Court allowed criminal appeal against conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act. Held that prosecution failed to prove voluntary acceptance of bribe due to witness contradictions regarding receipt of money, barring presumption under Section 20.
Conviction and sentence set aside; fine, if paid, refunded.
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 ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1744 OF 2005
Between :
T. Venkateshwarlu … Appellant-A1 V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Inspector of Police Anti-Corruption Bureau, Kunrool Range, Kurnool through Spl.Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases, High Court of A.P.Hyderabad … Respondent-Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri R.Balakrishna Rao Sri A.Viswanath Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Gani-a-Musa Spl.Public Prosecutor &
Standing Counsel for ACB
The Court made the following : [Judgment follows] `
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1744 OF 2005
J U D G M E N T :
This criminal appeal is filed by the first accused against the judgment dated 07-11-2005 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in CC.No. 2 of 2000.
2. Sri T.Venkateshwarlu, the appellant [A-1] herein who worked as Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry, Adoni Division, Kurnool district, and Sri K.Kamalakara Reddy, who worked as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Madira-3, Adoni Mandal were tried by the trial court for the offences under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 34 IPC. A-2 died during the pendency of the trial before the court below. A-1 was ultimately convicted by the learned trial court for the offences under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988 [for short “The Act”], was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period
of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. A-1 was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with section 34 IPC.
3. Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the first accused preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard Sri T.Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri R.Balakrishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-A1 and Sri Gani-a-Musa, the learned Special Public Prosecutor and Standing Counsel for ACB Cases.
5. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows:
PWs 1 and 2 and some other persons mediators belonging to Pesalabanda village of Adoni Mandal, Kurnool district were rearing sheep. They formed into a society; namely, Sri Veerabrahmendra Swamy Sheep Breeders Co-operative Society. They got the society temporarily registered, for which PW-1 was the President. Subsequently they wanted to get the society registered on permanent
basis and for the said purpose they approached the appellant-first accused, who was the Assistant Director of Animal and Husbandry, Adoni to sign the necessary forms. It is said that in that connection, the appellant-A1 demanded from PWs 1 and 2 an amount of Rs.500/despite their expressing inability to pay the amount, he reiterated his demand and ultimately asked them to pay the amount within three days. PWs 1 and 2 who were not willing to pay the amount, approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau and orally reported against the appellant-A1. The statement of PW-1, which was given orally was reduced to writing by the Inspector of Police [PW-9] and on the strength of the said statement, a case in Crime No.8/ACB-KUR/98 was registered under sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 34 IPC. Thereafter, PW8 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap on 1609-1998 at 01:00 p.m. During the course of which on the instructions of the appellant [A-1], A-2 allegedly received an amount of Rs.500/from PW-1 as bribe for signing the society registration papers. Subsequently on the pre-arranged signal given by PW-2, the raiding party rushed in, chemical test conducted on the fingers of A-2 yielded positive result and an amount of Rs.500/- was recovered from A-2.
6. To prove the aforesaid allegations, the prosecution in the course of the trial before the court below, examined PWs-1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P-14. On behalf of the appellant-A1, DWs 1 to 6 were examined besides marking Exs. D-1 to D-11 and MOs-1 to 10.
7. The point for determination in the present appeal is “whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant [A-1] can be sustained ?”
8. Sri T. Balireddy, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri R.Balakrishna Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant [A-1] contended that there are so many material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the version of PWs 1 and 2, their evidence if considered in its entirety would show that A-2 did not receive the tainted amount from PW-1 but PW-1 thrusted the amount into the pocket of A-2. Further the learned Senior Counsel argued that there was no demand either by A-1 or A-2 to pay the amount and therefore according to the learned Senior Counsel, the learned trial court had fallen into error in convicting the appellant [A-1] for the offence under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 34 IPC.
9. On the other hand, Sri Gani-a-Musa, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor and Standing Counsel for ACB would contend that
even though PWs 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case in all respects, the learned trial court rightly considered their evidence and drew inference that A-2 received the tainted amount from PW-1 on the instructions of A-1 and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court do not call for any interference in this appeal.
10. PWs 1 and 2 are the crucial witnesses in this case. According to the prosecution both of them approached PW-1 on 1409-1998 and the appellant [A-1] demanded an amount of Rs.500/from them as illegal gratification for signing the society registration papers. Further the case of the prosecution is that on the date of alleged trap i.e., 16-9-1998 when both of them approached the appellant [A-1], he instructed them to pay the bribe amount to A-2 and on his instructions A-2 received the amount from PW-1. But PWs 1 and 2 did not fully support the prosecution version in the course of their evidence before the trial court. PW-1 stated in his deposition before the trial court that on the date of trap when he and PW-2 went to the appellant and asked him to sign the society registration papers he told them to go to A-2, who was present at the varandah of Veterinary Hospital. Then according to him, both of them met A-2, thereafter the appellant and A-2 talked to each other in English, A-2 came out of the room took them towards shed in the hospital
premises from there to the room of A-1 and there A-1 signed on the papers, the appellant asked him to pay Rs.500/- to A-2 but he refused to receive the amount and then he [PW-1] forcibly kept the amount in his shirt pocket.
11. PW-2 however gave a different version. He stated in his chief examination that when he and PW-1 went inside the room of the appellant, he asked them to pay the amount to A-2, they came out. PW-1 gave the amount to A-2. A-2 received the amount and kept the same in his shirt pocket and then he came out and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party. This witness gave a different version in the cross-examination. He stated in the cross-examination that A-2 informed that he was transferred and he came there to receive the transfer order. PW-2 also stated further that when PW-1 offered the amount to A-2, A-2 questioned him as to why he was giving money, he never demanded any money and thereafter PW-1 forcibly kept the amount in the shirt pocket of A-2.
12. When the ambiguity was sought to be clarified in the re-examination, PW-1 specifically and clearly stated that his version PW-1 kept the amount in the shirt pocket of A-2 is correct. Therefore, ultimately PW-2 confined his version to the fact that A-2 did not receive the amount from PW-1 but PW-1 kept the
amount in the shirt pocket of A-2. Thus, as to the manner of A-2 coming in the possession of the tainted amount, the version of PWs 1 and 2 is at variance. They gave inconsistent versions. Ultimately both the witnesses confined to the point that A-2 did not receive the tainted amount from PW-1 but PW-1 thrusted the amount into the shirt pocket of A-2 when A-2 refused to receive the amount.
13. It is pertinent to notice in this case that there is no evidence showing that the appellant demanded bribe from PW-1 or PW-2 on the date of trap. The version of these witnesses only reveals that he directed them to pay the amount to A-2. The prosecution version is that on the instructions of A-1, A-2 received the amount from PW-1 but PWs 1 and 2 did not support the version in the course of their version before the trial court. Their version is that A-2 refused to receive the amount andthen PW-1 thrusted the amount into the shirt pocket.
14. The trial court would be justified in drawing the presumption under section 20 of the Act if the prosecution proves that either of the accused has voluntarily accepted or agreed to accept the tainted amount from PWs 1 and 2. If the evidence is inconsistent on
the point relating to receipt of the tainted amount by A-2 then the trial court would not be justified in drawing the presumption against A-1
under section 20 of the Act. In the instant case, the trial court had drawn the inference of guilt against A-1 assuming that the prosecution succeeded in establishing that A-2 received the tainted amount from PW-1. But when the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is subjected to thorough scrutiny ultimately their version appears to be that when PW-1 offered the tainted amount to A-2, he refused and then PW-1 thrusted the amount into the shirt pocket. From the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, therefore, I am of the considered view that in the instant case, the prosecution could not be able to establish that A-1 or A-2 either accepted or agreed to accept voluntarily the tainted amount from PW-1 in which event it is not appropriate on the part of the trial court to draw presumption envisaged under section 20 of the Act against A-1. Since according to the prosecution even he did not receive the amount from PW-1, the chemical test conducted on the fingers of A-2 yielding positive result is inconsequential. The prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused by fully establishing the circumstances. If any link is missing the reasonable doubt enures to the benefit of the accused. In the instant case, since the prosecution is not able to prove that A-2 received the tainted amount from PW-1, I am of the considered view that no presumption under section 20 of the Act can be drawn against the appellant-A1.
The learned trial court, therefore, in my view had fallen into error in drawing the inference of guilt against A-1 and convicting him for the offence under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with section 34 IPC.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence
passed by the trial court against the appellant-A1 are set aside. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.
The criminal appeal is allowed.
------------------------------------------JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
27/12/2012. I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1744 OF 2005
CIRCULATION No. 229 Date: 27/12/2012
Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43
3 issues framed by the court
whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant can be sustained
whether the prosecution could establish that the accused accepted or agreed to accept the tainted amount under section 20 of the Act
whether evidence inconsistencies preclude drawing presumption of guilt under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
2 provisions across 1 enactments
t. venkateshwarlu
the state of andhra pradesh
r. kantha rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
