Criminal Appeal challenging acquittal of a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court held that sufficient grounds did not exist to interfere with the trial court's acquittal, affirming the judgment.
Criminal Appeal dismissed confirming acquittal; bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.938 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
This criminal appeal is filed under Section 378 (1) & (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) assailing the Judgment of Acquittal dated 05.01.2007 in C.C.No.12 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada wherein, the Respondent/Accused Officer, who was tried for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “ PC Act ”), was acquitted.
2
Order, but without issuing the same, he demanded Rs.2,000/as bribe, for which PW1 expressed his inability. On 21.10.1999 P.W.1 once again met the Accused Officer and requested for Assessment Order, but he insisted to give Rs.2,000/- as bribe or else to give a bread-toaster (big size) as bribe to him and asked him to collect the Assessment Order on 22.10.1999 evening, for which PW1 reluctantly agreed and proceeded to the office of P.W.9 and submitted a report, who registered the same as Crime No.30/ACB-VJA/99.
3
4
After obtaining report, case was registered. Accordingly, after purchasing MO1 on 22.10.1999 PW1 went to the office of accused officer and handed over the same to him. The trap was conducted and M.O.1 was seized. PW 8 acted as mediator, PW 9 is trap laying officer and the evidence on the record proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused officer demanded and accepted the bribe. Hence, prayed the court to set aside the judgement of Special judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada and to convict the respondent accused officer.
5
order passed by accused officer imposing penalty and their nonpayment of the amount till the date of exhibit P2 i.e. report of PW1 dated 21.10.1999 to PW10. The circumstance supports the case of defence that PW1 bore grudge against accused officer and implicated the accused officer in the offence.
6
report though it was registered at 9:00 AM on 20.10.1999. After the accused officer was trapped Exs.P2 and P20 were sent to the Court and hence it raises a doubt in the mind of the court about registration of Ex.P-2 at 9:00 AM as contended by the prosecution. Even Exs.P15 and P19 which are vital documents of trap proceedings were not sent to the Court immediately and they were sent to the court on 25.10.1999. As indicated supra the prosecution failed to explain the delay and the circumstances proved that exhibit Ex.P2 was obtained from PW1 just prior to commencement of post trap proceedings.
7
will look after the assessment of the traders and after the assessment order is made by DCTO the clerk concerned will serve form B order on the assessee. Thus, it is evident that no official favour is pending with the accused officer in respect of Ex.P-1 and hence demanding and accepting of bribe does not arise and the accused officer was falsely implicated in the crime.
“it is true that I have no necessity to find out what order was passed by DCTO on exhibit B-1 returns filed by me. It is true that I know from 1996 onwards as and when returns were filed under AA9 form the authorities of DCTO Department has to accept the same. It is true that in case AA9 returns were found to be incomplete, what is will be given to produce documents. It is true whenever the dealer filed AA9 returns until and unless any notices received from CTO office, no trader will cause enquiries about the assessment order on such returns filed under AA9.”
8
further the accused officer demanded bribe for passing assessment order.
9
(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.
(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 to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(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.
10
(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.
( Emphasis supplied ) Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stands closed.
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Date: 18.03.2021 IKN
11
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2007
Date: 18.03.2021
IKN
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal of an accused officer charged with taking illegal gratification.
Whether the prosecution evidence regarding trap and demand of bribe established the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the presumption of innocence and double presumption in favor of acquitted appellant prevents interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrappa v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶44
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
STATE- A.C.B.
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
