Dismissed

The State of a.P., v. T.Kabir Das Goud

Telangana HC31 Dec 2012CRLA/1773/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal appeal by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the acquittal of an accused officer under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellate court held that the trial court's finding of acquittal was based on evidence and supported by valid reasons, and thus did not call for interference.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau is dismissed.

The State of a.P., Vs T.Kabir Das Goud — Corruption | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773 OF 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. … Appellant V/s. T. Kabir Das Goud, Formerly Asst. Engineer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Qutubullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. … Respondent

¶8

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri B. Thimma Reddy Standing Counsel for ACB Cases Counsel for the Respondent : Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy

¶9

The Court made the following : [Judgment follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶10

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773 OF 2005

¶11

J U D G M E N T :

¶12

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the judgment dated 08-09-2005 passed by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, vide Govt.Memo.No. 624/Vig.I/2003-6, dated 08-09-2005 in CC.No. 11 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the respondent-accused officer T. Kabir Das Goud was acquitted of the charges under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) (I) (II) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶13

2. Heard Sri B. Thimma Reddy, the learned standing counsel for ACB and Smt.D.Sangeetha Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused officer.

¶14

3. The brief facts of the case according to the prosecution are the following :

¶15

PW-1 was a contractor and he executed the work of laying

¶16

road from Miyapur PWD Road to Bowrampalli village. The

¶17

respondent T.Kabir Das Goud was the Assistant Engineer, who was supervising the work regarding the measurement and preparing the first part final bill. The first part final bill was paid to PW-1 on 11-11-1993. It is said that while preparing the said bill, the respondent demanded an amount of Rs.3232=00 being 10% of the final bill amount of Rs.32,320/- from PW-1. PW-1, who was not willing to pay the amount of bribe demanded by the respondent, approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau and laid a report against the respondent. On the strength of the said report, a case in Crime No.12/ACB-HR/1993 was registered on 22-11-1993 and was investigated into. In the course of investigation, a trap was laid on 22-11-1993 at 03:45 p.m., in the course of which, the respondent allegedly accepted the tainted amount of Rs.3232/- from PW-1 in the presence of PW-2 accompanying witness and consequently trapped by the raiding party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau. The chemical test conducted on the fingers of the respondent and the inner lining of his pant pocket yielded positive result and the tainted amount was recovered from the respondent as he picked up from his pant pocket and

¶18

produced before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, AntiCorruption Bureau, when he was asked about the tainted amount.

¶19

4. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the respondent examined PWs 1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-18 besides MOs 1 to 8. On behalf of the defence, DW-1 was examined and Ex.D-1 was marked.

¶20

5. Before the trial court, PW-1 the defacto complainant and PW-2 the accompanying witness did not support the prosecution version. The only thing remained to be considered before the trial court was that the alleged recovery of tainted amount of Rs.3232/- and the chemical test yielding positive result. The learned trial Court, however, as the main witnesses did not support the prosecution story and also considering the other circumstances acquitted the respondent of the charges under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) (I) (II) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶21

6. The point for consideration therefore in this appeal is whether there are any valid grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court.

¶22

7. PW-1 in his evidence stated before the trial court that

¶23

on the advise of one of his colleague, Mr. Prakash Reddy contractor he approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau and lodged a complaint against the respondent so that the Anti-Corruption Bureau would get the final bill done. He approached the AntiCorruption Bureau on 16-11-1993 and met the Deputy Superintendent of Police and as the Deputy Superintendent of Police and told him that the MDO and respondent were stating to him that funds were not available for the final bill and when the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked him to give a complaint against the respondent, he gave a complaint. Thus, he gave explanation in his evidence in the chief examination itself as to why he gave a complaint against the respondent.

¶24

8. As regards the trap also, he did not support the prosecution version. He stated in his evidence that after entering into the office of the respondent, he found the respondent at his table then he kept the tainted currency amount in his shirt pocket and caught his hand, pleaded to some how arrange funds for the final bill. Immediately thereafter according to him the AntiCorruption Bureau officials came in and asked him to go out of the room of the respondent. PW-2 the accompanying witness

¶25

also did not state that the respondent received the tainted amount from PW-1. His version is also to the effect that PW-1 thrusted the currency notes into the shirt pocket of the respondent and caught hold of his hand and pleaded for getting the funds for the final bill. According to him, soon after he went outside and gave pre-arranged signal and the raiding party rushed in. Thus, these two principal witnesses for the prosecution did not support the prosecution story in any respect.

¶26

9. PW-3 one of the mediators, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Office of CECDO Hyderabad stated in his evidence that on the date of alleged report lodged by PW-1, the bill was paid to PW-1 for the entire work he executed and for the remaining work permission had to be obtained from the Executive Engineer. Thus, according to this witness on the crucial date, no official favour was pending with the respondent. PW-3 one of the mediators stated in his evidence in the chief examination that in the first instance money was recovered from the respondent and then the chemical test was conducted on his fingers. Though it was sought to be explained by the prosecution in the re-examination, the fact remains that in the chief

¶27

examination that he stated after the recovery was made the chemical test was conducted. Therefore, the chemical test yielding positive in the instant case is of no avail for the prosecution. PWs 3, 4 and 8 stated in their evidence that the respondent spontaneously offered the explanation to the effect that he did not receive any amount from PW-1 but PW-2 thrusted the tainted amount into his shirt pocket.

¶28

10. Considering all these facts, the learned trial court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution in this case failed to establish the guilt of the respondent and consequently acquitted him of the charges under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) (I) (II) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court will interfere only when the findings of the trial court are perverse or not based on evidence. Merely because a different view is possible, the appellate court is not supposed to upset the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Since in the instant case, the order of acquittal recorded is based on the evidence on record

¶29

and the decision of the learned trial court being supported by valid reasons it does not call for any

¶30

interference in the present appeal.

¶31

11. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the acquittal fails and the

¶32

same is dismissed.

¶33

_____________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO.

¶34

31/12/2012 I s L

¶35

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶36

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1773 OF 2005

¶37

CIRCULATION No. 96 Date:31/12/2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43

The State of a.P., v. T.Kabir Das Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of a.P., v. T.Kabir Das Goud

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

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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Geddam Veeraswamy

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Mohd. Saleem

D.Sudharshan, Vs Anti Corruption Bureau

Dr. M.E.a.Askari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Koorapati Yesudas, Vs State, rep. by the Inspector of Police