Allowed

Sri D. Mohan , v. the State of a.P., Rpe by Pp.

Telangana HC26 Nov 2024CRLA/1161/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding Rs.1,000 bribe for a telephone shift work order. Evidence showed arrears were still pending at the trap date, so the payment could be arrears clearance. Conviction set aside and accused acquitted on benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentences set aside; appellant acquitted; fine amount if paid to be returned.

Sri D. Mohan , Vs the State of a.P., Rpe by Pp. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

ftlg!e.^The^{AppellanvAccur_d} y"l^directed to be rereased on bair by the order of the Irgh^{courtdated.1 0.0e.2007 in crr.A.M.F.u"rl+z'} 2007. "i^{zobt i" &;i il;i 1;;;'}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENry SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMIN AL APPEAL NO:1161 oF 2007

¶7

Appear under Section _3.74!2)- of cr.p.c., against the Judgment dated 07-09-2007 in cc.No.3 0t 200_2 in i.c.r,ro.Jrn1 0i'zbor, on the fire of the court of the Special Judge for C.B.l., Cases, HVJ"oOri.-^-'

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri D. Mohan. S/o. Lare p tqOng Krishna Rao, SDOp, Telephone Exchanoe. 5:ilffi^{j',^,i"f;} :x,i,i::il,?iJrl,g:llX_'*l8:i#^{i;5.il;?,1?:3}

¶10

Smt. Aruna Duddeil, ^W{9 Late D Mohan, aged about 64 years. Occ: R/o 15-12-186rs, I'aing"p,i,ii'Il,i",irY'rao,r;nri, s",ii,il!'..rX""i,

il;|::lg?

...APELLANT/ACGUSED

AND

Il!"::1t:o:t^{o'P'' rep bv cBl ' Hvderabad,speciatPubtic prosecutor for c.B.t.,}

¶15

...RESPODENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRt. C SHARAN REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. SRINIVAS KAPAT|A,

¶18

(SPL Public prosecutor FOR CBI)

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

-qffiHl'rf.+t?t.J='^- 2 _.: : ///

¶22

rHE HoNouRABLE^{sRr JUsrIcEE.v. VENUGoPA'lliLl]} ll ttit

¶23

CRIMINAL APPEAL^{NO.1161 0F 2007}

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

ThisCriminalAppealisfiledbythesoleaccusedchallengirlg the^{judgment dated 07.09.2007 passedby the SpecialJudge islr}

¶26

C.B.l. Cases,^{Hyderabad in C.C.No.3 of 2002 in RC' No' 4(A|'rf-}

¶27

2001, whereby^{the learned Special Judge found the sole u""'l,..tl,}

¶28

guilty for the offences^{under Sections7 and 13(2) rlw SeclL:t-rl.} -

¶29

13(1Xd)ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct,lgS8andsentencnd

¶30

him to undergo^{R.l. for a period of four years and to pay a fine of}

¶31

Rs.2,0001,^{in default, to undergo S.l. for 4 months for the offer,r:,a}

¶32

¶33

underSectionToftheAct;andhewasalsosentencedtounder<;o

¶34

R.l for 4^{years and to pay a fine of Rs'2'000/- in defaulhto-}

¶35

undergoS.l.for4monthsfortheoffenceunderSectionl3(2)r/w

¶36

13(1 Xd) of the^Act.

¶37

Heard Mr.C.Sharan^{Reddy, learnedcounsel for the appelllnt} and Mr.Srinivas^{Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor lor} respondent-CBl. tl

¶38

The brief facts^{of the case of the prosecution are as follow:i'i}

¶39

rH il'

¶40

¶41

The Accused Officer ('AO') was working as Sub-Divisional Officer, ilLt Telephones, Kompally Telephone Exchange, Kompally during the period 1988-2001. The complainant-P.W.10, in connection with the process of his application for shifting of his landline telephone cpnnection to his newly shifted house, approached the AO on 01 .02.2001 with a request to issue a work order for shifting his telephone. The AO demanded a sum of Rs.1,0001 for passing work order i.e., advice note. As his repeated visits did not yield any result, the complainant approached the CBI on 07.O2.20O1 and lodged a complaint as in Ex.P.14 on the basis of which, the lnspector of Police, CBI-P.W.7 registered a case on the same day itself. P.W.7 secured the presence of P.W.4 and another. Then P.W.7 prepared the pre-trap proceedings, observed the formalities, provided Rs.1,000/- with a denomination of Rs.100/- to P.W.10. He, along with the trap party, proceeded to the office of the AO. AO received the amount from P.W.10, kept the same in his shirt pocket, went into the toilet room situated in his chambers. Then, on the pre-aranged signal given by P.W.4, P.W.7 rushed to the spot and caught the accused in the toilet room. P.W.7 conducted

¶42

fltl

¶43

¶44

Ex.P.13^{proceedings. When the accused hands were subjected to} chemical test, it^{yielded positive result. The amount was wrapped} in a kerchief. The shirt^{pocketof the accusedwas also given} positive test. The said currency notes^{were compared,the} numbers and denominations^{of the currency notesmentionedin} the first mediators report^{were found tallied.The saidcurrency} notes were seized along^{with other items. After observing} formalities, P.W.7 arrested AO,^{obtained necessary sanctionto} prosecute the AO and after completion of^{investigation, he laid the} charge sheet against^{the AO.}

¶45

4 ln order to bring home the^{guilt of the AO, prosecution} examined P.Ws.1 to^{11 and marked Exs.P.1to P.23 and exhibited} M.Os.1 to 7. On^{behalfof defence, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined} and Exs.D.1 to D.6^{were marked.}

¶46

Now, the^point for consideration^{is whether the prosecution} proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by^{AO from P.W.10} and whether the evidence^{adduced by the prosecutionclinchingly} pointing towards the^guilt of the AO^{beyond all reasonable doubt.}

¶47

¶48

P.W.1 was the then Commercial dfo".r. (west), Tuljasuda Complex, Hyderabad, who deposed about the processing of the file relating to telephone connection of rP.W.10. Ex.P1 is the telephone application, Ex.P2 acknowledgment for registration of telephone connection and Ex.P3 is the advice note, Ex.P4 is the shift application and Ex.P5 is its acknowlerlgment. Ex.P6 & P7 are advice notes and Ex.P8 is the revised advice note. His evidence is tn relation to processing of application.of the complainant at different stages. ln the cross-examination, P.W.1 specifically admitted that shifting of telep hone connection cannot be issued if any dues are pending.

¶49

P.W.2 is the Telephone Mechanic in Kompaly Exchange, who deposed about the application of P.W.10 for shifting of his telephone connection from Balanagar to Kompally. He is the person who made the relevant entry in O.E!. Register as in Ex.P12, ln the cross-examination, P.W.2 specifically admitted that he informed P.W.10 that without receiving wortk order, shift cannot be effected and that unless pending bills are cleared, commercial

¶50

¶51

office will not issue^work order.^{P.w.3, r"r"on{df] mechanicllll]} working in Kompally Telephone^{Exchangedepoqed about thq:} process of file regarding shifting the telephone^{conner:tion. ln the:} cross-examination, he specifically^{admitted that it:i$'theregulai:} ' practice to receive the bill amount from^{customers on} their^requesi to be^paid at City branch.

¶52

P.W.4, the^{Superintendentof Central Excise,b.eforewhoser} presence the raid^{proceedings were conducted, deposed aboutther} procedure being observed by the trap^{party. Hq specifically} deposed about the^{money received bythe A0 from tht:} rl;t complainant in his^{presence.Ex.P.13, secondmediator's report,} was prepared by P.W.4.^{Ex.A.16, rough sketch, was; 'prepared itt} his presence and^{he signed the same.P.W.S is rvitnessto trap} proceedings, who srgned Ex.P.13.^{P.W.6 is the SeriiorScientifi'!;} Officer in C.F.S.L.,^{who conducted chemical chromotagraphican'1} spectro^{photometricanalysis on the material objectf and issuerl} Ex.P.17 report. P.W.7^{is the investigatingofficerluvho deposell} about registration of^case basing on Ex.P.14, from^thr: complainant, forming^{trap party, laying trap, sending material}

¶53

¶54

objects for chemical analysis and filing the charge sheet before the concerned Court. P.W.8, the then Junior Telecom Officer at Kompally, deposed about his giving telephone connection for incoming shift from Balanagar division in connection with the complainant's telephone. He deposed that the shift connection was given only on 13.03.2001 after clearing off the arrears by the complainant. P.W.g, the then Deputy Superintendent of Poice, deposed about his sending the material objects to CFS for opinion and his examining the witnesses and recording their statements. Though he was examined, nothing contra was elicited in his evidence

¶55

ill

¶56

The complainant was examined as P.W.10. He deposed in line with the complaint allegations as in Ex.P.14. His specific allegation is that in connection with shifting of his telephone connection, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- from existing place to Kompaly area. As he was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the CBI Office and lodged Ex.P.14 complaint on O7.O2.2OO1 at 9:30 a.m. He specifically deposed that he informed the AO that he had cleared all the dues in connection

¶57

¶58

:l|, '^.

¶59

with his telephone as^{is evident from Exs.P.20to P-22. lt is his} further evidence that inspite of^{Exs.P.20 to P.22, the AO} demanded to^pay the^{dues till January, 2001, for which he replied} that he is not under obligation^{to pay the arrearsfor the said} period, as he had already surrendered/deposited^{the telephone} with the telephone office at^{Balanagar on 28.08.2000itself.} P.W.11 is the^{[vlember, Services Telecom Commission,} Department of^{Telecommunications,New Delhi, who accorded} prosecution sanction orders as^{in Ex.P.23.}

¶60

On behalf of accused,^{although D.Ws.1to 4 were examined,}

¶61

no considerable evidence^{is elicited to supportthe case of AO.}

¶62

Appraising the^{above said evidence, the learned trial Judge} convicted and sentenced^{the AO as stated above.}

¶63

ln this case, the evidence^{of prosecution witnessesis} consistent and corroborative^{regardingthe AO receivingthe} amount of Rs.1,000/-^{from the complainant-P.W.10on the date of} trap. According to the^{prosecution, it is this amountthat was} demanded by the AO towards^{bribe for issuing work order/shift} order. But, according to^{the AO, that amount received by him was}

¶64

¶65

ii'

¶66

towards clearance of part of existing arrears. Theref$6e, except the lI1 evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, 8 and P.W.10, the other evidence, which deals with the procedural aspects assumes no signifipance.

¶67

lt is crystal clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that no sanction order/work order would be issued for shifting , of telephone connection in case any dues are pending thereon. Even the evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that he informed the complainant that without receiving work order, shift cannot be effected and that unless pending bills are cleared, commercial office,will not issue work order. Similar is the evidence of P.W.3. Even,,,P.W.8, Junior Telecom Officer at Kompally specifically deposed{hat the shift connection was given only on 13.03.2001 after clearing off the arrears by the complainant as is evidence from the receipts marked as Exs.P.20 lo 22. lt is curious to note that the complainant as P.W.10 deposed that he had cieared all the pending arrears by the date of trap i.e., on 07.O2.2OO1 . But, the evidence on record is otherwise. As per the own evidence of P.W.10, coupled with the evidence of P.W.8 and Exs.P.2O to 22,

¶68

the arrears cleared by P.W.10 was on 13.03.2001. Thus, it is

clear that by the date of trap, arrears are pending in rjl$pect of the telephone connection that is sought to be shifted by the complainant. Therefore, as per the department wilpesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 and g, unless arrears are cleared no sanction/shift order can be issued in respect of the telephone conne.:tion that is sought to be shifted. ln these circumstances, the vei,sion of AO that the complainant-p.W.10 paid the amount ofrRs.1,000/_ towards part of clearance of arrears in respect of the-telephone connection of the complainant cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in the absence of any clinching evidence to prove that, there was demand and acceptance of bribe by the AO, this Cljurt is not convinced to presume that the tainted amount receive<l by AO is that of illegar gratification. The triar court has rost tne sislht of these facts while analyzing the evidence. ln view of thel ,mitigating circumstances discussed above, this Court is inclined to-acquit the AO by extending benefit of doubt. Hence, the impugned.judgment is not sustainabre under raw and the same is riabre to be Bet aside.

¶73

ir !l:

¶74

¶75

ln the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed ,rO ,l"l flll impugned judgment is set aside. The convictions and sentences

¶76

imposed on the appelrant-Ao are hereby set aside and he is found not guilty of the said offences and therefore, acquitted of the,__ charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the AO shall be returned to him.

¶77

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶78

A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Special Judge for C.B.l., Cases, Hyderabad.(With Records, if any) 2 The Superintendent, Central Jail, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRl. C SHARAN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS KAPATIA, Special Public Prosecutor for CBt loPUCl 5. Two CD Copies |lt\

pr \E-

|ilfi

HIGH COURT DATED: 2611112024

¶87

l{tiliir{

¶88

JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1161 ol2O07

¶89

{i.rr"
{ -l E S{A T e
(
c
oJ
(-) 0 7 Ui,i ?025
I
a 7.- .-n -..rrdr'fi
..--*--.-.:

¶90

ALLOWING THE GRL.APPEAL

¶91

,..-"dA W-

¶92

l[t[[

Sri D. Mohan , v. the State of a.P., Rpe by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D. Mohan , v. the State of a.P., Rpe by Pp.

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

Sistu Uma Maheswararao Vs The State of Telangana

Shekar Kumar Patal Vs The Collector (Civil Supplies)

Aziz Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. S.Poli Naidu Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Pasumarthi Vykuntadhar Rao , Vykuntam, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Ramesh Chowdery @ Bhudaram Vs Smt. Sushila Devi