Dismissed

State rep. by Inspector of Police, v. Sri.K.v.Subba Rao

Telangana HC23 Jun 2011CRLA/1568/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal by the State against an acquittal for corruption offenses, the High Court held that there was no proof of official favor pending and the prosecution evidence regarding bribe demand was unreliable. The Court affirmed the lower Court's finding of not guilty and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the State was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vs Sri.K.v.Subba Rao — Corruption | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1568 of 2004

¶4

DATE:23.06.2011

¶5

Between:

¶6

State: rep. by Inspector of Police Anti-Corruption Bureau, Visakhapatnam

And

K.V.Subba Rao

…..Respondent

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶11

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1568 of 2004

¶12

JUDGMENT :

¶13

The accused/respondent was working as Village Administrative Officer of Thunivalsa group of villages, Padmanabham Mandal of Visakhapatnam District. The Special Judge for A.C.B cases, Visakhapatnam by judgment dated 11.12.2003 in C.C. No.37 of 2000 (old C.C. No.15 of 1995) acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act). Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. It is the prosecution case that P.W-1 occupied hill side poramboke in Narsapuram village in an extent of Ac.300 in S.No.74 and was cultivating the same since 20 years prior

¶14

to the year 1994 and that P.W-1 made application for grant of D- form patta for the said land and that on 25.04.1994 the accused went to P.W-1’s village and demanded Rs.200/- to him to see D- form patta is granted in his favour. Making the said allegations, P.W-1 gave Ex.P-1 report to Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B), Visakhapatnam. P.W-5, Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B, Visakhapatnam organised trap for the accused. On 30.04.1994, the trap was not successful as the accused was not available. It is alleged that on 17.06.1994 the trap was successful and the accused was caught red handed while in possession of tainted cash of Rs.200/- (M.O-7). Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found that the accused was not guilty of the charges.

¶15

2) Apart from pleading not guilty, the accused contended before the trial Court that M.O-7 tainted cash was thrusted into his pocket and that he did not demand any bribe from P.W-1. It is contended in this appeal that the accused was not the person who is competent to grant D-form patta for any land to P.W-1 and that there was no official favour pending with the accused on the date of trap. P.W-1 deposed that he submitted an application to the Joint Collector for grant of patta for Ac.3-00 of Government porambok land in S.No.74 of Narsapuram village and that the Joint Collector directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to grant patta and that he approached the accused in pursuance of the said order. P.W-3 is the then Head Clerk in Mandal Revenue Office, Padmanabham Mandal. He says that P.W-1 submitted an application to the Collector for assignment of land in S.No.74 of

¶16

Narsapuram village and that it was forwarded to their office for consideration along with Ex.P-2 letter dated 09.03.1994 and that his office issued Ex.P-3 notice to P.W-1 to appear in their office on 15.04.1994. Ex.P-4 is report sent by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Collector informing the progress. According to P.W-3, unless the accused initiates and takes steps, the application of P.W-1 cannot be considered. P.W-3 was not able to state as to in what manner initiation or steps have to be taken by the accused on the application of P.W-1. Mandal Revenue Office did not give any notice to the accused for any information or for any report. The question of taking initiation on the part of the accused may not arise because P.W-1’s application did not emanate from the bottom but was submitted to the top official in the district viz., the District Collector. There is no proof that any matter relating to assignment of land to P.W-1 was pending with the accused by the date of trap. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was official favour pending with the accused on the date of trap.

¶17

3) With regard to the demand for bribe, it is not P.W-1’s case that when he approached the accused for any official favour the accused demanded for the bribe amount. As per P.W-1’s evidence the Joint Collector directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to grant patta to him and that he approached the accused in pursuance of the said order. There is no order of the Joint Collector for grant of patta to P.W-1. It is evidence of P.W-1 that the accused stated to him that he would get the land measured

¶18

on Monday, but he did not turn up, and that five days thereafter the accused demanded Rs.200/- as bribe for issuing patta in his favour. P.W-1 could not give the date of demand or approximate time prior to giving of report when such demand was made by the accused. There is no other person present with P.W-1 when the accused is stated to have demanded bribe of Rs.200/- from P.W-1.

¶19

4) According to P.W-1, on the date of trap, he met the accused at Padmanabham junction and that the accused enquired him whether he brought the bribe amount and that the accused asked him to come to his house when P.W-1 informed him about he bringing the amount with him. P.W-2 was accompanying P.W-1 when P.W-1 met the accused at Padmanabham junction. P.W-2 did not state about the accused making enquiries with P.W-1 as to whether P.W-1 brought the bribe amount at Padmanabham junction. P.W-2 says that at Padmanabham junction P.W-1 approached the accused and he (P.W-2) followed P.W-1 and that the accused asked P.W-1 to come to his office. Except the said talk between P.W-1 and the accused, P.W-2 did not speak to any enquiry made by the accused from P.W-1 with regard to he bringing bribe amount.

¶20

5) It is evidence of P.W-1 that the accused was sitting inside his house and that he alone went inside house of the accused and P.W-2 stayed outside the house. P.W-2 also deposed that he stayed outside house of the accused and P.W-1 alone went inside. It is evidence of P.W-1 that on demand made by the

¶21

accused he gave the tainted currency amount to the accused and that the accused received the tainted currency with left hand fingers and kept it in his left side shirt pocket and that he came out and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party. There is no dispute about recovery of M.O-7 tainted cash of Rs.200/- from possession of the accused. P.W-1 in cross-examination denied the suggestion that he thrusted tainted cash of Rs.200/- into his pocket without any demand made by the accused and that he left the accused hurriedly even though the accused was calling him to stay. There is no dispute of the fact that D.W-1 was one of the persons present inside house of the accused when P.W-1 gave M.O-7 cash to the accused. D.W-1 was cited as one of the prosecution witnesses in the charge sheet as one of the persons present at the time of the accused receiving the bribe amount. It is evidence of D.W-1 that when P.W-1 asked the accused about his patta, the accused asked him to get the land measured and that the accused also informed P.W-1 about he not receiving any papers relating to patta of P.W-1 and that P.W-1 picked out a wad of currency notes and kept it in left side front shirt pocket of the accused and hurriedly left the place and that when the accused was going out to return the said amount to P.W-1 by calling P.W-1’s name, the trap party entered into house of the accused and seized M.O-7 from possession of the accused. P.W-2 also in cross-examination admitted that after coming out of house of the accused, P.W-1 informed him that he kept the tainted amount in the pocket of the accused without any demand by the accused and that even though the accused asked him to

¶22

stay, he came out. In the light of the above evidence of D.W-1 and P.W-2, evidence of P.W-1 about the accused accepting the bribe amount on demand may not stand. Having regard to the above state of evidence of the prosecution and having regard to there being no proof of pendency of official favour with the accused, the lower Court rightly disbelieved the prosecution evidence and rightly found the accused not guilty of the charges. On re-assessment of evidence in this case in this appeal, I have no hesitation to find that there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the lower Court.

¶23

6) In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶24

_______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶25

June 23, 2011 ksh

State rep. by Inspector of Police, v. Sri.K.v.Subba Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State rep. by Inspector of Police, v. Sri.K.v.Subba Rao

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

State Dy.Supdt. of Police Vs P.Ch. Satyanarayana

State Inspector of Police,Anti-Corruption Bureau Vs Sri.Upadyayula Subrahmanya Sharma

State rep by Inspector of Police Vs Sri K.Mallesham

Nunna Ravi Chandra Kishore (A-1) Vs The State of A.P.

Dasari Rajesh, Vs Gottigundala Mahesh Kumar Reddy

Nunna Ravi Chandra Kishore (A-1) Vs The State of A.P.