Vedagiri Subrahmanyam Naidu Vs the State of Ap.,Acb

¶1

APHC010373602014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 513 OF 2014

¶7

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28-04-2014 passed in^{C.C.No.47of2013on} the file of the Judge, Special Court for trial of ACB cases in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Vedagiri Subrahmanyam Naidu, S/o Late Achappa Naidu, Hindu, aged about 57 years. Office Superintendent FAC MPDO, R/o D.No.20-3124/5, Yerramitta Tirupathi Town, Chittoor District.

¶10

...Appellant/AccusedOfficer

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Tirupathi Range, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, Rep by its Special Public Prosecutor High Court of AP., Hyderabad

¶13

...Respondent/State

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M B Thimma Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao SC cum Spl P P For ACB

¶15

The Court made the following order:

¶16

APHC010373602014

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶18

[3327]

¶19

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.513 OF 2014

¶23

Between:

¶24

1.VEDAGIRI SUBRAHMANYAM NAIDU, S/0 LATE ACHAPPA NAIDU HINDU OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT FAC MPDO R/0 D.NO.20-3-124/5, YERRAMITTA TIRUPATHI TOWN CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶25

...APPELLANT

¶26

AND

¶27

1.THE STATE OF AP ACB, through the Inspector of Police Anti Corruption Bureau Tirupathi Range Tirupathi Chittoor district Rep by its Special Public Prosecutor High^courtof AP., Hyderabad

¶28

...RESPONDENT

¶29

Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow the CrI.A by^setting aside the Judgment dt 28-04-2014 in CC No.47/2013 on^thefile of the Honble Judge, special court for trial of ACB^cases in Rayalaseema Region at Kurnool, Wherein the Honble Special Judge Convicted the appellant / accused officer for^theoffences for the offence under section 7 and 13(1)d) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to^payafineof Rs.200/- IDSI for one month for the offence u/s 7 ACT^andfurther sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- IDSI for Two^Monthsfor the offence under Section 13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of the prevention of

¶30

2

¶31

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶32

%:

¶33

Corruption Act 1988 and both the sentences are directed to run Concurrently

¶34

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶35

1.M B THIMMA REDDY

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶37

1.S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB

¶38

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶39

Criminal Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶40

JUDGMENT:

¶41

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.04.2014 passed in CC No.47 of 2013 by the learned Special Judge for trial of ACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region, at Kurnool.

¶42

Sole accused officer is the appellant herein. He was^tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)^read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). By his judgment dated 28.04.2014, the learned Special Judge found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay^fine of Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section^7of the Act. He was further convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and also to pay fine of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred only), in default to suffer

N

Ml

2

SRK, J CrLAppeal No.513 of 2014

¶47

'4.

¶48

simple imprisonment for two (2) months. Both the sentences^of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. MO.4 i.e., cash of Rs.3000/- was ordered to be returned to PW.1 and other material objects were ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is

¶49

over.

¶50

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the accused officer worked as Office Superintendent, FAC MPDO, Piler, Chittoor district, from 15.11.2008 to 21.01.2009, as such, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The de facto complainant (PW.1) and 20 manual labourers formed^intoa group and were attending labour works under Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. About six months prior to the incident, they dug pits in the fields of Bujjareddy and Nagarathnamma and planted Mango saplings. PW.8 - the Field Officer of^MPDO Office, Piler, prepared bill for an amount of Rs. 10,000/and submitted it to the accused officer for sanction. When PW.1 met the accused officer about 15 days prior to the incident, he demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/for sanction of the bill. On 19.01.2009, when PW.1 again met the accused officer in his office and enquired about the bill, the accused officer^askedhim to pay the bribe amount either on 21.01.2009 or on^22.01.2009in

¶51

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶52

'■fW
f-

¶53

order to sanction the bill, otherwise the bill would be kept pending. Having no other go, he agreed to pay the bribe^amount to the accused officer. However, as PW.1 was not willing^topay the said bribe amount, he lodged a complaint Ex.P40^againstthe accused officer before the Deputy Superintendent of^Police,ACB, Tirupati on 20.01.2009, basing on which a case in Crime No.l/RCT-TCT/2009 of Tirupati Range, Tirupati, was^registered, against the accused officer for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and issued FIR Ex.P41. PW.17 conducted pre-trap proceedings on 21.01.2009 and sent the decoy^tothe office of the accused officer at 05.45 pm. The accused^officer received the bribe amount on Tirupati Platform in APSRTC^Bus Stand, Piler and on receiving pre-arranged signal from^PW.1,the trap party rushed there, seized the amount from the^accused officer under post-trap proceedings, completed the process, investigated the case and after completion of investigation^andon receipt of prosecution sanction proceedings, charge^sheetwas filed against the accused officer for the aforesaid^offences.

¶54

On appearance of accused officer, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.^and, thereafter, charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read^with13(2)

¶55

1

¶56

4

¶57

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶58

of the Act were framed against the accused officer and the contents are read over and explained to him in Telugu,^forwhich he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶59

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P1 to P41 and MOs 1 to 8. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused officer was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. He did not choose to examine any witness nor marked any documents on his behalf, except filing a written statement.

¶60

The accused officer in his written statement stated that he never demanded or accepted any illegal gratification of Rs.3000/from PW.1 and no official favour pertaining to PW.1 was pending with him by the date of the report i.e. on 20.01.2009 or by the date of trap i.e. on 21.01.2009. He further stated that he used to take hand loans from PW.16 whenever necessary and on 20.01.2009 morning he requested PW.16 for hand loan of Rs.5000/-, but he promised to arrange hand loan of Rs.3000/only on the next day. PW.16 further informed to the accused officer that as he proposes to go to Bangalore on the next day he

¶61

5

¶62

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶63

would send the hand loan amount of Rs.3000/- through PW.1, who is the son-in-law of PW.16. On 21.01.2009, while the accused officer was in Filer RTC bus stand to go to Chittoor, PW.1 came and handed over Rs.3000/- to him stating^thatPW.16 gave that amount to PW.1 to hand over the same to him as hand loan. Believing the version of PW.1, he received the said amount from PW.1. In the meanwhile, the ACB officials came and caught hold of him and got fabricated the present false trap case against him.

¶64

The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire^oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused officer guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)^read with 13(2) of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Against the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.

¶65

Heard. Perused the record. 10. Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused officer, submits that the de facto complainant (PW.1) did not support the prosecution case and he resiled from his earlier version and was treated as hostile by the prosecution. He submits that the accompanying witness^PW.2as

¶66

6 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶67

well as all the material prosecution witnesses also did not support the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile by the prosecution. He further submits that the appellant/accused officer, at the time of trap, submitted a spot explanation stating that PW.16 has sent the money through PW.1 and he received the money believing that it was sent by PW.16 and to that extent PW.16, though examined as prosecution witness, supported^the version of the accused officer. He further submits that in order to attract the offence under Section 7 of the Act, it is essential that there should be demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused officer, and except the alleged recovery^oftainted currency from the possession of the accused officer, there is absolutely no accusation as against the accused officer that he is said to have made any demand for the bribe amount and acceptance of the said bribe amount from PW.1. He relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi)\ B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh^ N. Sunkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh^ and Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.2136^of 2010, dated 23.03.2023).

¶68

' 2025 Law Suit (SC) 652 ^ (2014) 13 see 55 ' (2016) 1 sec 713

¶69

7

¶70

SRK, J Crt.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶71

On the other hand, Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB submitted that merely because there is no proof of demand, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside. It is evident that the amount was recovered from the possession^of the accused officer and that fact is sufficient enough,^soas to bring the accused officer within the purview of the aforesaid offences. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in CrI.Appeal No.820 of 2007, dated 29.01.2024. He further submitted that on the ground^thatPW.1 turned hostile, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside and this Court has to look into the other circumstantial material to come to a conclusion that whether a case against the accused officer has been made out or not. According to him, earlier there was a demand made by the accused officer and the same is proved by the circumstances prevailed in the case and that is sufficient enough to convict the accused officer for the aforesaid offences and, accordingly,^the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the accused officer. which calls for no interference by this Court.

¶72

8 SRK, J Crt.Appeal No.513of 2014

¶73

The point that falls for determination is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/ accused officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and whether the impugned judgment calls for interference by this Court ?

¶74

Substance of the charge against the accused officer is that he, being a public servant, to wit. Office Superintendent,^FAC MPDO, office of the MPDO, Piler, Chittoor district, 15 days prior to 19.01.2009 and again on 21.01.2009 demanded PW.1 to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- for the purpose of clearing a bill in respect of the work of digging pits in the fields and planting of Mango saplings under Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and received Rs.3,000/-, at 05.55 PM at APSRTC Bus Stand, Piler, as gratification other than legal remuneration as motive or reward for showing and for doing an official act in exercise of his official functions in passing the bill of the work undertaken by PW.1 and his group, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. In the course of same transaction, the accused officer demanded and received an amount of Rs.3,000/as gratification other than legal remuneration as a^reward for

¶75

r

¶76

9

¶77

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513of 2014

¶78

doing an official act in exercise of his official functions in passing the bill of the work undertaken by PW.1 and his group^andthus amounting to obtaining the pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means in furtherance of previous demand made by him, which amounts to criminal misconduct, thereby committed^the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.

¶79

PW.1, who is the de facto complainant, stated that^heisa manual labourer. He and 19 others, being job cardholders^under National Employment Scheme worked in the field of Nagarathnamma and Buchireddy for three weeks for digging pits and filled them with mud. The Government paid labour charges for two weeks and had to pay remaining amount totaling to Rs.8000/- to all. In connection with that, PWs.8 and 10 informed PW.1 and others that they would pay one week labour, if PW.16 recommends for it. PW.8 has to prepare the bill and^PW.10has to sanction it. PW.1 further stated that PW.16 asked him to come to Tirupati to get some other work keeping the bill pending. Accordingly, he met PW.16 at Tirupati. PW.16 gave Rs.3000/-^to him asking to handover the said amount to the accused^officeras a loan. PW.16 contacted the accused officer over phone^and

¶80

10

¶81

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶82

informed that he was sending money through him. He had taken him to MPDO Office, Pileru and asked him to give said Rs.3000/to the accused officer as if it was a bribe. PW.16 reminded him after some time for not yet giving said money to the accused officer. The accused officer contacted him over phone and asked him to give said Rs.3000/-, which was given to him by PW.16. PW.1 went to RTC bus stand, Pileru in the year 2009 (date and month not remembered) with money and gave it to the accused officer there at about 05.30 PM. At this stage, PW.1 was declared as hostile by the prosecution stating that he resiled from his earlier statement given before the ACB.

¶83

PW.2 is the accompanying witness, He too did not support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. The material witnesses i.e. PWs.3 to 7, also did not support the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile by the prosecution.

¶84

PW.8 is the Field Assistant in the office of the MPDO, Pileru. He deposed that the accused officer was their MPDO. He maintains muster roll recording names of labourers attended, number of days attended etc., in the office. He made entries in the muster roll in the field every day during his inspection.

¶85

11

¶86

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶87

EX.P13 is one of such muster rolls from 04.01.2009 to 19.01.2009, which contains signatures of labourers including PW.1, PWs.3 to 6 and his signature. He further deposed^thatthe muster rolls would go to PW.10 and then to MPDO who^sanctions the work charges. The Technical Assistant prepares pay slip and gives it to him. He handover the pay slips to the concerned labourers. Then, they go to post office and withdraw^amountfrom their accounts with their pay slips. A perusal of the^evidenceof PW.8 goes to show that he only states to the extent of procedure that has been contemplated for handing over the monies^tothe labourers in the department.

¶88

PW.9 works as a Technical Assistant in the MPDO Office, Pileru. He also explains about his job of visiting fields, verifying correctness of muster rolls and feeding the work in M.Book i.e.. Ex.P15 and gives it to PW.10. He further stated that he does not remember whether the amount relating to this roll was^remittedin the Post Office. PW.10 was working as APO in the MPDO^Office. He receives muster rolls, M.Book, goes to field, verifies^thework and submits the records to the MPDO for sanction. He did not support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. PW.11 is the Computer Assistant in the^officeofthe

¶89

12

¶90

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶91

MPDO, Pileru. He too explains only with regard to the procedure envisaged in the department. PW.12 is a farmer, who owns Ac.7.00 of agricultural land in Pileru village. He states to the extent that PW.1 and ten other labourers dug pits in October month about five years back in his land to plant mango saplings and filled them with mud and saplings in the month of December of the same year.

¶92

PW.13, who worked as in-charge MPDO, Pileru, from 23.01.2009 to 05.10.2009, explains the nature of his job. He deposed as follows.

¶93

The ACB officials asked him job chart covering the role of MPDO, citizen charter and service particulars of the accused officer (previous MPDO). Ex.P12 is the job chart. Field Assistant in the office of the MPDO takes attendance of labourers in given work, prepares muster roll and submit it to APO, who verifies the record and hands over the record to the Technical Assistant who visits the work place, verifies it with concerned records , records the work in M. Book and returns it with muster roll to APO, who gives these two records to computer operator, who feeds i ;:n system concerned information and gets a sheet containing amount of every labourer to be received and takes from the

¶94

13

¶95

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶96

system payment order individual and consolidate. APO cross checks these records and prepares cheques in the name of post office and submit them with other records to MPDO, who signs on muster roll, M. Book, payment order, cheques, measurement sheet etc., and send cheque of the week with muster roll containing names and amount of labourer to post office for remitting the amount in respective account of labourer. The office has to remit the amount in post office within fifteen days after preparation of muster roll. After preparation of Ex.P14, Field Assistant begins the work.

¶97

PW.14 is the Horticulture Officer, Pileru, who inspected the agricultural field of one Bojja Reddy and Nagarathnamma,^as per the instructions of the ACB officials, and certified the age of mango grafts under Ex.P36 report. PW.15 is the Chief^Executive Officer, Panchayat Raj, Vizianagaram. According to him, the Commissioner issued prosecution sanction order against the accused officer under Ex.P38.

¶98

PW.16 was declared as hostile by the prosecution. In^his cross-examination, he categorically stated that PW.1 is his son-inlaw. He knew the accused officer well for two or three years before he was posted to MPDO office. He had friendly money

¶99

14

¶100

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶101

transactions with the accused officer and it happened many times. The accused officer requested him for hand loan of Rs.5,000/- one day before the date of trap. He had Rs.3,000/only and informed the accused officer that he would send it to him on the next day through PW.1 and left his village at^5.00 am on the next day by giving Rs.3,000/to PW.1 to give it to the accused officer and returned from Bangalore to his village ten (10) days thereafter. He further stated that there were disputes between one Venkataramana Reddy and the accused officer and the said Venkataramana Reddy, having known about giving^hand loan by him to the accused officer, made use of this transaction against him.

¶102

PW.17 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Tirupati, who registered the case based on the complaint^ofPW.1 EX.P40 and issued copies of FIR Ex.P41 to all concerned. He conducted pre-trap and post-trap proceedings under^Exs.PIOand P11. His successor PW.18 - the Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati, after completion of investigation and on receipt of prosecution sanction orders, filed charge sheet.

¶103

A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that PW.1, who is a decoy witness and whose evidence is crucial in

¶104

\

¶105

15

¶106

SRK, J Crt.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶107

nature, did not support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. The accompanying witness i.e. PW.2, too did not support the case of the prosecution^andhe was also treated as hostile by the prosecution. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, on the date of trap, the accused officer submitted spontaneous explanation that the amounts received by him from PW.1 are the amounts that have been sent by PW.16. This Court perused the evidence of PW.16 and, in his cross-examination he categorically stated that there were money transactions between him and the accused officer and he sent the money through PW.1 to handover the same to the accused officer. Since there were disputes between Reddy community and the accused officer, the amount that has been given by PW.16 was made use of by PW.1, as though he paid bribe to the accused officer.

¶108

Irrespective of the same, the demand of illegal gratification

¶109

IS sine qua non to constitute the offence under Section 7 of the Act and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 of the Act unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused officer voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. One of the essential ingredients

¶110

16

¶111

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶112

be constituted under Section 7 of the Act is that there should be a demand earlier and on the date of trap, in the absence of proof of demand, the prosecution would not bring the accused officer guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the Act.

¶113

<br>

¶114

In Aman Bhatia’s case (1 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

¶115

Court held as follows.

¶116

In C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt, of India reported as (1997) 9 SCC 477, this Court, although interpreting the term “accept” in the context of the 1947 Act, observed that “accept” means to take or receive with a consenting mind. In contrast, “obtain” was understood to imply securing or gaining something as a result of a request or effort. In both instances, a demand or request by the receiver is a prerequisite for establishing an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 52. It is well-settled that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charges against an accused under the PC Act. To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act respectively, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The courts have consistently reiterated that the demand for a bribe is sine qua non for

¶117

/ /

¶118

17

¶119

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶120

establishing an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.

¶121

In B. Jayaraj’s case (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme^Court held as follows.

¶122

“8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Exbt.P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and the contents of Exhibit P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the

¶123

18

¶124

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶125

currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive in so far as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt^or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.”

¶126

In N. Sunkanna’s Court held as follows.

¶127

In N. Sunkanna’s case (3 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

¶128

“The prosecution examined the other fair price shop dealers in Kurnool as PWs 3, 4 and 6 to prove that the accused was receiving monthly mamools from them. PWs 4 and 6 did not state so and they were declared hostile. PW-3 though in the examination-in-chief stated so, in the crossexamination turned round and stated that the accused never asked any monthly mamool and he did not pay Rs.50/- at any time. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. In short there is

¶129

19

¶130

SRK, J Crt.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶131

no proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7, since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute^the said offence. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing^to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. Reference may be made to the two decisions of three-Judge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 55] and P. Satyanarayna Murthy vs. The District Inspector of Police and another [(2015 (9) SCALE 724].

¶132

It is well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made^under

¶133

20

¶134

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶135

Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶136

It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence of proof his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding^whetherthe prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt^ofthe accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case. It is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur verdict of guilt. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts to prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts, i.e., that of establishing^on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt." (See Jhangan Vs. State 1966 (3) SCR 736).

¶137

(Emphasis supplied)

¶138

21

¶139

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.B13 of 2014

¶140

Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI has relied upon the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.820 of 2007, dated 29.01.2024, wherein this Court held as follows.

¶141

“In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that though PW.1 turned hostile the evidence on record proves that the very obtaining of a sum of Rs.5,000/- by AO from PW.1 is nothing but by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his official position with demand as such it quietly proves the charge under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution did not prove the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act beyond reasonable doubt as such AO is liable to be exonerated of the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion of this Court is that Appeal is liable to be allowed in so far as the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act and liable to be dismissed in so far as the charge under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act is concerned respectively.”

¶142

While relying upon the above judgment, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that though PW.1 turned hostile, entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out. He further submitted that very obtaining of a sum of Rs.3,000/- by the accused officer from PW.1 is nothing but by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his official position with demand, as such it

¶143

22

¶144

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶145

quietly proves the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act beyond reasonable doubt.

¶146

Time and again this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court have consistently held that mere recovery of money^wouldnotin any way prove the guilt of the accused officer of the charges leveled against him. In order to prove the guilt of the accused officer within the purview of the aforesaid charges framed against him, it is essential that the prosecution has to prove^the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused officer beyond all reasonable doubt. Going by the evidence on record coupled^with other circumstantial material, there is absolutely^noevidenceto show that the accused officer had made any demand during relevant period of time. PW.1 who is decoy witness did not support the prosecution case and he was treated hostile by the prosecution. The accompanying witness PW.2 and other material prosecution witnesses PWs.3 to 7 also did not support the prosecution case and they were treated as hostile by the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused officer has submitted spontaneous explanation to the^extentthat the money that was received by him has been sent by^PW.16 through PW.1 and in connection with that PW.16 also confirmed

¶147

23

¶148

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶149

the narrative given by the accused officer. Hence, it can safely be inferred that the prosecution failed to establish that there is demand of bribe amount by the accused officer.

¶150

In Jagtar Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

¶151

Court held as follows.

¶152

“In the case in hand. Jit Singh, complainant as well as Chamkaur Singh, shadow witness, have turned hostile. The Trial Court had specifically held that there is no evidence produced on record to prove the demand of illegal gratification. It is not the case in which the demand was reiterated when the money was allegedly paid to him. Gurjinder Singh (PW-8) is only a witness who stated that he had recovered the money from the appellant. The High Court has passed its judgment on the assumption that the money having been recovered from the appellant, there was demand of illegal gratification. This is not a case where there was circumstantial evidence to prove the demand.”

¶153

From the above decision, it is clear that in the absence of any demand or reiteration of demand when the money was allegedly paid to him, the case would not in any way^comewithin the purview of the aforesaid offences. The present^caseonhand strictly comes within the purview of Jagtar Singh’s^case.

¶154

't.

¶155

24

¶156

SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.513 of 2014

¶157

As stated supra, in order to prove the aforesaid offences it is essential to establish ail the ingredients such as demands made at earlier point of time and on the date of trap, acceptance of bribe and recovery of tainted amount from the possession^of the accused officer. In the absence of any of the ingredient, the benefit of doubt would go in favour of the accused officer. In the case on hand, there is absolutely no evidence to the extent that the accused officer made any demand on the date of trap and mere recovery of amount from the possession of the accused officer would not in any way attract the aforesaid offences, more so, when there was spontaneous explanation from the accused officer that the amount which was paid to him is the^loanamount sent by PW.16 through PW.1.

¶158

In the absence of any proof of demand of bribe amount and acceptance of the same by the accused officer, there is any amount of ambiguity whether the alleged incident as suggested by the prosecution is said to have taken place or not. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the learned Special Judge^was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by^theaccused officer as proved. Mere possession and recovery of the currency

¶159

bKK, J CrLAppeal No.513of 2014

¶160

notes from the accused officer without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the Act.

¶161

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge for trial^ofACB Cases, Rayalaseema Region, Kurnool in the judgment in CC No.47 of 2013, dated 28.04.2014 are set aside, The appellant/accused officer is found not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention^of Corruption Act, 1988 and is accordingly acquitted of the charges leveled against him and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.

¶162

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.

¶163

//TRUE COPY//

¶164

To,

¶165

in Rayalaseema Region 1 The Judge, Special Court for trial of ACB cases Spl P.P. For ACB ?:fc^c^:trsrf i^rrs:?^erTrrJ cu. ’■

¶166