Allowed

Sardar Ali v. the State Acb, Rep by Acb Cases

Telangana HC8 Feb 2022CRLA/366/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction of a Sub-Inspector of Police under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe. The High Court found the demand of illegal gratification not proved: the trap witness turned hostile, the complainant's evidence was uncorroborated and no official favour pending was established. Conviction and sentence set aside, benefit of doubt given.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside; appellant set at liberty forthwith; fine, if paid, refunded; bail bonds cancelled.

Sardar Ali Vs the State Acb, Rep by Acb Cases — Corruption | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 366 OF 2007

¶7

Criminal Appeal Under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 07-03-2007 in C.C.No. 43 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sardar Ali, S/o. Shaik lmam, aged 59 years, Formerly Sub- lnspector (Crimes) (Retd), Ramachandrapuram, Police Station, Medak District, R/o. H.No. 3-2-131 , Netaji Nagar, Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

¶10

..,APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

The State ACB, City Range, Hyderabad rep.by its Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Case, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. BADETI VENKATA RATHNAM

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: T L NAYAN KUMAR^(SC -cum-SPECIAL^{P.P. FOR} ACB CASES)

¶16

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

HONOUR.\BLE SItI JUSTICE B. VUAYS[h" RITDDY

¶18

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.366 oIr 2007

¶19

.IUDGMENT:

¶20

This crirninal appeal is filed by the appellant - accused officer assailing the^judgment dated 07.03.2007 in C.C. No.43 of 2002 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge tbr SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, whereby the accused officer was convicted as he was found guilty of both the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short'PC Act'), and sentenced l.rim to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one ( I ) vear and to pay a fine ofRs.500/- for the charge under Section 7 ofthe PC Act and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonnrent tbr a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500l for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) ofthe PC Act.

¶21

The charges against the accused officer are that he being a AS public servant working Sub Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Medak District, on 10.01.2001, indulged in corrupt and illegal activities and by abusing his official

¶22

¶23

position demanded and accepted Rs. 1,000/- from the de fctcto complainant as illegal gratification other than legal rernuneration for doing official favour i.e., for not harassing and not registering a cheating case against the de facto complainant and thereby comrnitted the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act

¶24

The allegations against the accused officer are that the de facto cornplainant Mr. N. Surender gave a hand-loan of Rs.45,500/- to one Mr. D. Raja Rathnam, who is his co-worker in B.H.E.L., Raurachandrapuram, Medak District, on the condition that as soon as vehicle loan is sanctioned to him (D. Raja Rathnam), hand-loan will be repaid and to that effect the de facto cornplainant obtained a receipt dated 18.11.1999 executed by Mr. D. Raja Rathnarn. Horvever, Mr. D. Raja Rathnarn did not repay the hand-loan of the de facto complainant even after sanction of vehicle loan to him. Hence, the de facto complainant issued a legal notice (Ex.P-l) to Mr. Raja Rathnam, for which Mr. Raja Rathnam got issued reply notice dated25.12.2000 (Ex.P-2). In the first week of January, 2001, the accused officer called the defacto

¶25

complainant tfuough Seshagiri Rao, Police Constable (PW.5), to Ramachandrapuram Police Station. When the de facto complainant met the accused officer, he informed the de facto complainant that Mr. Raja Rathnam has lodged a complaint against him (de facto complainant) for creation of a false receipt of handloan by him though no hand-loan has been extended to Mr. Raja Rathnam. The de facto complainant had shown original receipt of the hand-loan to the accused officer, narrated entire facts and informed him that he wants to settle the matter in the Court of Law since it is of a civil nature. Then the accused officer dernanded the de facto complainant to pay Rs. 1,500/- and to give two 'Rednight' whisky bottles as bribe for not interfering and harassing him in his legal efforts to recover the amount from Mr. Raja Rathnam.

¶26

(a) On 08.01.2001, Ir4r. Seshagiri Rao, Police Constable (PW.5), again came to the house of the de facto complainant and infbrmed him that the accused officer wanted to see him. Accordingly, the de facto complainant went to Rarnachandrapuram Police Station and met the accused officer. Then again, the accused officer reiterated his earlier demand of money, whisky

¶27

¶28

bottles and also two kilograms of cooked chicken and instructed the de facto cornplainant to bring the same to the out-house of BHEL Quarters of Ramachandrapuram Police Station on 10.01.2001 at 6.00 p.m. The de facto complainant expressed^his inability to fulfil the demand of the accused officer.^{Then, the} accused officer reduced his demand to pay cash of Rs.1,000/-^and one whisky bottle as bribe by 10.01.2001 evening,^{and threatened} the de facto cornplainant tl.rat unless he fulfills his dernand,^{he rvill} harass him by registering a cheatir-rg case against hirn on^the complaint given by Mr. Raja Rathnam and will not allow^{him to} proceed further legally against Mr. Raja Rathnarn.

¶29

(b) Not willing to pay the bribe demanded by the accused officer, the de facto complainant has lodged a complaint^against him to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range, Hyderabad (PW.g), who registered Crime No.1/ACB-CR/2001 on 10.01.2001 and investigated into.

¶30

(c) Durir.rg investigatior.r, the investigating officer secured sewices of Mr. S. Subrahmanyam^(PW.6), Senior Assistant,^office

¶31

of the Commissioner and Directorate of Agriculture Department, Hyderabad and Mr. A. Siddaiah Naidu (pW.8), Assistant Statistician, to act as mediators and trap was laid on 10.01.2001 at about 8.25 p.m. in the premises of Ramachandrapuram police Station against the accused officer.

¶32

(d) The sodium carbonate solution test conducted on the fingers of the accused officer yielded positive result and at the instance of the accused officer, tainted amount of Rs. 1 ,000/- was recovered from the soil (ground) on the side of park way to the main entrance of the police station as the accused officer threw it away on the way whiie coming along with the trap party into the inspector's room after the trap, and the same was seized.

¶33

(.) The investigating officer recorded statements of witnesses and collected all the material records relatins to the case. Tlre statement of the de facto complainant under Section 1 64 ol the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr..P.C.') \'ats recorded and charge sheet was laid against the accused olJlcer fbr

¶34

¶35

the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1Xd) read^with Section 13(2) ofthe PC Act.

¶36

4 The prosecution has examined PWs.l to^{10 and marked} Exs.P-l to P-18 documents and^{alsomaterial objects MOs'1 to 9.} No oral or documentary evidence^{was adduced on behalfof the} accused officer.

¶37

The de facto complainant^{who was examinedas PW. I} deposed that he has advanced a^{hand-loanof Rs.45,500/-to} Mr. Raja Rathnarn in the year 1999 and^{since he did not repaythe} hand-loan, he got issued legal notice^{in Ex.P-1 dated20'12.2000 to} him who in turn got issued reply^{notice underEx.P-2 dated} 25.12.2000. Mr. Seshagiri Rao^{(PW.5), Police Constable,} Ramachandrapuram Police Station,^{cameto him and informedthat} the accused officer was calling him^{in the matterof Mr. Raja} Rathnam. PW.l has shown original^{receipt executed by Mr. Raja} Rathnam. The accused officer^{informed PW.l that Mr. Raja} Rathnam complained against him stating^{that he has committed} fraud and he (accused officer)^{would take stringent actionagainst}

¶38

¶39

him (PW. 1) and asked him to compromise the matter with Mr. Raja Rathnam. In the said context, the accused officer has demanded PW.1 to give Rs. 1,500/- and two Rednight whisky botrles. Later, again on 08.01.2001, on the request of lr4r.. Seshagiri Rao, police Constable (PW.5), PW.1 went ro the accused officer.at Ramachandrapuram Police Station. Then the accused officer reiterated his demand to pay bribe and whisky bottles and also asked to bring two kilograms of chicken fry. When pW.l has expressed his inability to give the demanded bribe, the accused offrcer has reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,000/- and to bring one Rednight whisky bottle instead oftwo bottles. The accused officer did not reiterate his demand for chicken fry. PW. I has accepted ro pay the reduced bribe amount and one whisky bottle.

¶40

On 10.01.2001, PW.l has lodged complaint with the DSP, ACB, City Range under Ex.P-3. On the instructions of the DSP, PW. I went to the office of the DSP along with the proposed bribe amount and one whisky bottle and gave them to the DSp. The DSP gave bribe amount to the mediators. The mediators have noted down serial numbers of currency notes and signed on the

¶41

¶42

whisky bottle. The DSp instructed one of the mediators to accompany PW.l to the accused officer and to observe what transpires between them. After concluding pre-trap proceedings at about 5.15 or 6. 15 p.m., all the trap parly members proceeded to Ramachandrapuram Police Station in the Govemment Vehicles and stopped their vehicles near a bus stand nearby the Ramachandrapuram police Station. When pW. 1 was proceeding towards the police station, he saw the accused officer coming out of the police station and approached him, On seeing pW.l, the accused officer asked him whether he brought Rs.1,000/- and Rednight whisky bottle, for which, he answered affimatively and gave Rs. 1,000/- to the accused ofhcer who received the same with his right hand and kept the sarne in his backside pant pocket.

¶43

In the cross-examination of pW. 1 by the defence counsel, PW. t has stated that a complaint was lodged against him at Ramachandrapuram police Station alleging that he has forged signature of one Mallesharn and took loan of Rs.20,000/_ from the society. PW.1 has lodged a complaint against one yadagiri Reddy, Police Constable of Ramachandrapuram police Station to the DSp,

¶44

¶45

ACB, City Range,^{on 21.03.1991in corLnection with the alleged} forgery. PW.1^{did not state beforethe leamed Magistrate about} execution of^{receiptby Mr' Raja Rathnam and also handing over} the same to the^{accusedofficer. He did not know as to how much} amount was obtained^{by Mr. Raja Rathnam from the bankas} vehicle loan and whether^{he received a chequefor Rs'39,400/-} from the bank. PW'l^{deniedsuggestionthat the accusedoffrcer} did not demand^{and accepttainted amount from him and he did not} count and keep^{the samein his pocket. However,PW 1 has stated} thatwhiskybottlewasseizedbytheACBofficialswhileitwasin his (PW.1)^{hands. The learned Special PublicProsecutor treated} PW.lashostilewitnessandconfrontedhisver.sionrecordedunder Sections 164^{and 161 of Cr.P.C.The suggestion of the learned} Special Public^{Prosecutor that to accommodate the accusedofficer'} he twisted the^{fact to someextent was deniedby PW' 1' Ex'P-4is} such porlion^{recorded under Sections161 of Cr'P'C'}

¶46

PW.2 is the^{Assistant Sub Inspector of Police'} Ramachandrapuram^{Police Station at the relevant point of time'} Hestatedthattheaccusedofficersatonhisscooteraspillionrider

¶47

¶48

on 10.01.2001 at about^{8.30 p.m. and while he was aboutto statl} his scooter, PW.1 spoke^{to the accused officerand shook his hands} with the accused officer.^{At this point of time, the learnedSpecial} Public Prosecutor^{declared PW.2 as hostile.In the cross-} examination of PW.2 by^{the Special Public Prosecutor, PW'2} denied the suggestion^{that he statedthathe was not present when} the post trap^{proceedings were written at Ramachandrapuram} Police Station and the^{DSP did not examine and recordhis version} in the post-trap^{proceedings.In the cross-examinationof PW'2 by} the leamed counsel for^{the accusedofficer,PW.2statedthat when} himself and the accused^{officerwere proceedingon the scooter,} PW.l stopped them and^{requestedthe accusedofficer to settle his} matter with Mr. Raja^{Rathnamand the accused officer advised him} to cornpromise the^{matter with Mr. Raja Rathnam directly'PW'1} requested help of the^{accusedofficer by holding his hands and} subsequently while himsell^{and the accusedofficer were} proceeding on the scooter,^{they were intercepted by the ACB} offrcials. In the further^{cross-examination by the Special Public}

¶49

¶50

Prosecutor, PW.2 denied the suggestion that he deposed to help the accused officer.

¶51

PW.3 is the Head Constable, Special Branch, attached to Ramachandrapuram Police Station, Medak District. He deposed that on 10.01.2001 at about 8.15 p.m., while he was standing near the sentry point of Ramachandrapuram Police Station, the accused officer was standing near to him. Then, one Constable Mr. Raghava Chary came and informed the accused officer that somebody came for him and on hearing the same, the accused officer left the place and proceeded towards entrance gate of the police station and that his version was not recorded during posttrap proceedings and he was not examined by the ACB officials. At this point of time, PW.3 was declared hostile.

¶52

PW.4 is another hostile witness. He deposed that he was not examined by the ACB officials. At this point of time, he was declared as hostile.

¶53

PW.5 Mr. Seshagiri Rao, Police Constable, Ramachandrapr-rrarn Police Station, also deposed that he was not

¶54

¶55

examined by the ACB^{officials. At this point of time,he was also} declaled as hostile.

¶56

PW.6 is S. Subrahmanyam.^{He is a mediator'} He deposed that he^{accompaniedPW.1 as instructedby the DSP,} ACB, who instructed^{him to observewhat transpires between PW' I} and the accused officer.^{The pre-trap proceedings were reduced} into writing by LW.8^{Siddaiah Naidu, mediator. Ex.P-8is the said} pre-trap proceedings dated^{10.01.2001'MOs. tand 2 are the} samples of^{phenolphthalein powderand sodiumcarbonatepowder} used in the^{pre-trap proceedings.Subsequently,PW'1,DSP,} himsell another mediator^{(LW.8) and other trap party members} proceeded to Ramachandrapuram^{Police. Station, Medak District} and reached there^{at about 8.15 p'm. Himself (PW'6) and other} trap party members^{saw PW'1tenderingsome currencynotes to the} accused officer and^{the accused officer receivingthe same with his} right hand and keeping^{them in his pant right hip pocket. PW'l} relayed pre-arranged^{signal and on receivingthe saidsignal,} himself, DSP and other^{trap parly rnembersrushed into the main} gate of the police station. By^{that tirne, the accusedofficer as}

¶57

¶58

pillion rider and another person riding a scooter were coming out of the police station on a scooter. The DSP stopped the said scooter at the entrance gate of the police station, disclosed his identity to the accused officer and also asceftained identitv of the accused officer.

¶59

(a) The DSP got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two

¶60

glass tumblers and asked the accused officer to rinse his both hand fingers separately, and when the accused officer rinsed his right hand fingers, the solution tumed into pink colour and the solution of left hand fingers turned into light pink colour. Then the DSp asked the accused officer as to where he kept the amount received from PW.l; accused officer informed that he threrv arvay the curency notes in the police station compound while he was being brought into the poiice station room. Then the accused officer took the DSP, himself (PW.6) and another mediator to the place where he threw the amount. They found amount lying on the ground The accused officer picked up the currency notes ll'onr the ground and again went into the inspector's room. The trap palty members verified serial numbers of the currency notes picked Lrp b1.. the

¶61

¶62

accused officel and found the same tallied^{with that} of^{the serial} numbers of the currency notes described in the^pre-trap proceedings.

¶63

(b) MOs.3 to 5 are resultant solutions of right hand,^left hand and inner flap ofthe pant hip^{pocketoftheaccused officer.}

¶64

PW.7 is D. Manohar,^{who workedas AssistantSection} Officer in l-Ior.ne^(SC-A) Depaftrnent,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad at the} relevant point of time. He^{rvas examinedto prove sanction order} (Ex.P-13) vide G.O. Ms. No.167, Horne (SC-A) Department, dated I 3.06.2002, issued by the Govemment^{for prosecuting the accused} otficer.

¶65

PW.8 - M. Ram Prasad Rao is the^{Inspector of Police,} B.H.E.L., Ramachandrapuram Police Station^{of Medak Districtat} the relevant point of time. He stated^{that on 10.01.2001at about} 8.30 or 8.35 p.m., the DSP ACB, his staff^{accompanied by the} mediators and the accused officer came to his office^{in the police} station. The ACB officials conducted chemical test^{in his presence} on the hand fingers ofthe accused officer^{and the said tests yielded}

¶66

¶67

positive result. The DSP questioned the accused officer and his version was incorporated in the proceedings. The accused officer has stated that the tainted amount was thrown by him in the premises of the police station and thereafter he (accused officer) led the DSP and the mediators and recovered the arnount at his (accused offi cer) instance.

¶68

(a) In the cross-examination of PW.8, he denied the suggestion that he was not present in the police station when the ACB officials came to the police station. PW.8 stated that he did not state during post trap proceedings that he was present during the time when the tests were conducted on the accused officer and about recovery of amount at the instance of the accused ofhcer as he was not asked. He was not examined on 10.0i.2001 by any of the ACB officials. He has referred Mr. Raja Rathnam as petitioner in Ex.P-14. He denied the suggestion that he did not state before the DSB, ACB, during post trap proceedings as deposed by him in his chief-examination.

¶69

¶70

PW.9 is M. Hanurnantha Rao, who is DSP, ACB City Range-2, Hyderabad at the relevant^point of tirne.^{He deposedthat} on 10.01.2001 at about 11.00 a.m., he received a^{report under} Ex.P-3 from PW. I alleging that the accused^{officer demandeda} bribe of Rs.1,000/- and Redniglrt^{whisky bottlefrom hin.r for doing} an official favour. He registered the complaint in^Crime No.I/ACB-CR/2001 under Sections 7 8. \1^{of the PC Act and} issued First Information Report under Ex.P-16.

¶71

(i) On 10.01.2001 at about 3.45 p.m.. PW.6 Subrahmanyar.r.r and LW.8 A. Siddaiah Naidu, mediators,^{reported at his officeand} they were introduced to PW. l. On^{the same day at 6.15 p'm.,} hirnself, PW.1, PW.6, another mediator^{and his staffIeft the office} in two Government vehicles and reached the^vicinityof Ramachandrapuram Police Station in Medak District.^{Thevel.ricles} were stopped near the bus stand and all of thern^{got down fromtl.re} vehicles. The trap pa(y mernbers took vantage^{positions.They} found a lean built person speaking to PW.1. Within^{a few minutes,} the said lean person entered into the^{police stationand a person} came out of the^police stationvho is accused officer.^{Due to lapse}

¶72

¶73

of time. he could not identi$ the accused officer. PW. I handed over the wad of currency notes to the accused officer and he received the same with his both hands. The accused officer kept the said amount in his pant pocket and went inside the police statlon.

¶74

(ii) At about 8.25 p.m., PW. 1 relayed the pre-arranged signal to the trap party members. Then all of them including PW.8 entered the police station through the entrance gate. At that time, while a bajaj scooter bearing No.AP-23-5690 being driven by one person and the accused officer sitting thereon as pillion rider rvas going out of the police station, he intercepted the scooter and disclosed his identity to the rider and the pillion rider of the scooter and also asceftained their identitv. The rider of the scooter disclosed his name as K. Ramachander (PW.2), Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, and the pillion rider disclosed his name as Sardar Ali, Sub Inspector of Police, and he was perplexed when he (PW.9) disclosed his identity. Then the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and the accused officer were taken to the office room of PW.S, the then

¶75

¶76

Inspector of Police, Rarnachandrapuram Police Station.^The accused officer was subjected to sodium carbonate solution^{test on} his both hand fingers which yielded^positive result. Then,^PW.9 asked the accused officel to produce the amount that^{he received} from PW. l, for which he stated that he has thrown the said amount near the entrance gate while he was brought to the office^room of the Inspector of Police. The accused officer has taken PW.9 and other trap party members to the place which^was 15^{yardsfrom the} police station building towards entrance gate, and has shown the wad of curency notes. On his instructions, the mediators^picked up the wad of currency notes from the spot and all of them came back to the Inspector's room. The currency notes were^verified and found tallied with serial numbers described in the^pre-trap proceedings

¶77

(iii) The seized amount of Rs.1,000/- was marked as MO.6. PW.9 collected wealing pant of the accused officer and subjected inner flap of right side hip pocket of the pant to chemical test in^a freshly prepared sodir-rm carbonate solution which also^yielded pink colour. MOs.3, 4 and 5 are the resultant solutions

¶78

¶79

respectively. M.O.7 is the wearing pant of the accused officer. On the request of PW.9, the accused officer produced the report (Ex.p9) given by Mr. Raja Rathnam against PW.1 and seized the same.

¶80

(iv) On the instructions of PW.9, PW.8 produced Exs.p-10 and P- 1 I General Diaries of the Police Station, Ex.p- 13 Centry Relief Book and Ex.P-12 Petition Receiving Register.

¶81

(v) In the cross-examination of PW.9 by the defence counsel, PW.9 deposed that none of the trap party members including himself observed while the accused officer throwing away the wad of currency notes while he was being taken to the room of PW.8. He does not remember whether the tainted currency notes were fastened with a rubber band during pre-trap proceedings. He deposed that there is no mention about it in Ex.P-8. He did not search the person of PW.l before recovery of the tainted amount. He did not take photograph of tire place where he found the tainted amount. The amount was found intact and it rvas not scattered. He conducted test on the inner linings of the pant pocket of the accused officer after seizure of the amount. The

¶82

¶83

accused officer has^{statedduring post-trap proceedingsthat he} received complaint from^{Raja Rathnam through PW.8- Ramprasad} Rao.

¶84

(vi) PW.9 denied suggestion^{of the leamed defencecounsel} that the accused officer^{did not inform him and trap party members} that the accused officer^{has thrownthe amount and he (accused} officer) did not lead^{him (PW.9)and the trap party members to any} such place and^{he did not seizethe amount at the instanceof the} accused officer.^{Further, he deniedsuggestionof the leamed} defence counsel that^{the accused officer has statedthat whilehe} was leaving the^{police station on the scooter of PW'2,PW'1} stopped the scooter^{and requestedhim to heip him to settlethe} dispute with Mr.^{Raja Rathnamby holding his hands, and the} accused officer advised^{him to settle the matter amicably and that} while the accused officer and^{PW'l were proceeding,PW'9} intercepted the scooter.

¶85

PW.10 is G. Narasimhan^{u'ho worked as Inspector,} ACB City Range, Hyderabad^{at the relevantpoint of time'} Hc

¶86

¶87

deposed about taking up investigation from PW.9 on 13.02.2001. He examined and recorded statements of PWs.2 and 3 and LW.5. He requisitioned the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to record the statement of PW.l under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which was recorded on 30.06.2001. He deposed that after. cornpletion of the investigation, he submitted final report recommending prosecution against the accused ofl rcer. He received Ex.P-16 sanction order for prosecuting tlie accrised oft'icer. Thereafter, he hled charge sheet against the accused officer on 30.09.2001.

¶88

Heard Mr. Badeti Venkataratnam, learned counsel for the appellant - accused officer, and Mr. T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, and perused the material on record.

¶89

The learned counsel fol the accused officer l.ras submitted that no effort was made by PW.9 or any of the trap party members to prevent the accused officer from throwing away the alleged wad of currency notes. As it was r.vinter season and the

¶90

-:34

¶91

¶92

trap was alleged to have conducted during night^{time, therewas no} possibiiity of tracing out the culrency notes which were alleged to have thrown away by the accused officer on the^{ground. It is} contended by the leamed counsel for the accused^{officerthat PW.1} has stopped the accused officer and shook his^{handswith him} (accused officer) before his entering into the police station.^The curency notes were not recovered from^{physicalpossessionof the} accused officer. Thus, the^{prosecution failed to discharge its} burden to prove demand and acceptance of^{bribe alnount beyond} reasonable doubt. PW. i did not enter the police^station. According to Ex.P-3 report, there was a demand for^Rs.1,000/- cash and whisky bottle, but the whisky bottle^{was not handed over} to the accused officer and it was in the^possessionof PW'1'^Thus, part of alleged bribe amount was also not recovered^fromthe possession of the accused officer. PW.9 has^{manipulatedthe} sequence of events and panchanama^was drafted afterwards.^PW.1 is not a reliable witness and he is habituated in filing^false complaints. He has given two dates of demand^{by the} 'accused officel and there is no evidence that he met the accused^officer

¶93

¶94

during those dates. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of alleged bribe amount.

¶95

(a) The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Antlhra Pradeshr, Som Prakash v. State of Punjab2, State of punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma3 and N, Vijayakumar v. State of

¶96

Tamil Nadua.

¶97

(i) In P. Satyanarayana Murthy's case (Supra i ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶98

"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus. is the gravamen of the ol'tence under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d)(i) and (il) ofthe Act and in absence thereofl. unmistakably the chare therefor. would fail. Mere acceptance ol' an), amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the prool of demand. ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring homc the charge under these two sections of the Act. As

¶99

' 1zo^{t s; I o scc I 52 = AIR2015 sc3549FULLBENCH} '^{n IR I q92SC665= 1992Supp ( I ) SCC428} ' 2013 CriLJ 4050 o zozl criLJt353

¶100

¶101

a corollary, lailure^{of the prosecutionto provethe} denrand for illegal^{gratification rvould be fataland} mcre recovery of the^{amountfiom the person} accused of the oflence^{under Section7 or 13 of} the At would not^{entail hisconviction} thereunder."

¶102

(ii) In Madan Mohan Lal^{Verma'scase (Supra 3)' the}

¶103

Hon'ble Supreme Court^{heldas under:}

¶104

"11. The^{law on the issueis well settled that} demand of iltegal^{gratificationis sine qua non for} constituting an offence^{under the 1988 Act. Mere} recovery of tainted^{money is not sulficientto} convict the accused rvhen substantive^{evidence in} the case is not reliable,^{unless thereis evidenceto} prove payment of bribe or to show^{that the money} u'as taken voluntarily as a bribe.^{Mere receiptof} the amount b.v the^{accused is not sulficient to} fasten guilt, in the^{absenceof any evidence with} regard to dernand^{and acceptanceof the atnountas} illegal gratification.^{Hence, the burden rests on} the accused to displace^{lhe statutorypresutnption} raised under Section 20 of the^{1988 Act, by} bringing on record^{evidence,eitherdirector} circumstantial. to^{establishwith reasonable} probability, that the money was accepted^{by him,}

¶105

2-i

¶106

other than as a motive or reward as rclerred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 ol the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation ollered b.v the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concemed lvith the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same wav as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case. the court ma), look for independent corroboration befbrc convicting the accused person."

¶107

(iii) In N. Vijaykumar's case (Supra 4), the Hon'ble

¶108

Sr-rpreme Court held as under:

¶109

"19. It is fairly well settled thal mcre recovery of tainted money, divorced from the circumstances under which such money and article is found is not sufficient to convict lhe accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. In view of the material contradictions as noticed above in the deposition

¶110

¶111

of key witnesses, the benefit of doubt^{has to go to} the appellant-accused."

¶112

"27. ... ... In view ol the contradictions^noticed by us above in the depositions of^key 'uvitnesses examined on behalf ol the^{prosecution, weare of} the vierv that the demand fbr and^acceptanceof bribe arnount and cellphone by the^{appellant, is} not proved beyond reasonable doubt.^Having regard to such evidence on record^{the acquittal} recorded by the trial court is a "possible^view"as such the^judgment of the High Court^{is fit to be set} aside. Before recording conviction^{under the} provisions ol the Prevention of Corruption Act, the courts have to take utmost care^{in scanning the} evidence. Once conviction^{is recorded underthe} provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.^it casts a social stigma on the^{person in the society} apart from serious consequences^{on theservice} rendered. At the same tirne^{it is also to be noted} that whether the view taken by the^{trial court is a} possible view or not, there cannot be any^definite proposition and cach case has to be^judged on^its own merits, having regard to^{evidence on record."}

¶113

Per contra, the leamed Special^{Public Prosecutorfor} ACB has submitted that PW. I does^{not have any animosityto}

¶114

¶115

implicate the accused officer. As congnizable offence was committed, PW.9 sincerely conducted investigation. The demand and acceptance of bribe amount was proved by the prosecution through PWs.5 and 6. There is no dispute regarding Ex.p-3 complaint. Ex.P-14 supports case of the prosecution. There is no irregularity in recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses. PW.2's evidence, which is crucial, clearly proves role of the accused officer in the offence. Since the accused officer has accepted bribe amount, there is presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act.

¶116

(a) The learned Special Public Prosecutor lbr ACB has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradeshs, Raveen Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh6, Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of MaharashtraT, Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)8, NLO. Shamsudhin v. State of Keralae, State of Gujarat v.

¶117

'Criminal^{Appeal No.502 of20l5dated06.05.2021} 6 Criminal Appeal Nos.2)87-88 of20l I dared 26.t0.2020 ' (2000) 8 scc 57 t 8 zoro ru1sc;12; r r r ' luls;^{scc asr}

¶118

-o

¶119

Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Davel0, Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singhlr, Vinod Kumar v. State of

¶120

Punjabr2.

¶121

(i) in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi's case (Supra 7), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶122

-9. In the light ol the said stand of tlie appellant rve do not find the necessity to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who all said that PW- I gave the money to the appellant at his office. Of course, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the testimony of PW 1, on that score, is not corroborated by any other independent witness. At this stage itself we rnay point out that there is no merit in the said contention, as there is sufficient conoboration on that aspect, even apart from the testimony of other witnesses examined by the prosecution. The very undisputed fact that the amount had reached the hands of the appellant itself is sufficient corroboration for the testimony of PW-l that the amount was paid to the appellant.

¶123

r0 Criminal Appeal No.99oi202l arising out of SLP (Crl) No.9l05 of 201 5 dated 02.02.2021 'r^{(2003) 6 scc 175} ''? lzorsy:^{scc zzo}

¶124

¶125

The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drarvn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word gratification need not be stretched to mean rervard because reu'ard is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there u,as payment of gratification. This rvill again be fortified by looking at the collocation ol rrvo expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing." Il acceptance ofany valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word "gratification" must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it.

¶126

We, therefore, repel the contention of the learned counsel that the prosecution has a further duty to prove beyond the fact that P[r- l had paid the demanded money to the appellant lor enabling it to lay the hand on the legal presumption employed in the Prevention ol' Corruption Act. We may point out that the

¶127

¶128

delence did not even attempt to^prove that the alrount received by the appellant was not accepted as a reward or motive for the official^act done by him, except the ipse dixit of the appellant, that too made at the fag end of the trial^{when he} put in a written statement of his defence. Hence no exception can be taken to the conviction^passed by the trial court which was concurred by^the I{igh Court in respect olthe offence under Section 5(2) olthe Act ol 1947 ."

¶129

(ii) In Neeraj Dutta's case (Supra 8), the Hon'ble Supreme

¶130

Coun held as under:

¶131

"10. The direct or primary evidence of^dernand lray not be available at least in three instances:-

¶132

(i) where the complainant is dead and could not be examined;

¶133

(ii) complainant turned hostile; and⁽ⁱⁱⁱ⁾ complainant could not be examined either due to non-availability or other reasons. Direct^{proof of} demand may not be available in all the above instances but from the evidence ofpanch witness, acceptance of money was Proved^bY Phenolphthalein Test and by raising^presumption

¶134

¶135

under Section 20 of the Act, it is permissible to draw inference to prove the demand.

¶136

On behalf of the respondent. it was submitted that under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the Court is bound to draw presumption mentioned therein and the presumption in question will hold good unless the accused proves the contrary. It was contended that the purpose ol' presumption under Section 20 of the Act is to relieve the prosecution from the burden ofproving a fact and while so, insistence upon primary evidence for proving demand is not in consonance with the view taken by the Supreme Court in line ofjudgments."

¶137

(iii) In M.O. Shamsudhin's case (Supra 9), the Hon'ble

¶138

Supreme Court held as under:

¶139

"12.^{Noq, confining ourselves to} the case of' bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence ol accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such a case should not be subjecred to the same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribegivers are generally treated to be in the nature ol

¶140

accomplices but arnong thern there are various types and gradations. In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act the complainant^is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case wherever the cornplaint is filed there must be^{a personwho} has to give money to the accused which^{in fact is} the bribe money rvhich is demanded^{and without} such a giving the trap cannot^succeed.When there is such a demand by the^{publicservantfrom} a person who is unwilling, and if to^{do public} good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint, then in order that the trap^{succeeds he} has to give the money. There^{could be another} type of bribe giver rvho is always^{willing to give} money in order to^get his^{\'ork done and having} got the lvork done he rnay send a complaint.^Flere he is a particeps crintinis^{in respcct of the crime} committed and thus is an accornplice.^{Thus there} are grades and^grades of^{accomplicesand} therefore a distinction could^{as well be drawn} between cases where a^{personolfersa bribeto} achieve his own^purpose and^{where one is forced} to offer bribe under a threat of loss or^{harm thatis} to say under coercion. A^{person who falls in this} category and who becomes^{a partylor layinga} trap stands on a dilferent^{footing becausehe is} only a victim ol threat^{or coercionto whichhe}

¶141

was subj ected to. Where such rvitnesses fall under the category of 'accomplices' by reason of their being bribe-givers, in the first instance, the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances.,,

¶142

(iv) In Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave,s case (Supra

¶143

10), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

¶144

"7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court, rve find that High Court decision is based on totally erroneolrs view of law by ignoring the settled legal position. The approach of the I{igh Courr in dealing/nondealing rvith the evidence .vas parenrl). illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the IJigh Court acquitting the respondent - accused without adverting to the reasons given by the Leamed trial Court while convicting the accused and without re appreciating the entire evidence on record in detail cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. We are of the opinion that therefore matter deserves to be remanded to the

¶145

3.1

¶146

High Court to consider and deal with the appeal afresh in accordance rvith law and on its own merits keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it was dealing with the offences under the Prevention ol Conuption Act which offences are against the society. And therefore the High Court ought to have been more careful and ought to have gone in detail. We do not approve the manner in which the High Court has dealt with the appeal."

¶147

(v) In Vinod Kumar's case (Supra 12), relied on by the

¶148

prosecution, the Hon'Lle Supreme Court held as under:

¶149

"23.^{In M,O. Shamsudhin,the Court, after} referring to the decisions in DPP v, Hester (1973 AC 296 : (1912) 3 WLR 910) and DPP v. Kilbourne (sdsl973 AC 729 : (1973) 2 WLR 254), rnade a distinction betrveen accomplice and an intcrested lvitness. The Court, refen'ed to the authority in Basarvan Singh at length and eventually adverted to the concept of corroborating evidence. In that context it has been ruled thus: (M,O. Shamsudltin case, SCC pp.36566, para23)

¶150

¶151

"23. . . . Now coming to the nature ol corroborating evidence that is required, il is wellsettled that the corroborating evidence can be even by way of circumstantial evidence. No general rule can be laid down with respect to quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of a trap witness which again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances like the nature of the crime, the character of trap witness etc. and other general requirements necessary to sustain the conviction in that case. The court should weigh the evidence and then see whether corroboration is necessary. Therefore as a rule ol' law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and othenvise it cannot be acted upon. Whether coroboration is necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends upon the facts and circumstances ofeach case. In a case of bribe, the person who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe and it is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the payment of bribe."

¶152

¶153

In reply to the arguments^{of the leamed Special Public} Prosecutor, the learned defence^{counsel has submitted that} presumption under Section 20 of^{the PC Act arises onlywhen} demand and acceptance^{is proved. The bribe amounti'e., the} tainted currency notes^{was not recoveredfrom the accusedofficer} and the whisky bottle,^{whichis part of the alleged bribe, was also} not recovered from the^{possessionof the accused officer.}

¶154

The prosecution mainly^{reliedon the evidenceof PW' 1,} PW.6 (mediator to the^{pre and post-trap proceedings under Exs.P-8} and P-14), PW.8, PW.9^{(trap laying officer)and PW.10} (Investigating Officer) to prove acceptance^{ofbribeamountby the} accused officer. Due to^{minor inconsistencyin the statementof} PW.1, he was declared^{hostile. But, in rnaj or part of his statement,} PW. 1 supported the^{case of the prosecution' Pursuantto the} alleged demand of bribe^{amount and whisky bottle, PW.1has} lodged Ex.P-3 complaint. As^{narrated above,the statement of} PW.1 regarding payment of^{Rs.1,000/- (MO-6) is conoborated by} the statelnent of PW.6, mediator^{and witness to Exs.P-8and P-14} pre ar.rd post trap proceedings respectively,^{and further supported}

¶155

.)/

¶156

by MOs.1 to 5 (chemical test). Thus, acceptance of MO-6 tainted money by the accused officer IS substantially proved by the prosecutlon.

¶157

\t is the defence of the accused officer that there was no demand and acceptance of the tainted money. It is subrnitted by the leamed counsel for the defence that alleged acceptance of rvhisky bottle by the accused ofticer remained unproved. The er idence of PW.1 discloses that the accused offrcer has asked him to deliver whisky bottle at his quarter. However, MO-6 tainted money was received by the accused officer outside the police station and kept it in his right hip pant pocket. Admiuedly, the tainted money was not recovered from the possession of the accused officer and at his instance, it was recovered liom outside the police station at a distance of 15 yards and as per the post trap proceedings - Ex.P-14, the accused officer threw the amor.rnt while entering into the police station. So, the defence of the accused officer that the tainted money was not accepted is without any basis.

¶158

¶159

Now the crucial point of the case is^{regarding demand of} bribe. In Ex.P-3 complaint, PW. t has stated^{that in the first week} of January 2001 and later^{on 08.01.2001,PW.5calledhim to the} police station to meet the accused officer.^{But, PW.5 saidonly} once he went to the house of PW.1 in^{the first week of January} 2001 at the instance of the accused officer^{and at that time, PW.I} was not available in the house as informed by^{his wife. PW.5} informed the wife of PW.t to send PW.l to^{the policestation.} PW.5 was declared hostile as he completely^{resiled from his} statement under Section^{I 6} i of Cr.P.C.^{So the prosecutionis} relying only on the evidence of PW. I on the^{aspect of demandof} bribe.

¶160

As per Ex.P-14 - post trap^{proceedings,Ex.P-g} (complaint of Raja Rathnam) was recovered from the table^drawer of the accused officer. Based on that, it is^{infened by the trial} Court that official favour^{was pendingwith the accused officerand} in that connection bribe was demanded.^{In fact, PW.S- Inspector} of Police stated that in the month of December^{2000, oneRaja} Rathnam came to him and orally complained^{against PW'1, and}

¶161

¶162

PW.8 advised him to approach the Civil Court since tl.re matter is of civil nature. PW.8 further stated that he did not entntst the matter pefiaining to Raja Rathnam to any of the Sub Inspectors working under him for enquiry. The said statemellt is also recorded in Ex.P-14 (mediators' report / post trap proceedings) at Page No. l0. However, in Ex.P-14, it was also recorded that the accused officer has stated that he has received the coniplaint of Raja Rathnam through the Inspector of Police Ram Prasad Rao (PW.8) during the month of December, 2000. It was lurther stated that when a Home Guard of Ranga Reddy District came along with Raja Rathnam for enquiry, the accused officer has catled PW. I and since the matter is of civil nature, he asked the parlies to settle the dispute in the civil Court.

¶163

The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that evidence of PW.1 is clear so far as demand of bribe is concerned Furlher, the trap proceedings proved beyond doubt that the bribe amount was accepted by the accused officer. Even if the other rvitnesses have not supporled the case of prosecution, the evidence of PW.l is sufficient to hold that there was an olficial favour

¶164

.+0

¶165

pending with the accused officer and in that connection,^demand was made for payment of bribe and thereafter^{accepted by the}

¶166

accused officer.

¶167

As held in Vinod Kumar's^{case (Supra12), no general} rule can be laid down for^{corroborationof evidenceof the} complainant / prosecution^witness, it^{dependsupon facts and} circumstances of each case. As discussed^{above, PW.5has turned} hostile and he did not meet PW.l at^{his house. PW.5 met the wife} of PW. I alone. According to^{PW.1, he met the accusedofficer in} the first week of January 2001 on^{being infonned by PW.5'} However, PW.1 further stated that^{for the second time, PW.5 came} to his house on 08.01.2001.^{Thus, exceptthe statementof PW.1,} there is no other evidence to^{hold that PW.l met theaccused} officer on 08.01.2001. According^{to the prosecution, substantially} PW. I has supporled their case and since^{he has deviated partly, he} was declared hostile and^{was cross-examinedby the learned} Special Public Prosecutor and^{also markedcontradictions in his} statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.^{as Ex.P-4. As notedabove,} PW.8 - Inspector of Police, BHEL^{Ramachandrapuram Police}

¶168

¶169

Station, Medak District, stated that he did not entmst the matter pertaining to Mr. Raja Rathnam to any of the Sub Inspectors. Thus, there are lot of inconsistencies in the case ofprosecution and in this backdrop, this Court is of the opinion that it would be unsafe to hold the accused officer guilty without corroboration of evidence of PW.1.

¶170

27 . In the above circumstances, it is necessary lor this Courl to carefully scan through the evidence of crucial witnesses (PW. 1, PW.5 and 8) to find out if there was official favour 1;ending with the accused officer and in that connection, the accusecl otficer has demanded bribe from PW. l. Except the evidence of PW.1, ther.e is no corroborative evidence to prove the aspect of dernand ol'bribe by the accused officer. It is through PW.5, the accused officer has asked PW.1 to come to the police station first time during the first

¶171

r'veek of January,2001 and again on 08-01-2001. As pointed out above, PW.5 deposed that he went to the house of PW.1 only in the first week of January, 2001 and asked the wife olPW.1 to infolm PW.1 to meet the accused officer. On the basis of the evidence of PWs. 1, 5 and 8, it is not possible for this Courr to reach a clear

¶172

1?_

¶173

conclusion that PW.1 had official favour^{pendingwith the accused} officer and that the accused officer has demanded^{bribe for not} taking action on the complaint of^{RajaRathnam againstPW.1.} Moreover, Raja Rathnarn is not examined^{by the prosecution. In} the circuurstances, this Court holds^{that the prosecutionwas not} able to prove guilt of the accused^{officerbeyond reasonable doubt.} Therefore, this Court is inclined to^{give benefitof doubt to the} accused officer.

¶174

In the result, the Criminal Appeal^{is allowed setting} aside the conviction and sentence^{imposedon the appeilant for the} charges under Sections 7 and 13(1Xd) of^{the Prevention of} Corruption Act 1988 by the^{judgmentin C.C.No.43of 2002 dated} 07.03.2007 by the trial Court.^{The appellant shall be set at liberly} forthwith if he is not required in any^{other case. The fine amount,} if any, paid by the appellant shall be retumed to^{him. The bail} bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.

¶175

.+,1

¶176

t As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶177

pending in the appeal stands closed.
Sd/-B.S.CHIRANJEEVI
JOINIfEGISTRAR <br>//TRUE COPY// sEcffii oFFrcER <br>To, ,
r l, rrl" erin"ipal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court'
:. Hyderabad. (with record)
2.' The Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range, Hyderabad
g!, one cc to isnt, BADETI VENKATA RATHNAM Advocate toPUCl
+1, On" CC to SRl. T L NAYAN KUMAR, Standing Counsel -cum- SPL PP for
4{iACB cases [oPUC]
d. i
si' two CD Copies
6.-ill One Spare copy
CDL.

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810212022

I
i
I

JUDGMENT

CRL.A.No.366 of 2007

srn'i-F
1rl
2 O JUL 2I}ZZ
.: '...y
&* "..