Dismissed

State of Rep by Its Spl Pp Hyd., for Acb, v. Sri Muchukota Narendra Kumar

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Mar 2021CRLA/896/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against acquittal for corruption charges, the High Court affirmed the trial court's decision. The court held that despite arguments regarding the recovery of tainted currency and Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the prosecution failed to prove the offense beyond reasonable doubt, and no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed; bail bonds stood cancelled; sureties discharged.

State of Rep by Its Spl Pp Hyd., for Acb, Vs Sri Muchukota… — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.896 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This present appeal, under Section 378 (3) and (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.02.2007 passed in C.C.No.20 of 2002 by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the accused who is the respondent herein was acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’).

¶5

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused worked as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations) A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited, Ananthapur from 17.07.2001 to 03.04.2002 and the complainant has been running a restaurant near railway track, bypass road, Ananthapur since 1999. While so on 10.01.2002 the electricity authorities conducted raid over the said restaurant, booked a case for theft of energy and imposed a fine of Rs.1,95,403/-. PW3 who is Divisional Engineer, Assessment, Hyderabad had reduced the fine amount to Rs.73,082/-. Later on 08.03.2002, the complainant met the accused officer with a request to allow him to pay the said fine on instalment basis for which the accused officer instructed him to meet PW4 who is Superintendent Engineer, A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited, Ananthapur. Accordingly the complainant

¶6

¶7

met PW4 and he permitted the complainant to pay the fine amount in six instalments. Thereafter he paid the first instalment at Rs.13,082/- on 18.03.2002, Rs.150/- towards supervision charges and Rs.50/- towards connection charges and on 19.03.2002 the complainant met the accused officer and requested him to reconnect the service connection, but the accused officer asked him to come later. On the said pretext the complainant met the accused officer thrice but service connection was not reconnected and again on 21.03.2002 when the complainant approached the accused officer he demanded Rs.2,000/- towards bribe but as the complainant expressed his inability the accused officer demanded him to give Rs.1,000/-. The accused officer asked him to come to his residence on 23.03.2002 with the bribe amount. Therefore, the complainant approached Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ananthapur range.

¶8

In accordance with the standard procedure for trap cases, arrangements were made and the accused officer was caught on 23.03.2002 when he received the tainted amount of Rs.1,000/from the complainant and kept the same in his tucked up lungi. Phenolphthalein test was conducted on the fingers of both the palms as well as the lungi which came into contact with the tainted currency notes and the same proved positive and tainted currency notes were recovered from his possession. After obtaining orders from the Chairman and Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company Limited crime was registered for the above mentioned offences and the same was

¶9

¶10

numbered as C.C.No.20 of 2002 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶11

To prove the case against the accused officer, the prosecution had examined PWs1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16 as well as MOs 1 to 8. After closure of he prosecution evidence, the accused officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material and evidence of the witnesses.

¶12

The accused officer filed written statement alleging that he has falsely been implicated in the case and moreover no official favour was pending with the accused officer either to demand or to accept any bribe from PW1. He further alleged that the service connection of the complainant cannot be reconnected by the accused officer without receiving orders from the Assistant Accounts Officer and such order for reconnection of service connection of the complainant was issued on 26.03.2002 i.e. on the date when trap was laid. The complainant forcibly dropped the amount in the upper folded lungi of the accused officer and before he could react to it, the trap party rushed to him and stopped him. The complainant played fraud only because the accused officer conducted raid on his restaurant. Hence, he pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against him.

¶13

After taking into consideration, the material available on record, the evidence produced by the prosecution, the plea of the accused and the arguments advanced on behalf of both

¶14

¶15

sides, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges levelled against him. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal the State has preferred the present appeal.

¶16

Heard Smt. Gayathri Reddy Special Counsel for ACB appellant/complainant and Sri Badeti Venkata Ratnam, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

¶17

The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and erred in acquitting the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the witnesses have clearly stated with regard to the events that took place during post trap proceedings including recovery of tainted currency and also with regard to the result of the chemical test which yielded positive result, but the Court below instead of drawing legal presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act erroneously gave benefit of doubt in favour of the respondent by recording perverse findings even though the evidence of PWs1, 2 and 7 is well corroborated with the evidence of the complainant in proving the charge against the respondent. Though the case was established against the respondent for the charged leveled against him the Court below erred in passing the order of acquittal. Hence, this appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶18

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court has given a cogent and elaborate

¶19

¶20

finding of facts and hence, does not warrant interference of this Court. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶21

At this juncture it is not out of place to mention that time and again it has been made clear by the Hon’ble Apex Court that while entertaining an appeal against acquittal, the High Courts should borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by Court below unless some illegality is made out.

¶22

The principles that govern appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal are:

¶23

An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

¶24

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

¶25

(3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than

¶26

¶27

to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

¶28

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

¶29

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

¶30

(Emphasis supplied) Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415

¶31

In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court it is apparent that while exercising powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the appellate Court would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality which is to be characterized as perverse. Further merely because two views are possible, the appellate Court cannot take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the trial Court. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived by the Court below is perverse

¶32

¶33

and opines that the trial Court has committed an error of law by ignoring the material evidence on record. In such circumstances, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with. 13. Before going into the merits of the matter it is appropriate to have a look at Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act which reads thus:

¶34

“ 7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.— Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause;

¶35

(c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶36

Section 13

¶37

¶38

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.—

¶39

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,—

¶40

(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or

¶41

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or

¶42

(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or

¶43

(d) if he,—

¶44

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

¶45

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

¶46

¶47

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or

¶48

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

¶49

It is clear from a perusal of the judgment impugned that the trial Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence and assigned reasons for acquittal by holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.

¶50

The issue that falls for consideration is whether the order of acquittal needs interference of this Court?

¶51

It is argued by the Special Counsel for ACB for the complainant that the Court below erred in not drawing the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused officer has accepted the amount as bribe. Except the evidence of PW1 there is no other evidence on record to prove that the accused officer has received the amount from PW1. The person who is alleged to have accompanied PW1 to the house of the accused officer was also not examined by the prosecution. It is the specific case of the accused officer that PW1 has thrusted the amount into his hands and when he refused to take the money he dropped the money in the inner

¶52

¶53

upper fold of the lungi. Mere recovery of money itself cannot be a ground to prove that the accused officer received bribe. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. The second aspect is prosecution has to prove that accused officer is in a position to do official favour to PW1 by the date of trap. Assistant Accounts Officer issued proceedings after the trap on 26.03.2002 reconnecting the service connection. On this count also the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶54

The Court below has given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused for the charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and this Court finds no illegality or infirmity committed by the trial Court and hence, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the judgment.

¶55

In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 15.02.2007 passed in C.C.No.20 of 2002 by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & acb Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled and sureties, if any, given stand discharged.

¶56

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶57

____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶58

Date :18.03.2021 IKN

¶59

¶60

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶61

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.896 of 2007

¶62

Date : 18.03.2021

¶63

IKN

¶64

State of Rep by Its Spl Pp Hyd., for Acb, v. Sri Muchukota Narendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rep by Its Spl Pp Hyd., for Acb, v. Sri Muchukota Narendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I.Santosh Vs State of Ap

Ganesh at LNaveen Kumar, Vs The State of A.P.

T.China Sathi Babu Vs State of Ap

Challa Ram Babu Vs State of Ap

Yedala Eswari Vs The State of A.P.

Kinnera Balamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh