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶42

¶43

forced PW1 to pay the money. The contents of the letter further show that because of the situation prevailing in the house and having regard to the financial crisis, PW1 lodged the report against the Accused Officer. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that, but, while giving evidence in court, PW1 denies writing Ex.D1 and he disputes the writing in Ex.D1. He further submits that, if really the contents of Ex.D1 are true, the plea of the Accused Officer that the bribe amount is repayment of hand loan given by him to PW1 would be false.

¶44

i) Insofar as the entry in visitor‟s book register is concerned, he would submit that PW1 being an employee of the same department, has not mentioned his visit in the visitor book register. According to him, PW1 in his evidence categorically deposed that, though, he visited the Office on that day, he did not mention the said fact in the visitor‟s book. Having regard to the above, it is urged that, he being an employee of the same department, he might not have made an entry in the visitor‟s book and the same would not doubt the demand said to have been made on 19.03.1999. Referring to the contents of the posttrap panchanama, he would submit that the plea of repayment of hand loan, appears to be false, as it does not get support from Ex.D1 – letter written by PW1. Since, a favour is pending with the Accused Officer, which is evident from Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, and as there is no dispute with regard to recovery of Rs.1,000/- from the Accused Officer, he would submit that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court warrants no interference.

¶45

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶46

¶47

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of Accused Officer beyond reasonable doubt ?

¶48

In order to bring home the Charge under Section 7, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused Officer accepted illegal gratification, which was not the remuneration for which he was legally entitled to, and that he has accepted the same as a motive for doing an official act.

¶49

Insofar as the offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused Officer by corrupt or illegal means obtained for himself a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and that he has committed criminal misconduct being a public servant.

¶50

Regard the report given PW1 against Accused Officer vis-a-vis Ex.D1

¶51

It would be appropriate to refer to the contents of Ex.D1, which is as under:

¶52

“I have been working as compounder in Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Mugathi, Emmiganuru, Kurnool District. Leave has to be granted to me during the year 1993 from 8-7-93 to 10-8-93 and 16-8-93 to 23-8-93. I met the Regional Deputy Directors at Kadapa number of times. Nobody granted leave to me. So far 5 Deputy Directors are transferred. But leave not granted. The 6^th Director, Sri. G.S. Subrahmanya Sastry came. At my house my father and my brother G. Sudharsanam suddenly fell in sick and died. On account of, I did not gave necessary medicines and treatment so they dies. In my house my wife and my children also

¶53

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶54

¶55

suffering with ill health. During that period as I have not received my salary properly and I have to go now and then Kadapa and Hyderabad, no sufficient finance to treat my house, on account of the advices given my friends, I became grudge upon the department and decided to foist a case against Sri.G.S. Subrahmanya Sastry through ACB, without any intention I exaggerated on the department and acted accordingly.

¶56

Doctor Sri. G.S. Subrahmanya Sastry never demanded any bribe or forced me. It is the department responsible of all my acts. Even though these things are happened the department did not do some works. Even now, I am in economical troubles, children’s health, my health are not good, so I did all these things.

¶57

Nobody forced or encouraged, threatened, forced me to give this statement. This statement is giving in my own accord. It is my mental agony, economical troubles to do all these things.”

¶58

PW1 claims to have written this letter on 21.01.2000 i.e., nearly nine months after the trap. The explanation given for writing this letter is, because of the disturbances at home and ill-health of the family members and as there was no sufficient finances to treat the inmates of the house, he bore grudge against the department and decided to foist a case against the Appellant, through A.C.B. The fact that the said letter was written by PW1 is not in dispute, since, DW3 – the Assistant Director of Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Lab, Hyderabad, categorically states that the disputed signatures and writings in Ex.D1 marked as Q1 to Q3 are similar to the standard signatures and writing in two sheets of papers marked as S1 to

¶59

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶60

¶61

S6. But, strangely, while giving evidence in court when PW1 was confronted with the letter, dated 21.1.2000, he replied as under:

¶62

“A letter, dated 21.01.2000, shown to the witness and he is asked whether it is in his handwriting and he denied his handwriting and signature.”

¶63

Therefore, it is clear that PW1 went back on the letter addressed by him. Even otherwise, it is to be noted here that the said letter states that a false case has been foisted because of the problems / financial necessities at home. If that is so, then the plea taken by the Accused Officer that the amount of Rs.1,000/, received him was towards repayment of hand loan would also be false. Having regard to the inconsistent stand taken with regard to the contents of Ex.D1 letter and the admissions in the evidence that the said letter was not written by P.W.1, the same cannot be the basis to accept the defence of the accused.

¶64

At this stage, the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon as his evidence is not corroborated and he is a partisan witness, more interested in laying a successful trap. In other words, his argument appears to be that in the absence of any corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, no reliance can be placed on record. It should be noted here that the explanation offered by the accused immediately after the trap is that an amount of Rs.1000/- was received from P.W.1 is towards repayment of hand loan given by him. But, as observed earlier, the said plea

¶65

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶66

¶67

is not reflected in Ex.D1 letter and the evidence adduced in support of his defence. On the other hand, a reading of Ex.D1 shows that P.W.1 foisted a false case against the Accused Officer. Therefore, the plea set up by the accused through Ex.D1 on this score also cannot be accepted.

¶68

Coming to the entries in the Visitor’s Book,

¶69

15. PW1 in his cross-examination admits as under:

¶70

“One has to sign in the visitors book, write the purpose of visit and then enter into the office of the A.O. Witness Adds: On that day I did not write the purpose and I did not sign in the visitors book. I did not state that fact in Ex.P1 or in my 161 Cr.P.C. statement and 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The visitors book is confronted with the witness and he admits that he signed number of time when he visited the office of the A.O. There is no endorsement in the visitors book to show that I visited the office of the A.O. on 19.03.1999. [witness adds: Though I visited the office on that day I did not mention the said fact in the visitors books].”

¶71

Having regard to the answers elicited in the crossexamination, the learned Counsel Sri. K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, tried to contend that, there is any amount of doubt as to the visit of PW1 to the Office of the Accused Officer on 19.03.1999 i.e., on the day on which demand was made. It is true that there is no entry showing the visit of PW1 to the Office of the Accused Officer on 19.03.1999, but, he himself admits in the evidence that he visited the Office on that day and did not mention the said fact in the visitor‟s book. Being an employee of the very same department, an entry in the visitor‟s book might not have been made. Suggestions given to the effect that he did not visit

¶72

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶73

¶74

the office on 19.03.1999 and that he created a new theory, in this regard, was denied by him.

¶75

In fact, it is the version of Accused Officer that, in the month of May 1998, PW1 came to him and requested for money for the treatment of his wife and by seeing the pitiable condition of PW1, he gave a hand loan of Rs.1,000/- to PW1. Later on he addressed Ex.P7(B) letter to the Director on 27.06.1998 stating that he will conduct re-enquiry against PW1 and also demanded PW12 to repay the hand loan, thereby, PW1 bore grudge and foisted this case against him.

¶76

A perusal of Visitors Book [Ex.P11], would show that PW1 visited the Office of the Accused Officer on 10.02.1999, 17.02.1999, 16.03.1999 and 17.03.1999, but, there was no entries relating to visit of PW1 in the entire year of 1998.

¶77

It is also to be seen that, the Accused Officer is a District Level Officer, whereas, PW1 was working as a Compounder at a far of place in Kadapa. The evidence on record does not disclose the Accused Officer was having prior acquaintance with PW1, which would have allowed him to lend hand loan. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellant that there was no demand on 19.03.1999, since, there was no entry in the visitor‟s book, cannot be accepted and the plea of hand loan has no basis.

¶78

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶79

¶80

Having regard to all the circumstances and in view of the inconsistent pleas taken by the appellant, the argument that the accused officer did not demand any bribe amount, cannot be accepted.

¶81

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the evidence of P.W.1 which is not corroborated by any other evidence, cannot be accepted. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 would reveal that the demand of Rs.1500/- made by the accused for issuing proceedings, which was later reduced to Rs.1000/- and thereafter a complaint was lodged leading to pretrap proceedings and laying of a trap on 22.03.1999. Things would have been different had the evidence of P.W.1 being inconsistent with the other material on record. But the evidence of P.W.1 gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to lodging of the complaint, pre-trap proceedings and laying of the trap and thereafter the post trap proceedings. P.W.2 was working as Assistant Engineer, Panchayatraj Department, Nandyala, at the time of trap. He was crossexamined at length but nothing incriminating came to be elicited to discredit his testimony. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.2 would categorically establish that immediately after acceptance of money, the trap party entered his house and found the accused sitting on a cot in the hall. After introducing themselves to the accused and after ascertaining his particulars, prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and

¶82

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶83

¶84

the Accused Officer was instructed to rinse his right hand fingers into the solution contained in one glass tumbler, which turned pink in colour. Then the D.S.P. asked the Accused Officer about the bribe amount. He showed the bribe amount which was beneath his right thigh. The said amount was collected and the numbers of the notes tallied with the notes mentioned in the post mediator report. When the D.S.P. questioned the Accused Officer as to whether he received the bribe amount, the Accused Officer stated that it is not the bribe but it is a repayment of hand loan given by P.W.1 and the same was incorporated in the mediator‟s report. The veracity of the explanation given by Accused Officer with regard to receipt of the amount as repayment of the hand loan has been dealt with earlier.

¶85

Having regard to the above, it cannot be said that the evidence of P.W.1 is uncorroborated, in material particulars. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be accepted, is liable to be rejected and accordingly, the same is rejected.

¶86

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused in the judgment, dated 28.09.2006, in Calendar Case No.11 of 2000 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore.

¶87

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶88

¶89

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶90

shall stand closed.

¶91

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶92

Date:10.12.2021. MS / SM

¶93

CPK,J Crl.A.No.1410 of 2006

¶94

¶95

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶96

Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2006

¶97

Date: 10.12.2021

¶98

MS / SM

G. S. Subrahmanya Sastry, v. the Spl. Pp for Acb, High Court of Ap Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. S. Subrahmanya Sastry, v. the Spl. Pp for Acb, High Court of Ap Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Venkaiah Vs Sri B.R. Meena

M.Srinivasulu Naidu, Vs Sri S.H.Rasheed

The State of a.P., Vs Kale Venkata Ramana

N. Kalpana, Chittoor Dist. Vs R. Jayakrishna, Chennai and 8 Othrs

Smt. N. Uma Lakshmi, Vs Shri Aditya Nath Das, I.A.S.

Kota Sampoorna Pawani [Died] Vs The State