Partly allowed

A.Sreeramulu, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC26 Dec 2012CRLA/1680/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these criminal appeals, the court examined charges of bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act against two engineers. The appeal by the Assistant Engineer was allowed with acquittal due to lack of evidence proving his knowledge of the bribe. The appeal by the Deputy Executive Engineer was dismissed, confirming his conviction.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence of the appellant/Assistant Engineer set aside and he is acquitted. Conviction and sentence of the appellant/Deputy Executive Engineer confirmed.

A.Sreeramulu, Vs The State of A.P. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

CRL.A.NOs. 1660 and 1680 OF 2005

¶3

DATE: 26.12.2012

¶4

CRL.A.NO.1660 OF 2005

¶5

BETWEEN:
B.Chittibabu	.. Appellant/A2
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Spl.Public Prosecutor	.. Respondent
CRL.A.NO.1680 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
A.Sreeramulu	.. Appellant/A1
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Spl.Public Prosecutor	.. Respondent

¶6

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶7

CRL.A.NOs. 1660 and 1680 OF 2005

¶8

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶9

Criminal Appeal No.1680 of 2005 is filed by the Accused No.1 and Criminal Appeal No.1660 of 2005 is filed by the Accused No.2 against the judgment dated 22.10.2005 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in C.C.No.13 of 1995.

¶10

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the ACB/respondent/State.

¶11

3. A1, the Deputy Executive Engineer and A2, the Assistant Engineer in Endowments Department were tried for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short ‘the Act’) by the learned trial Court on the allegation that they demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.10,000/from PW.1, the contractor.

¶12

4. The brief facts of the case are that there was a Ganesh Temple i n Rudram Village in Medak District and it was in a dilapidated condition. There was a proposal for renovation of the said temple and the tenders were called for, for the purpose of reconstruction of the temple. PW1, a contractor who was found to be the lowest bidder was

¶13

given the contract work of reconstruction of the Ganesh Temple in Rudram.

¶14

5. According to the prosecution, the construction work had to be supervised by A1, the Deputy Executive Engineer and A2, the Assistant Engineer in the Endowment Department. It was only on their approval, the bills were to be sanctioned to PW.1, the contractor. The tender value of the work is Rs.1,99,412/-. PW.1 entered into agreement with the Chairman and the Board of Trustees as per the procedure and he was handed over the site for the purpose of reconstruction of the temple. The work had to be check measured by A1 and it is said that A1 instructed A2 to supervise the work. After completing the preliminary work, PW.1 approached A1 and asked him to check measure the work so far done and forward the same for passing of the bills. But, PW1 was made to make rounds to the office of A1 and ultimately on 13.06.1994 A1 instructed A2 to take measurements. Then A1 visited the site and took measurements. On 14.06.1994 PW.1 approached A1 and requested him for making necessary entries in the ‘M’ book. It is said that on that day A1 demanded an amount of Rs.12,000/- as bribe from PW.1. Thereafter, PW.1 was meeting A1 and expressing his inability to pay the amount. Ultimately, on 17.06.1994 A1 reduced the bribe amount from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and made it clear before PW.1 that unless the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by 20.06.1994, the bill would not be passed. PW.1, who was not willing to pay the bribe, approached the DSP, ACB, Hyderabad on 20.06.1994 at about 09.30 AM and gave a complaint. Basing on his complaint a case in RC.No.17/ACB-CR/94 was registered and a trap was laid in the afternoon of 20.06.1994. According to the prosecution, in the course of

¶15

he said trap A1 and A2 received amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1 and the chemical test conducted on them yielded positive result.

¶16

6. In order to prove the said charge, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and MOs. 1 to 7. The appellants/A1 and A2 in support of their version examined DWs.1 and 2 on their behalf.

¶17

7. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, A1 and A2 filed two separate appeals.

¶18

8. PW.1 had categorically stated in his deposition about A1 demanding bribe of Rs.12,000/- from him and finally reducing the same to Rs.10,000/- and threatening him stating that unless the said amount was paid by 20.06.1994, the bill would not be passed. He also stated in his evidence that in the course of the trap laid by PW5 - DSP ACB, PW1 went to the office of A1 sat in front of his chair and requested him to arrange his bill amount. Then it is said that A1 reiterated the demand of bribe and in response thereto PW.1 nodded his head indicating that he brought the amount and opened the rexine bag and took out the currency notes of Rs.10,000/- and gave them to A1 and he received the amount with his right hand and kept the amount in his right side table drawer. Subsequently, according to PW.1, A1 called PW2, the attender by ringing the bell and told him to get A2. PW.2 brought A2, then A1 opened the right side table drawer, took out some currency notes and gave them to A2. Thereafter, PW.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal, on receipt of which, the raiding party rushed in and the currency notes were recovered from the table drawer of A1 and also from the table drawer in the anti room of the chamber of A1 allegedly at the instance of A1 and A2.

¶19

9. PW.2, the attender in the office of A1 stated in his evidence before the trial Court that on 20.06.1994 at about 12 noon PW.1 came to their office and went to the chamber of A1 and both of them were talking to each other for some time, A1 rang the bell and he went inside the chamber and A1 asked him to get A2. According to him, he went and informed A2 and brought him into the chambers of A1. He also further deposed that while he was waiting outside the chambers of A1 about 5 or 10 minutes later some people came there.

¶20

10. PW.3, the mediator stated in his evidence about the seizure of currency notes from the drawer of A1’s table and also from the table in the anti room of the chambers of A1. He also spoke about phenolphthalein sodium carbonate reaction test conducted yield positive result on the fingers of A1 and A2 when subjected to the said test. The evidence of PW.5, DSP, ACB is also to the same effect.

¶21

11. The defence version is that PW.1 completed the work up to basement level and while doing the basement work, he used the dismantled material of the temple, for that A1 objected and insisted on him to remove the dismantled material and construct the basement by using fresh material and using the cement in correct proportions. For this reason, according to the accused, PW.1 developed grouse against the accused and lodged a false report.

¶22

12. Further, according to the accused owing to his grudge against A1, PW.1 himself planted the currency notes in the table drawer of A1 in his chambers, but in fact A1 did not receive any amount from PW.1.

¶23

13. To substantiate the said version, the accused examined DWs.1 and 2. DW.1 is a Shilpi contractor, who stated in his evidence that on

¶24

20.06.1994 at 02.30 PM he and Chenna Kesavulu went to the office of the accused, by then, A1 was not available and he was yet to come to the office. They sat in the chambers of A1 by which time already PW.1 was there sitting on a chair. Some time thereafter, PW.1 came into the chambers and meddled with the AO’s table top drawer. At that time, according to DW.1, the attender came there and questioned PW.1 as to what was he doing and why was he meddling with the drawer of the table of A1.

¶25

14. The version of DW-1 is not convincing and the attender, who was examined as PW.2 did not support the version of DW.1. He did not state in his deposition before the trial Court about his observing PW.1 meddling with the table drawer of A1. Further, the very theory put-forth by the defence that PW.1, a contractor entering into the chambers of A1, the Deputy Executive Engineer and meddling with the table drawer does not seen to be acceptable and it appears to have been invented by the appellants.

¶26

15. DW.2 was a teacher in ZPP School, Pothireddypally at relevant time. He stated in his evidence before the Court that on 05.06.1994 he and some others found A1 cautioning PW.1 for using dismantled material for construction of foundation and also for not mixing up the exact proportion of cement in reconstruction work of the temple. He also stated that A1 directed PW.1 to remove the said basement raised and to construct it by mixing the cement in correct proportions.

¶27

16. PW.7, the Chairman of the temple did not support the version of DW.2. In fact being a trust board Chairman, if there were any misunderstandings between PW.1 and A1, PW.7 must be knowing about them, but according to PW.1 no such information which has

¶28

been spoken to by DW.2 came to his notice while PW.1 was engaged in reconstruction work of the Ganesh temple in Rudram. Therefore, the evidence adduced by the accused by examining DWs.1 and 2 does not inspire any confidence and basing on their evidence, it is not possible to accept the defence theory that PW.1 falsely involved the accused in a graft charge on account of his differences with A1 while the construction work of the temple was in progress.

¶29

17. Insofar as A1 is concerned the evidence of PW.1 clearly shows that he directly demanded bribe from PW.1 and received the same from him in the course of the trap laid on 20.06.1994. But, even if the entire evidence of PW.1 is believed it only shows that out of the amount A1 received from PW.1, he gave some amount to A2 after calling him to his chambers and A2 received the same. Even considering the entire version of PW.1 as true, the said version does not establish that A2 received the amount from A1 knowing to be bribe. The version merely shows that A1 called A2 to the chambers and gave him some amount. By the act of mere receiving amount from A1, it is not possible to hold that A2 voluntarily received the said amount knowing it as given towards illegal gratification. Therefore, the trial Court, in my view erred in convicting A2 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside in the appeal i.e. Crl.A.No.1660 of 2005 filed by A2.

¶30

18. Insofar as A1, there is enough and convincing evidence showing that he demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- from PW.1 for doing official favour and accepted the same voluntarily on 20.06.1994 from him and the evidence also clearly establishes that the chemical test conducted on his fingers found to be positive. The evidence further

¶31

discloses that the tainted amount was recovered from the table drawer of A1 in his chambers at his instance. The learned trial Court therefore, is right in convicting A1 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence passed against A1 does not call for any interference in Crl.A.No.1680 of 2005.

¶32

19. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in C.C.No.13 of 1995 against the appellant/A2 in Crl.A.No.1660 of 2005 are set aside and the appellant/A2 is found not guilty of the charges with which he stood charged and accordingly, he is acquitted. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/A2 shall be refunded to him. The appeal i.e. Crl.A.No.1660 of 2005 is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad in C.C.No.13 of 1995 against the appellant/A1 in Crl.A.No.1680 of 2005 are confirmed and the appeal i.e. Crl.A.No.1680 of 2005 is dismissed.

¶33

_________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J

¶34

Date: 26.12.2012 Kvrm

¶35

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶36

CRL.A.NOs. 1660 and 1680 OF 2005

¶37

DATE: 26.12.2012

A.Sreeramulu, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sreeramulu, v. The State of A.P.

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

Thota Seetamalakshmi, (A-2), Vs K.v.Jyothi Prasuna

State, Vs G.Krishna Murthy

Sri Dl-ta Seetha Ramalingeswara Sarma, (D.S.R.L.Sarma) Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Spl. Public Prosecutor

B.Chitti Babu, Vs The State Acb, City Range, Rep.by its Special

T.Venkateshwarlu, Vs The State of A.P.

G.Laxminarayana Murthy Vs The State of A.P.