The High Court dismissed an appeal against acquittal. The court held that mere recovery of tainted cash is insufficient for conviction without proof of bribe demand and acceptance, precluding the application of Section 20(1) presumption.
Criminal appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondent maintained.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1539 of 2004
DATE:21.06.2011
Between:
State : rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
…… Appellant
And
Sri R.S.Ramakrishna Rao, Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothapalli Mandal
…..Respondent
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1539 of 2004
JUDGMENT :
The respondent/accused was working as Mandal Revenue Officer of Kothapalli Mandal of Kurnool District. He was acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) by the Additional Special Judge for S.P.E and A.C.B cases, Hyderabad by judgment dated 11.12.2003 in C.C. No.11 of 1999.
2) It is alleged that when one Rangaswamy Naik died, his wife who is P.W-3 put in an application for sanctioning relief under National Family Benefit Scheme of the Government and that on her behalf P.W-1 was going round the Mandal Revenue Office, Kothapalli and that on 16.09.1997 and 18.09.1997 when
P.W-1 met the accused for release of the cheque under the above scheme to P.W-3, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.500/- for doing the said official favour and that not willing to pay the bribe amount, P.W-1 approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B), Kurnool range on 19.09.1997 and gave a report. P.W-8 who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police arranged trap for the accused on 20.09.1997 through P.W-1 in the presence of mediators including P.W-2. On that day, Ex.P-4 pre-trap proceedings was prepared before the trap. It is alleged that during the trap, the accused demanded and received bribe of Rs.500/- as per M.O-5 from P.W-1 and that the accused was caught red-handed with the said tainted cash. Ex.P-10 post-trap proceedings were prepared thereafter. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges. It is contended that P.W-1 forcibly thrusted the tainted cash into the pocket of the accused and left the office. After full trial, the lower Court found the accused not guilty of the charges.
3) During trial in the lower Court, P.Ws 1 and 3 turned hostile to the prosecution. The accused also examined D.W-1 to substantiate the theory of thrusting of tainted cash into his pocket.
4) P.W-1 who is the defacto-complainant did not subscribe to the version contained in his report given to A.C.B. He only admitted his signature in the report. P.W-1’s signature in the report is marked as Ex.P-1. It is evidence of P.W-1 that he used
to go to Mandal Revenue Office and Mandal Development Office in connection with works of the villagers by taking small amounts from the villagers. P.W-1 is thus a broker in public offices. He claims that P.W-3 requested him to get her work done in Mandal Revenue Office and promised to pay Rs.100/- to him and that accordingly he went to the Mandal Revenue Office, Kothapalli where the accused was not available and that he spoke to clerks in that office and returned back and that on the next day when he went to that office again the accused was not available and so he met one Ramudu who demanded Rs.500/- for getting the work of P.W-3 done by their office. He says that when he came out of the office, one Chandra Sekhar Reddy an agent of A.C.B enquired him and took him to A.C.B office, Kurnool promising to provide Rs.500/- to him and that Chandra Sekhar Reddy spoke to the Sub-Inspector of Police, A.C.B and they prepared one report and obtained his signature therein. The report Ex.P-15 in which P.W-1 signed as per Ex.P-1, was drafted by P.W-9 who was working as Inspector of A.C.B at Kurnool. According to P.W-9, he drafted the report Ex.P-15 on the instructions given by P.W-1. During trial, P.W-1 denied he giving any instructions for drafting Ex.P-15.
5) P.W-3 says that she gave an application in Mandal Development Office, Kothapalli for financial assistance under benefit scheme and that she was informed about sending the said application to Mandal Revenue Office. She says that she did not employ anybody to pursue the matter. She did not certify that she employed P.W-1 as broker to look after her application.
6) With regard to the trap, it is evidence of P.W-1 that when the accused along with some other persons was in his office room, he entered into the same and called the accused and that the accused questioned his identity and that he requested the accused to sanction amount to P.W-3 and that thereafter he kept Rs.500/- (M.O-5) in his hand and the accused refused to take the amount and gave it back to him and that the accused was about to sit in his chair and then he kept the currency notes in right side pant pocket of the accused and that the accused again refused to take the amount and threw the currency notes away which fell on himself and then fell into the dust bin and that thereafter he ran away from that place and the accused cried loudly. In Ex.P-10 post-trap proceedings, it was noted that when P.W-8 asked the accused as to whether he wants to explain anything, the accused stated that he did not demand any bribe from P.W-1 and that P.W-1 forcibly paid the bribe. It is noted in Ex.P-10 and it was also stated by P.W-2 and P.W-8 that after the trap party entered into room of the accused and tested his hand fingers in sodium carbonate solution, the accused became panicky and threw bunch of currency notes into waste bin kept under his table, after taking out the bunch of notes from his right side pant pocket and that on the instructions of P.W-8, P.W-2 and another mediator picked up those currency notes from the waste bin which contained only currency notes. Ultimately M.O5 currency notes were recovered by the trap party from the waste bin. It is contended that the fact that the accused kept
M.O-5 currency notes in his pant pocket till after rinsing of his hands in sodium carbonate solution, shows that the theory put forward by the accused in his instantaneous explanation is false. Irrespective of truth or falsity of the explanation offered by the accused for possession of the tainted currency notes with him, it is for the prosecution to prove that there was demand for bribe and acceptance of bribe by the accused for doing an official favour. As per evidence of P.W-1, it was one Ramudu who is stated to have made a demand for bribe of Rs.500/-. P.W-1 did not speak to the accused making any demand for bribe. There is no other evidence to show that the accused made any demand for bribe either on the date of trap or on any other previous dates. Evidence of P.W-1 with regard to handing over of M.O-5 tainted cash to the accused, also does not amount to acceptance of any bribe by the accused. According to P.W-1, he thrusted the amount firstly into hand of the accused and thereafter into right side pant pocket of the accused. D.W-1 who is said to be one of the persons present in the office room of the accused at the time of thrusting of money by P.W-1 into pocket of the accused, corroborates the version stated by P.W-1 during trial. In the light of the above state of evidence of the prosecution, it cannot be said that mere recovery of the tainted cash from possession of the accused amounts to any offences for which the charges were framed against the accused. In the absence of proof of demand for bribe and proof of acceptance of bribe, the question of drawing presumption under Section 20(1) of the Act will not arise at all (see Banarsidas V. State of
Haryana[1] ) .
7) Ex.P-2 statement of P.W-1 recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C has no relevance herein, as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Such statement can only be used for the purpose of contradicting evidence of the maker in Court and it cannot be used to prove any part of the prosecution case. The lower Court considered the entire evidence on record and came to a right conclusion in favour of the accused. There are no grounds to come to a different conclusion in this appeal.
8) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
June 21, 2011 ksh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the recovery of tainted currency notes without proof of demand and acceptance of bribe sustains a conviction under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Whether the lower court correctly applied Section 20(1) of the Act given the lack of proof regarding demand and acceptance of bribe.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
BanarsidasReferred¶21
Banarsidas V. State of Haryana
(2010)4 Supreme Court Cases 450Referred¶27
2 provisions across 1 enactments
State : rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau
Sri R.S. Ramakrishna Rao
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
