Dismissed

Marupaka Lokanatham, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Spl Pp for Acb., City RANGE-1

Telangana HC11 Jul 2023CRLA/265/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed an appeal challenging a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Upholding the lower court's findings, the Court held that evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe was clear, establishing the offence even amid minor procedural discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to serve the remaining portion of the sentence.

Marupaka Lokanatham, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Spl Pp for… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

Bail Slip;-^{The Petitioner and accused was directedto be released on bail by Court} 6iJ.i &'tn"^{High cou( out.J oo.os zo09 made in GRLAMP No. 705 of 2009 in} CRL A.No.265 of²⁰⁰⁹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE^{ELEVENTHDAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER}

¶6

CRIMINAL^{APPEAL NO:265 0F 2009}

¶7

Criminal Appeal filed^{Under Section 374 (21 of Cr'P'C againstthe} JudgmentmadeinC.C.No.53of2004dated2T.02.2o0gonthefileoftheCourt of the Principal^{Special Judgefor SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

M;;;;i; Lokanatham,^{S/o late Narasaiah, Mandal^surveyor,Oio Mandal Revenue} 6fi[J;X"iile#iffi;e"i:6;;,iiiia_,^{nr,, Frit No. 307, yimuna Brock, Sai Bhavani} K;;-,dir;iirE"ttave,canesnruagar,Ramanthapur,Hyderabao ...^"=LLANT

¶10

AND

¶11

TheStateACB,CityRange-l,HyderabadRep.byitsSpecialPublicPro.secutorfor ACB Cases,^{High Court of A.P} '^{at Hyderabad}

¶12

...RES'ONDENT

¶13

Counsel for the^{Appellant(s):SRl'C RAJA SEKHAR REDDY}

¶14

Counsel for^{the Respondents: VIDYASAGAR RAO CHITNENI} ( SPL PP FOR ACB)

¶15

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶16

¶17

THE T ONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SLUTT)NDER

¶18

( RIMINAL APPEAL No. 265 OF 2OO,)

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

This airp ral is filed b1, the appe lanl/ ,r rcL sed officer, questioning thc conviction recorded by the Pr-incLp: i Special Judge for SPE & A(lE rlases, l{vderabad, in C.C.\o 5l rf 2004, dated 27 .O2 .2OO9 , cr n r,icting the appellant tc u r d :rgc Rigorous Imprisonmcnt lc ' I periocl of six months and z finr: ot-Rr;. 1,50O/- for the offence uncl :t' Sectron 7 ol tlie Prevention of r tor-uption Act, 1988, and a pe iod of one vear and a fine cf Iils . I ,500/ for the offence unrler^jection l3(i)(cl) rlw.l3(2\ cf th: prevention of Corruotion,\ct, 98E.

¶21

Heard. Pen s:d the rccorcl

¶22

The a1-,pellz.t \'as c.rnvicted lor demanclLne an:l accepting an amount of lls.3.^)(- 0,/ - as bnbe on 2O.O9.2OC3 frc r pW 1/ defacto complainant.

¶23

4 The case of tlte prosr.cution is that the appr:ltzr^- [ \ as r.vorking AS a Mandi S' rrveyor ir-r t}-re olfice of th(, M..i.3. Amberpet, Hyderabad. T)W I rr. rchase .1 a portion of the horrst tr .'\m )erpet area and u,anted 1o r-c( cltstruct the hor-rse. He apprcach:: rhe mu rricipal authorities \'ho r ()r-lghL 'No lrbjection certificale' fro: r tlte I\4.R.O's

¶24

¶25

\Bf, \ ._7'' --

¶26

office. Accordingly, PW I approached the oflice of MRO^on 08.09.2003 and met the appellant. The appellant^{demanded a bribe} of Rs.3,000/- for preparing survey report and to submit^favourable report to the MRO. Again PWl met the appellant on^{19.09.2003 who} refused to submit report unless the amount of Rs.3,0O0/-^{is paid.} Aggrieved by the said demand, PW1 approached^{the ACB} authorities on 19.09.2003 and met the DSP-PW8^{and gave a written complaint-} Ex.P3. The DSP PW8 asked PW1 complainant to^come to^{the office} on 2O.O9.2O08. PW1 then went to the DSP oflice along^{with the} bribe amount of Rs.3,000/-^vr''here independent^{mediatorswere} present and in their presence pre-trap^{proceedings-ExP10 was} drafted. Having completed the pre-trap^{proceedings,the. trap party} consisting of PWl, PW3, PWB and others^{proceededto the office of} MRO. Around 9.30 a.m. PWl went inside the^{MRO office and came} out at about 9.40 a.m. and signaled the trap^{party indicating} acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The trap party went^insideartd conducted Sodium Carbonate test on the hands of the^appellant. The test on both hands of the appellant proved positive.^WhenPW8 questioned about the amount that was received from PW 1 , the appellant informed that some amount was given without his demand. He received the said amount and kept in his pant pocket. The bribe amount was taken out from his pant pocket by the

¶27

appellanl i,rnd I a nded over to thtt DSp. Therealtr.r-, tl- e cr>ncernecl hles of PW'1^,.r l ic h are Exs. P i , p2 and olhr r r-r:,1:r :rn dor:uments were seizecr.^'lh -- trap ptrrty concludecl post- tratp p roceeclings and drafted Ex.P 1 ll

¶28

Invcstigali, n u.as handed over to the Inspectc;. u.ho concluded investigatior-r ar-r< filed cheLrge sheet.

¶29

Learn<:d I p:cia1 Judge htrving cons dcr,: I tL e cvidence adduced bY rhc pl-osecLltron anc.i <jefence found thiir tlre altpellant \,as guilt-' and ar c,trdingll' convicted him.

¶30

The leltrnc< (.ounsel appearir-rg for the appell;e- {,oulcl submit that there ilre several discrepancies in tne er.:lence cf the prosecution ti'itnr sr;es wl-rich go to the root of the ,::l;e :rnd belies the demand for ltrib Even according to the prose.lrtic,n i:asr: except PW1 there \'€.r(t io other eve ,\'it11c sses to the allt:ge.,.L cl:mand and acceptalce ,;f br^jbe. Further, during the co _rrsr: !) exantination under 164 of Ctr.^). C. before the Magistrate, p\V1 ait-1itr_ecl rhat he did not mentio. tt-rirt the appellant clemanded lrrilre ,r r cB.0!) 2003. The said claint o^)W 1 that the alrpellant aisliecl f ,'r,, I to pa1. the bribe amount or-r 2r).09.2008 u,as r-rot stated bef.re t're Maqistrate nor mentioned in i::. P3 -cornplain t . I)W2 lvho u,a s the t rerr MRO u,as the competert rtu hority to issue the No objection c:r.tili:ati.r-r and

¶31

¶32

the appeilant was not empowered to issue^{such NOC' The said} aspect is to the knowledge^{of PWl and it cannot be said that PW1} yielded to the demand of the appellant^{when the appellant did not} have the competence to^{issueNo Objection Certificate.}

¶33

Learned Counsel further submitted^{that once the element of} demand could not be^{proved by the prosecution,mere recovery from} the appellant is of no consequence. In^{supportof the said} contention he relied on the^{Judgmentof this Court in S. Sho,nkara.} State ACB, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar^{1, In the saidcase,} the witnesses turned hostile to the^{prosecutioncase and since the} demand was not proved, this^{Court acquitted the accused.}

¶34

g. In K. ShcrnthormrrLd tt. State of^{Telangano,2tne Honourable} Supreme Court held that^{once the demand is not proved which is a} sina qua non for establishing^{the offence under Section7 ald} 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption^{Act, the accusedcannot be} held guilty for the said offence.

¶35

ln Ganga Kumar Sriaastaua o.^{State ofBiharg, tr:.e} Honourable Supreme Court held that in^a trap^{case, it is the duty of} the oflicer to prove the allegations made^against a government

¶36

1 2ozz(1)ALD (cri) 109

¶37

'1zozz^{1z1scc(cri)193}

¶38

3 2oo5 AIR (sc) 3123

¶39

¶40

servEt't. Tlte^ir d,:pendent u,itnesses to the triLp s,hould be really independent zrrr I^-espectable

¶41

In thc^p-e ient case according to the counse[ {.r t]re appellant, PW3 *.ho r1ct3c ars indeoe.dent *,itness *,a; r.arli:.r ,t 'r.tt,ess to anothcr trap 1; such, his evidence cannot )c taken into consideratror-i

¶42

)2. On the .tl e- hand, learned Special pu tlir: I)-,se:utor u,ould subm it thal ttro .rg h there are no other u,itne js€ s ; I ,:ir _ Irom pW 1 , q,ho * ent irrto rl e room of Appellant on the t:-ap 11:.r:, ltis e'idence cannot be d isbt:l e,,ed. Admrttedl.r.. the applica,ior.r f ii, .ci lt.r pW I was pendirg ir.r r.he lt IFro office and it *,as the du,y c1' 11 e. ,npellant to submrt a rel)orl o MRo for the purpose of issuirrg N i)C. An officiai favour u'as lterrcl n 3 rvith the appellant and hr: heLci nststeci 1o pa_y the bribe f,t- ri, rich reason of proof of demrLn<l of briite and acceptance .. tL e date of trap, presumption arise i !ln,1cr Section 20 of the Pre'ert rrr r .f corruption Act. The other gr rr nd s raised by the counsel lbr tL e appellant arc minor discrepancit:; *,Irich ca,, be disregarcled.

¶43

I-le relie d on t he Judgments of Honourab_e ljrr;, crr c Crrurt in Vinod Kumar u. S7:ate of punjab a ald in Sta.te oj .lWa,harashtra

¶44

{ zots 3 scc zzo

¶45

!- \ -ty""t! \ :.7' ..

¶46

¶47

u. Narsingrd.o^s wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that in a trap case every minor detail or omission cannot be magnified to falsify or extend benefit of doubt to the accused regarding the prosecution case. It would be the very antithesis of a correct judicial approach to the evidence of witnesses in a trap case.

¶48

He also relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court 6 in Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi u. State of Maharashtra wherein it is held that once the prosecution establishes that gratification was paid and accepted by the public servant, presumption arises under Section 20 of the Act. Further, the fact of currency notes reaching the hands of accused would be sufficient corroboration of the trap witness

¶49

Ex.P7 is the file which includes application Ex.P2 of PWI and his wife. PW2 who was the then MRO has stated in his cross examination that according to Ex.P9-personal register maintained by the appellant, Exs.P6 ald P7 were submitted for orders on 19.09.2003. Exs.P9a and Ex.P9b are the relevant entries. In Ex.P9register, page Nos.97 and 98 are relating to Exs.P6 and P7 files. He further admitted that once the report is submitted by appellant,

¶50

5 AIR 1984 Supreme Court Cases 63

¶51

6 2ooo 8 scc 571

¶52

¶53

there is ,o r-ole plaved b-r' him in submitting r( pc r ic the District Collector

¶54

Learn,:cl C runsel fol the appeliant argu( d lfuiri sir ce the ^,ork was alreadl cor rl rlete on I 9,09.2003, the quest r(,r: oI ciernanding bribe by thc zrp rt 1lant does not arise. Further in^. he eviclence of PW2 it rr.as :lt:i ,ed t]-r:rt as pcr trx.DI, tre ar,..re,llant on the instructions of^,\V2 visited the Deputy Dire ctor,s cl lrce to give information on 1 ).0!).2003. During the course of ,:rroris t:xa,ination by thc Publrc l)r )s3cutor. it ri.as elicited that -lx.l) i our cliary, 11,2" submitted b' r.h rppellar.rt on 30 09.2003 rvlrich is r[r rla, s after the date of t^{-ap,. rlirther} according to PW2, Ex. p9a trrrd []x.p9l; were not for*'ard.cl to l- im r.r'hich are entries relating tc ir.r. p6 ard p7files in the r,:i<ist, r Ex.P9. rt can be safely conclurle:<l rrorn the chief and cross t:xar l nation of pW2 and cor si<li:r ir.g the other circumstarc('s o reco.er.r' of relevant files fr onr the t.ble of appellzrnt anrl l-, rcling over- ExPg and the tour diirry i t a later date, that trx.P9 r,:grst^,r and Ex.D l-tour diary were itil:r e,d over erfter making insertrons t,,hich are Exs.pga and p9b regarrl, rq llxs.p6 and P7-files

¶55

The cornplar rl E)x.P3 reflects that pw1 h.d rlrri. zrround the office from i o,()9 .2(103 to I8.09.2003 and thr' appr:rl.rt u,as not

¶56

¶57

available. The said statement corroborates^{with evidence of PW2} stating that the appellant^was either on^{casua-l leave or there were} holidays

¶58

On the demand date i.e.^{19.09.2003,it was eiicitedduringthe} course of cross-examination^{of PW2 that in accordancewith Ex.D1,} the appellant visited Deputy Director's^{Office to giveinformation} provided by the Advocate Commissioner. It^{is not the case of the} appellant that the entire day he^{was not present in the ofhce'} According to PW1-complaint,^{he went to the office on 19.09.2003at} about 1 1.30 a.m and met the appellant.^{There is nothing in the} evidence of any of the witnesses^{to suggest that at the relevant time} on 19.09.2003, the appellant^{was not avaiiablein the office.}

¶59

lg. It is not in dispute that^{the appellant as surveyorhas to} submit the report to the^{MROand the MRO in turn forwardsit to} the District Collector for^{issuanceof NOC and the NOC wouldbe} issued by the District Collector. It^{was furthereiicitedthat NOCwill} be issued to the party through^{post. The procedure is not in dispute'} However, unless the appellant^{as surveyor submitsa report, the file} will not be processed for issuance of NOC. As on^{the date of the} complaint, and the trap date, the hle of PWl was not submitted^to the MRO. In fact, the relevant files of PW 1 r,r'ere available^{on the}

¶60

¶61

table of tht: arpl ,:llant and seized by the ACB on ttL:r tr ap rlate. The inventorv of t.l-r' said liles is also made in the sr:t:ond mediator's report-Ex. F 1 3

¶62

Thc argur r(,I-rt ol the lean-red counsel thiL: i,here rvas no demand on Lhrr r;lp date is incorrect. PW1 drLring tt.Le r:ourse of his examination in it: Court stated that when he vr.e:n t .ns.de }-re found the appella rt si l^jng in his seat and r.r,hen he enq -.::eci about NOC certi[icatc, r trc a rirellant informed that the filr is r:i:dy and in case PW 1^pa1 s ihe n one,v, l-re u,ill fors,ard the fil,:. Th: said vr:rsron is also state d b..'^)\V 1 during post-trap proce,rdings, at page- I 3 of Ex.P13.

¶63

There is r .r element ol doubt regarding tlte demand and acceprance o1' bt rl;e by the appellant. As on the r[; tc cf trap, the conccrnecl filt:s rr ,:r'e ivitl'r the appellant and or derr: iind the amount was hancled or.r:: ivhich u,as placed in his pa tt pcc-:et. It u-as not explained b.,, thr lppellant regarding the anrourrt irt the earliest point of time clur r-r13 the post-trap proceedings. Ther: s rLo hard and fast rule t hat the officer has to explain at the r:arliest pcint of time. The reason ceinl . a person in such circumstlnct:s; 'voulcl be in a state of shocli i,rr:1 disturbed. He car-r take his defr:,rr:c e vcn during trial. Horr,e,.,cr n the prcsent case considr:r t-.r q the other

¶64

¶65

T.'9

¶66

circumstances regarding the offrcial work and other events narrated

¶67

witnesses and discussed above, the factum of demand and -by acceptance is believed. I do not find any inhrmity with the said order of the learned Special Judge in recording the conviction.

¶68