Allowed

M.Jagmohanlal , v. the State of a.P.,. Rep by Spl. Pp.

Telangana HC5 Jul 2023CRLA/1479/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against conviction for corruption. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt and the recovery of the amount was without proved deman

What did the court decide?

Judgment of the Additional Special Judge quashed; bail bonds stood discharged; appellant released on bail.

M.Jagmohanlal , Vs the State of a.P.,. Rep by Spl. Pp. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3251 |

¶2

BAIL SLIP: The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail^by the order of the High Court dated:05-12-2008 in Crl.M.P.No.2285 of 2008ⁱⁿ Crl.A.No.1479^of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 1479 OF 2008

¶8

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against^the Judgment^{daled:27 -11-2OOB} passed in C.C.No.21 of 2004 on lhe file of the Cou( of the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, at^Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

M.Jagmohanlal, S/o. Manoharlal, aged 64^years, Formerly^{Dy. Executive} Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Atmakur^{(A) Sub-Division, Mahabubnagar} District, Ryo. H.No.5-4-669, Old Kattala^{Mandi, Adids, Hyderabad.}

¶11

..Appellant

¶12

AND

¶13

The State ACB, Hyderabad^Range, Hyderabad^{Rep by its Special Public} Prosecutor, for A.C.B.Cases,^{HighCourtof A.P. Hyderabad.}

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI^{BADETI VENKATARATHNAM}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:^{VIDYA SAGAR RAOCHITNENI( SC SPLPPFOR} ACB)

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

.I'I

I I.] I I ONo tJ II,\BLI., S ITI JUSTICE K.SUITI' N DIiR

¶22

CItIMINAL API'I.AL No.l479 OF²⁰⁰⁸ o R D r.ll:

¶23

Ilre appe)lanl rvas conviclctl lbr the olfcnce^undcr- Scclioti^{7 and} li(l)(d) rcr<l u'ilh Scction l3(3) ol'the Prevention of Corr-uption^Act, l98ll (tbr short^-'thc .,\et") f irr- tlemantling and accepting bribe of Rs.3,000/- fronr complainanti I)W- I torvat-ds^'t.nautool'

¶24

l. P\'- I de thcto cornplaiuant is the sub-ordinate of Accused Officer (A.O) ri,lro rvas *orkinq as Assistant Executive Engiuecr (A.E.E) in the Panchaval l{a.j suh-tlivision. fhc appellant was Deputy Exccutive Engineer (D.E.E). On l[i.()2.2003 I'W-l approached the A.C.B/D.S.P and lodged complaint I:r.P-| :tating that appcllant called hirn to his chantber ancl dernantlcd to Ilx r rnonthly manrool of Rs.5,000/-. Further, PW- I noticed that therc rvas a sirortage of lls.946l- in his salary for the rnonth of Decer.nbcr 2002. Orr inquiry it u irs inlormed by the accounts deparlment that the said shorlage was on account of his unauthorized absence for three (03) days and the said cleduction \ as at the instance of the appellant. PW- I questioncd the appellanl regardirlg the said arnount and asked him to lelease throe days salary.^{^lhe} alrpellant informed that since PW- t did not pay thc nronthly urarnool of Rs-5.0001 he would not heed to his request 'l hereafter. thc appellant agreed to reduce the mamool frorn Rs.5.000/- to Rs.3,000/

¶25

!l-r-\ *....7 \r

¶26

On the basis of said complaint, DSP/PW-5^{causedinquiryand} thercalier registcred the cornplaint^{vide Cr.No.7/ACII-HR/2003.'lhe ltap} was arranged on 19.02.2003. On^{the said day,PW-l along withDSP, PW-} 2 and otlter hap party tneutbers^{gathered in thc office at Mahboobnagar} and the first rnediators report Ex-P5^{was drafted. [Javing concludedtho} said nrediators report at 9:30 a.m,^{trap pafly proceededto theoffice_of the} AO and around 1 l:30 a.rn. all the trap^{party mentbers stood outside the} office of A.O. On the instructions of^{DSP, PW- I went inside the chantbcr} ol the appellant. After sometime,^PW- I^{caruc out and gave signalto trap} party mernbers about the acceptance of bribe^{by the appellant.Thetrap} party rnernbers went inside and^{questioned the appellant about the atnoutrt} that he received frorn^PW- 1. Tests^{on the handsof the appellantproved} positive when both hand fmgers of appellant^{were subjected to Sodiurn} Carbonate Solution test^{and alsoinner liningsof left side shirt pocketof} AO. The bribe arnount^{was handedover to the trap paftywhichwas taken} frorn the appellant's shirt^{pocket.Appellantwas asked about the atnount} taken frotn PW-l The appellant^{gave a spontaneousreply stating thatthe} amount was towards^{repaymento[loantakenby PW-lon 04.02.2003'The} DSP and Trap^{party members concludedthe post trapproceedingsand} handed over the^case to^{PW-6Inspector, ACB, for further investigation'} Investigation was concluded^{and charge sheet was laid for the offence} under Section 7 and l3(1)(d)^{read with Section l3(2) of the Act'}

¶27

'l lrc leat'red Sltecial .lrrtlre exarninerl PWs-l to 6 ancl nrarkecl Exs-P I to I-1 lir Prp5gt 111ion I Irc appellant cxatnine(l^,.vitnesses, [)Ws- l to 5 ancl rnar-kcrl l:rs [) I to I) I I t:rs-Xl to X(r rvcre also rnarketl tluring trial

¶28

' rc lcarned Spcciul .lLrtlue having considererl tlie evidcnce on recorci {irurrd that tirc [rribe i]nr()ut)t \as lecovercd frorn the appellant. [:ven thouglr alr erplarratilrrr u,lts lir err that the arrlount received was towards loan, thc rrppcllant lailccl to llrovc as to how the loan was taken wlrcn it is the caso ol' tlte PPe llant thilt rrl)l)ellant and PW- l wele at logger heads Disbelicving the r crsion ol' thc appellant, the Special Court convicted the appellant accord ing li,

¶29

l.carnecl courrsel appcarirrs lbr the appellant would subrnit that it is highly inrprobablc that a tlcrranrl o1'Rs.5,000/- would be made when PW-l was drarving salarl ol- Ils.9,0()0.r- per month. There is no specific time given for the flrst clernantl, horve ver, PW-1 says that the demand was in the rnonth ol August 2002. Ihourh uccording to PW-l the second dernand was rnadc on 23.()1.2001 it was alier PW-1 found the shortage of Rs.946lin his salary. The reason given lirr demand itself tfuows any amount of doubt regarling sLrch clenrand lreing made. Leamed counsel relied on the judgnrcnt ol IIon'ble Suprcrrrc Court in punjabrao v. State of

¶30

¶31

Itlaharashtral wherein the Hon'ble Suprernc Court lound lavor with thc explanation given lry the accused that thc arnouut was rcccived tdwar.tls loan repaynrent. Furlhcr, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprcnrc Cour-t in Gularn Mahnrood A. N{alek v. The State of Gujaratr rvhcr-cin the Hon'ble Suprerne Court held that the background of the case has to considered while deciding the case of bribe. In Sat paul v. Delhi Adnrinistratiorrr the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though there is no absolutc rule that'the evidence of the interested witness cannot be accepted without corroboration, however, if the witness has a poor moral fiber and has a heavy load of bad antecedents, then the coufl has to look lor corroboration. In C.M.Girish Babu v. State of Keralaa, thc Hon'blc Suprcme Courl believed the version of the accused that amount was taken towalds loan.

¶32

I . On the other hand, the leamed Public Prosecutor would subrnit that the burden shifted onto the appellant was not discharged even by preponderance of probability. In the event of the appellant accepting that he received the amount, he ought to have produced convincing evidence that the loan was infact taken by PW-I. On one hand the appellant says that there was erunity in between the appellant and PW-l and on the other

¶33

'^{AIR 2002SC486} zAIn t98o sc 1558 l AIR 1976 SC 294 n AIR 2oo9 sc 2022

¶34

¶35

hand hc sa1,s tlrat l()rl \ its ilir'.'n ivhich is contrary anci c,rnnot be belicvcd IIe relicd on tlrc -iu(lgnrcnt irr 1he case ol Statc ol Maharashtra v Narsingrao Garrgarrrn I'irnplc ln the said case. thc Ilon'blc Suprerne Court lbLrnd lault ri ith tlrc I Irgh⁽ ourt accFritting tl)e accused rvhen a clcar case o[' rlcmantl autl acccplart e ol' bribe ',vas rnadc out. The^judgmcnt rcporlccl irt the casc ol \l:rrllrrrkar Bhaskarrao .Ioshi v. Statc of Maharashtra('. the Ijon'lrle SrLPre'rne Court held that once the prosecution established that the hribc urrs prritl aud acccptcd, presumption arises. In Chaturdts Bhagn'au<la s l'atr'l 'f hc Statc of Gujarat', the FIon'ble Suprerne Courl held tlrat thcrc^,,r lti lro uecessity lbr the public servant to be in a position to tlo a larorrr. Ilolever, ol1 facts, if casc is rnade out for dernand antl acccptauce o1'lrr ibc. pLrblic servant can be cotrvicted

¶36

Thc basic ericvarrcl' ol l'W- I is that marnool of Rs.5,000/- was demanded by the appellarrt. Nrillrer the appellant has come up with any convincing evidencc as to \,'lry rnamool of Rs.5,000/- was asked be given when he was earning an altrourlt ol Rs.9,000/- per month as salary, nor any plausible reasons as to s,h1^'rnarnool' would be demanded by the appellant. Furthernrorc, the gr.ir:vance of PW- I was that there was a shortage ol Rs.946l- rvhir:h^,,r,as dcducted at the instance of the appellant, which is salary for a periotl o['rhrce days. If the atnount of Rs.946l- was

¶37

'^{aln l98aSLrprerne( ourt6.1}

¶38

6 12000;8 Suprcme Cour r ('ases 5 7 I

¶39

' 11976;^{3 Suprc[rc} CtoLr( Cascs 4f)

¶40

¶41

deducted, it does not Inake^settse that^{PW- I would have accepted to givc} an aruount of Rs.3,000r- as blibe.^{In the} event of^the bribe^anlouutbeing askecl tor.vards ntatlool^{and also lor not causing liindrancein PW- I 's} discharge of his olflcial^duties, it^{should be brought on record by} prosccution as to why lhcte was a detnand for^'tnamool' and^{frour what} sources the^'mantool' should^have been^{paid. 'Mamool'in nortnal} parlance woulcl reler to a public servant taking bribe either^{periodicallyor} on a regular basis frorn^{any person} or^{personshaving controlor supremacy} or in a position to cause harm to such^person, using^{his officialposition.}

¶42

In the prcseut case, the very^genesis of the cotnplaint^{appearsto be} irnprobable fol the reason of not stating the entire^{facts. Initially it is for} the prosecution to prove by convincing evidence and^{probability thatthe} demand was made for extending^any off,rcial^{favouror dis-favour.}

¶43

Though the learned Special Judge disbelieved^{the version.ofthe} 'rnarnool' as stated by PW-l, committed an error in convicting the appeltant lor dernanding and accepting the bribe^{of Rs.3,000/-forthe} reasorr ol finding that;

¶44

(i) AO and PW- l were at logger heads as on 13.12.2002.

¶45

(ii) PW- l borrowed rnoney on 04.02.2003.

¶46

(iii) AO taking advantage of PW- l's conduct tried to extract money as AO was superior officer.

¶47

¶48

f t

¶49

(ir') Thougrr cxPlir,atirrr: ir;rs giierr at trrc earriest poi.t of tiure trrat Its.3.000t- u,rrs krri,tnis Ioirn. thc evirlcncc ;tr.orlucetl by AO was not acceptabIc.

¶50

I l. l-he trial coun uas iirriilr Ir,. lbrrnd that thc rcason of. ,rnamool, caultot bc believcd. Ho$ eYer. Lrr r1{ t11.1 tirc AO anil p\,- l tvas at logger heads anrl thc AO tr ietl t() extra!-t ,troncy lirtrn I)\,_l sinor: he rvas superior officcr. Disbeiier ing thc 'crsi., ol. l,W- l, cour.t cann.t 1brrn its own opinion about trre roirso, rbr trcu*rrrtr .l rrribe , *. rrich is nor statccr by pw-l and convict the .A(). ('ourf ctrr1)r)t conrc Ltlt u,ith a nerv vcrsion of prosecutio, case. ri,hich is rt.t sll,ccl b_r,r'it.esses altd rgcord con'iction for the reason the cief'ence evitlenr:e berrrg urrconvincing.

¶51

When the vor.y gcuesis ol tlrr- cornplaint appeared to bc suspicious and irnprobable to the trial court. rhc courl ought to have disrnisse<i the prosecution case.

¶52

The prosecution faileil to l)t1).e the dernantl aspect ancl the recovery of the amount fr.om the appcllant is of no conse(luence. ..l.he appellant at the first instance wrrcn the t|ap hus taken prace, clearry stated that the arnount of Rs.3,000i- rvas takcn as loan on 04.02.2003 by I,W_I. The appellant has discharged his bu.dc, by cxarnining the witnesses that loan was in fact taken by ),W- I.

¶53

¶54

¶55