Allowed

G.Krishnamurthy, v. State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC14 Mar 2024CRLA/1763/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed criminal appeals lodged by two central excise officials acquitted of corruption and cheating. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimony, hostilities, and a lack of corroborating evidence from company officials.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the findings of guilt and sentences; accused acquitted of charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of PC Act and 120-B and 201 of IPC; arrests quashed.

G.Krishnamurthy, Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Corruption | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

NOTE : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be^{releasedon bailby the orderof} the High Court dated^{18.12.2001 in Crl A.lrr1.P.No.2435 ot 2007 in Crl A. No. 1725 of} 2007

¶2

[^32ss ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1725 oF^{2007 AND 1763 0F 2007}

¶8

c RLA.No. 1725 of 2007

¶9

Appeal filed under Section^{37 4(2) of Cr.P.C-, againstthe Judgmentdated} 17.12.2001^passed in C.C.No.^{25 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Special} Judge for C.B.l. Cases,^Hyderabad

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. K Rangamamba, W/o^{V. SrinivasaRao, Flat No. 302, TulsiHomes,} Domalguda, Hydeabad^29.

¶12

...Petitioner/AppellantiAccused^No.1

¶13

AND

¶14

The State, rep. by C.B.l.,^{rep. by its Spl Public Prosecutor, at Hyderabad}

¶15

...Respondent

¶16

NOTE : The AppellanUA.3^{was directed to be released on bail by the order-oj^the} fiign Cor.t aatel^Ze sZ^{2007 in Crl.A.tril.PNo. 2482of 2OO7 in Crl A' No''1763 of} 2007

¶17

CRLA.No. 1763 of²⁰⁰⁷

¶18

Appeal filed under Section^{37 4(2) ot Cr.P.C-, againstthe Judgmentdated} 17 12 2OO7^passed in c.c.No.^{25 of 2003 on the file of the courtof the special} Judge for C.B.l.^{Cases,HYderabad.}

¶19

Between:

¶20

G.Krishnamurthy,^{RJo.H.No.2-2-1 1641C, Tilaknagar, Hyd-44}

...AppellanUA 3

AND

State, rep. by CBl, Hyderabad, through Spl PP., for CBI cases, Hrgh Court , Hyderabad

¶25

...RespondenUComplainant

¶26

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016( CRLAMP. NO:2322 OF 2016)

¶27

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of lhe petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue lnstructions regarding disposal of High Value Denomination Currency notes, of such denomination in Calendar case. No. 2512003 pending on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, against which Criminal Appeal. No. 176312007 is pending before this Hon'ble High Court.

¶28

Counsel for the Appellant (in both the appeals) : Sri C. Sharan Reddy

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent (in both the appeals) : Smt. Ananthi,

¶30

Special PP for CBI

¶31

The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶32

1l il .l

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶34

fil

¶35

[^.',

¶36

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1725 OF 2OO7 t AND 1763 0F 2007 ii OMMON JUDGMENT:

¶37

i t These two criminal appeals are preferred by the Tt Dtl ellants/accused Nos.l and 3 assailing the^judgment dated t7 L2.2OO7 in CC No.25 of 2OO3 on the file of the learned Special udgi for CBI Cases, Hyderabad.

¶38

Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for^the ap.pe ants/accursed Nos.l and 3 and Smt.Ananthi,^{learnedSpecial} [ lit Prosecutor for the respondent/CBI | , lo.r, of 20o3 ,is a case registered against the "a appellants herein and one A.Ganesh Satyadev/accused^{No.2 basing} 01 the complaint todged by Smt.Sudha R.Chava,^Manager (Operations) of M/s.Embedded Infotech (Private) Limited, Hyderabad (PW1) alleging that accused Nos.1 and 2 while working as Superintendent and Inspector^respectively of Central^Excise, Arireerpet Range, on 19.09.2002^visited the^{premises of PWl and out} ftInl'. accused No.2 demanded PWI to^pay an illegal^{gratification of} -"t,J 000/- for giving favourable inspection report for^{issuance of} PI Licence in respect of the said frrm. Not inclined^{to pay such} C it"J illegal gratification, PW1 lodgid ExP2 complaint^withthe respondent/CBI. The respondent, after conducting^discrete

Page 2 of 2o

I I I

I t T

enquiries, registered a crime in RC No.35(A) of 2OO2 against the I accused for the offences under Sections 120-8, 201.of Indian^p"rirf III Code (for short 'tPC) and Sections 7 and 13(2) read with tTUi.l 13(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'nC itcfl. I PW13/Inspector, after securing presence of PW2 and 1PW3/medl",l." I and explaining the trap laying procedure and ,o.-{u,r"", t."++.f Ex.P21/hrst mediators' report and got applied Rhenolphthalein I powder to the tainted currcncy notes worth Rs. 1O,OOO/- provided byl PW 1 and laid the trap on 3O.Og .2OO2. After receipt of taintea I amount of Rs. lO,OOO/- from PW1, accused No. 1 passed the same to I accused No.3, a Sepoy working in the same department, who kentl the said amount underneath the files in the office of the I Superintendent, Division-lX, Saroornagar Range knowinS full well I I the nature of the said amount. When the hands of tt " """r"La iil Nos.l and 3, swabs rubbed on the table draw of accused *. I TOI the rack where the tainted amount was kept by accused *. : TOI also the pants pocket of accused No.3 were subjected to sodirim;l carbonate test, the same yielded positive result. Accordinglyjl Ex.P23/second mediators' report was prepared narrating the things:l went on. Accordingly, PW13 caused arrest of accused lfos. f ana iS.fl After obtaining sanction under Exs.P26^. from PW 10, Ex.P2Z fomil PWl1 and Ex.P28 from PW12 in respect of accused Nos.2, I and 3.1 respectively, PW14, the investigating ofhcer laid charge-sheet into the I il,l rll l;l

¶47

i '+i ', 1.. i i .. t::i:

Page 3 of 20

1 !

i i t 'I II

l:- :l l| ,

Coirrt below against the accused for the offences as referred supra. 'i Said Court took cognizance of the same and assigned CC No.25 pf o031 and after furnishing copies of documents to the accused, m under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused [I;" ,J"aLol,.l*, y and claimed to be tried ll i4.' I To support its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 16' and exhibited documents under Exs.Pl to^{P32 and material} bjects MOs.l to 9. Upon completion^{of prosecutionevidence, the} ccused were examined under Section 313^{Cr.P.C.,wherein they} enied the incriminating material available in the evidence^of 16secution witnesses. On behalf of the accused, DWs.l^to 4^were .*l-1.,"o ,,d Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. s.l The defence of the accused No.l, as set out^{before the} Cdu uLrow IS that PWI took hand loan from her on^27.O9.2OO2 J,e she was going to Tinrpati and under the guise of repaying the .t said amount, she got her implicated^{in the present case and that the} accused are innocents. 6. The Court below, upon considering^{the entire material} available on record and the^{evidenceadduced on both sides,found} the accused Nos. 1 and 3^{guiltyand acquittedaccused No.2.Accused} Nd. 1 was sentenced to undergo^{simpleimprisonment for four years} ant opayafineof Rs. 1,0OO/-, in default of^{paymentof said hne}

fi |^,i

Page 4 ot20

t 0 IIt I I

I I

amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months foi- tlr. offence punishable under Sectio n 7 of PC Act;f o, ," ++t sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and t9 RiV a hne of Rs.1,OOO/-, in default of payment of said fine a:nount, lto suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act; A1 is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 2OI IPC and accuscd No.3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,0OO/- and in default of payment o[said fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the ";"+.tl punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC ,tct li and A3 is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC directing all the sentenced imposed against accused Nos. I and 3 to run concurrently setting aside the remand period if any undergone by them under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

¶62

I a :-: is,5 ,i :-t , '++ ':^, rI .r' i-1 '!

¶63

Aggrieved by the said findings, the accused Nos.1 and 3 fiIed the present criminal appeals mainly contending that the Court below, without there being any ingredients to attract ,llthe offenqesI with which, the accused are charge-sheeted found. the appelarits ll guilty erroneously by heavily placing reliance on the testimonV of tflte highly interested witnesses. The prosecution failed to prove the

¶64

Page 5 ol20

¶65

e d and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellants. ! ere, is'discrepancy in date with regard to visit of accused Nos.l and do the business premises of PW1. PWI was declared as hostile by !r e prosecution and in-spite of non-cooperation of PW1, the Court i; eiow found the'appellants guilty. Accused No.1 spontaneously gave I toithe trap laying officer regarding the tainted money and the ily! e was also incorporated in the second mediators' report but the JI b6low i failed to appreciate the same. PWg the^{Director of the} I C any of PW clearly stated that PW1 did not inform the demand of t aI ccusedi and he did not provide tainted currency^notes. ed counsel for the appellants relied upon the^following debisions requesting to set aside the findings of^{the Court below:} i'., . (i) K.Shanthamma Vs. State of Telanganal. (ii) Man Singh Vs. Delhi Administration2. l The main crux of the decisions relied upon on^behalf of^the appellants, referred supra, is that when demand^ofillegal grAtification was not proved which was sine^quo non^{for establishing} ofia.b" under Section 7 of tlne Prevention^{of CorruptionAct, 1988,} cL *orta Jot be established "l I O.,^lthe other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor 1, appearing on behalf of the respondent/CBl^{vehementlycontended}

¶66

i^{I (2022)} 4 Supremc Court Cascs⁵⁷⁴ '² 1tl'ls1S Supreme Court Cascs 425 t I

¶67

ril t ,I:i

¶68

Pagc 6 o[ 20

¶69

$i { i i ! ! 'ci J! : i I l I

¶70

that there is no infirmity in the findings of the Court below and hence, there is no need or necessity for this Court to interfere, with ,I the said findings. The discrepancy with regard to the date of visitiof accused Nos. 1 ald 2 to the offrce of PW 1 and demand for iflegal gratification in the form of formality is clarifred bv the evidence t- adduced during trial. The prosecution established th i,^"ti",,f with regard to issuance of favourable report in favour of th of l {- PW1 pertaining to CPBW Certihcate was pending with the pcqus No.l and taking advantage of the same, the accused Nos.l and' ; 2 demanded illegal gratification. The story of loan of Rs. 10,OOO/- as deposed by DW2, is an aJterthought and cannot be given credence.

¶71

g. Upon hearing both sides and perusing the material I available on record including the findings of the Court below as we[l as the grounds urged herein, now the point for determinatron is : I

¶72

Whether the judgment dated 77.72,2OO7 in CC No.25 "7 2ipSl on the tile of the learned. Special Judge 'for Cf{ C,csgs,l Hgderabad is sustqinable or it is liable to be set aside? I I I { Point: I i I I 1l'l

¶73

The prosecution, to prove its case, examined the deJaltoil complainant as PW1 and mediators as PWs.2 and 3. The evidenceio4l PWl shows that she being the Manager (Operations) .11 M/s.Embedded Infotech Private Limited, a software ..-O""rjl carrying business of software exports and imports, anntred for I Central Private Bonded Warehouse (CPBW) Licence to the Centra{ | ;l

¶74

Pacc 7 of20

¶75

ll
l;
E
t
f
I
I

tiseOffrceunderEx.PItoenabletheirfirm tostorethesoftware
I
P
m o.,.1 from America.PW9istheDirectorofEmbedded^Infotech
l*-;
I
b
t
I
J
I
eingthethenAssistantCommissionerofCentral
competentauthorityforissuanceofsaidCPBW
j,,1,
rom
ca
baslng ontheverificationreportsubmittedby^the
I
dd officersincludingaccused^{No.1 in theCentralExcise.As}
jl-:r
ertheprocedure,asdeposedby^{PWs.4to6,whoaretheofficials of}
ehtial^lExcise,theyforwardtheapplication^{forissuanceofsaid}
ertificateto theRange Ofhce^{and uponreceiptofverificationreport}
,l
thdRangeOffice, theywillissue^{thesame.Theirevidencealso}
al
sh
ttLattheaccusedNo.lwasthe^{Range Superintendent in}
toRs.15,O0O/-
as'formality'andwhenshe
q,L
ed the necessityfor^{giving such amountinspiteoftheir}
tOffrcei Theirevidencefurther^{showsthattillthe trapwas}
The
ca onreportwas received bytheiroffice
evidenceofPWIshowsthaton^{17.09.2002she}
along*LhPW16wenttothe^{ofhceofCentralExciseandsubmitted}
,,
Ex.PIfolrissuanceofCPBWCertificate^{andonI9.O9.2OO2 accused}
Nos.Iand2 visitedthe^{officeofPW1forinspectionandwhen PWl}
rl :l
..,]
enquiredaccused No.2^{about the timetobetakenforissuanceof}
subh^rcertificate,he^{repliedthatiftheyhadanyurgency, theyneedto}
it
Rs.l
J"J
ay
1O,000/-
I
Ibw
S
erifi I
I
J.J
fo
1n ^lproc"ol,.
eand submittinga1lnecessary^{papers, hestrongly}
1

il I

i I I

Page 8 of20

i I I I

i l t I i I

I I

I Itt J I

stated that the amount had to be paid compulsorily. It is, also alleged by PWl that on 27.O!..2OO2, when PWI wen[ to l l|tn" pitice lof accused No. 1, accused No.1 also reiterated the demand I ttlfor illedal gratification of Rs.1O,000/- for issuance of said celtiflcafe. Accordingly, after consulting with their Joint Managing Oirectlr, .l PWl lodged Ex.P2 complaint with the respondent/CBl complaining the sajd demand of accused. However, the said Joint Managing Director was not examined by the prosecution and instead PW9 was examined, who deposed his ignorance regarding the entire episode including the demand of accused and procurement of tainted money by PW1. Undoubtedly, PW9, who is the Director of the company apd jil signatory of Ex.Pl application did not support the case of PWI i i ,lil 12. As per the evidence of PW. I , who is the de;fagto,l complainant and PWs.2 and 3, who acted as mediators and PWl3/Inspector of CBI, PW13 decided to Iay a trap on the accused and explained and demonstrated the procedure of laying trap and got ready the tainted currency of Rs. 10,000/- duly smeared with phenolphthalein powder and also prepared Ex.P2l/first mediators' report and all of them proceeded to the office of accused No.l. After reaching the spot, all the trap parly rnembers took their convenient positions in and around the oflice of accused and PW 1 acco by PW2 went to the seat of accused No. 1. PWl introducedi accused No. 1 as her uncle and aJter having some chit-chat,

I :

ln t. 1;

iiri t t1 I Paqe 9 of20 ,rti 1,rf i o:1 ;s ted that since accused No.2 was on leave on that day I!r l,l, ertificate would be given later and reiterated her demand. i Ia li ondidgly, PW,l offered Rs.10,000/-, which accused No.1 took with i lll t i e rigt t trana, fut the same in her table draw and later by pressing l, uzzgf, called accused No.3 and handed over the same, who took i ,Ii a th" sarfie and went hurriedly through the corridor. i I ,lt gly, P{2 went outside and gave pre-arranged signal to the Itli. II tfi o er m mbers 6f the trap team. Upon watching the same, the entire trj I tf:t. p rushdd to the chambers of accused No.l and caught hold 1i I I tran S *itnltn" help of a lady constable. Upon PW2 informing : ll t accusi! ed No.3 went away through the corridor, the entire^team searched for him and upon identifoing him by PW2, PWl3 asked accuSed. No.3 to show the money received from accused^{No. 1.} Accordingly, accused No.3 took PW13 to nearby chamber i.e.^the Srioo..r.g.. Circle Office of Central Excise and^{showedthe tainted} aniount kept under the file rack. Accordingly,^{PW13 asked PW3 to} tlt ..1.1te compe salJL.I money. d with the Having numbers traced which the were already said tainted inentionedcurrency, li 1/first Itnediators' report and upon tallying the same,^PW13 i stio ed accused No. 1 about the^{said money to whichshe replied} ;l I that the'said money was repaid by^{PWl, who had taken the sameas} hand loan. The trap team conducted^{sodium carbonate tests of right} hand of accused No.l, her table^{draw, right hand of accusedNo.3,}

|.*

I'agc l0 of 20

t: i.

j':

I l I i

I Ii

his palts' pocket, his kerchief and the swab rubbed on thciwoo dpnt

¶96

rack where the tainted currency was kept and the said tests resultid

¶97

in posilive. Accordingly, the entire trap team l."p*ia ;lri Ex.P23/second mediators' report as well as Ex.P22 /rough s|<et'ch lof i Scen e of offence The tainted currency S marked as MOI re Su tant pink coIour soIution of teilt of nght handof acCLl I her tabIe draw were marked S Mo S c and nrni hand accu Sed No ) was marked as Mo4 tris pants' poc ket marked as MOS, his kerchief wash was marked as MO6 d the I swab rubbed on the wooden rack was marked as MO7. The pants of accused No.3 were marked as MO8. PW13 effected arrest of accused Nos.1 and 3 upon informing their complicity in the entire episode to them and also to their higher-ups. i

¶98

PWs.1O to 12 are the sanctioning authoritSz, who accorded sanction to prosecute the accused under Exs.P26 lito 28. PW8, who worked as Joint Commissioner of Centra{ U-.t"j "l "f" "*i,1","). "'J"""j' "_1":^{;;jH:'J"j',+: j.J:} about the trap and directed PW8 to go to Ameerpet Range Oftrce aird l, witness the said proceedings. PW7 also confirmed the information given by CBI to the higher-ups of accused No.l regardinB ihe trap Iaid

¶99

,: t: |, i42 I:1t

¶100

¶101

'I IrI l Pagc ll of 20 t I I I i^14. The accused, to disprove the prosecution case, tried to t.,t I I I I rdrtr, eir defence by examining DWs.l to 4. DWl, who worked la 1l:Ir i A ts oJ... ,.' Hyderabad IX Division, Central Exbise, Tilak ffi oad H deraJad deposed regarding the salary and other l;r I tll niohlments received by the accused^No. 1. DW2, whose^{office was} t t*u I sifu ated in the same business^{premises where} PWl's company^was oC"ted, djposed that PW1 told him that accused^{No. 1 was a friend of} I I,lili,'.lili,'.,'. PWl and to meet the expenses of^pilgrimage to^Tirupathi, on^the advic€ of DW2 she availed a hand loal from accused^No.1. t,l.Il.II Hdwever, when PWl was^questioned regarding^{her trip to Timpati,} Il;l; ,J."io .,1 same, she stated that she did not remember ,l 1r1r i, I^{a.r,vi.,stt .} I^i! r,. worked as Inspector of Police, ACB deposed f ;l ,nl "[,,..] l+t it: ."J".h,, l"wsl, Iegistration of CC No.29 of 2O03 on the file of the learned rl l'i I pin.ipat sSpecial Judge for ACB &^{SPE Cases,Hyderabad againsta} r.ii public servant, wherein PW16 was the complainant^{and PWl was a} ti tness.^,ln the said case their^{statementsunder Section 164 of} { fr Cr.P,C were also recorded. Basing on^{the evidenceof DW3, it is} $,1 coirtended on behalf of the accused that^{PW1 and PW16 used to} I^:r ri^', i exert pres5ure on the Government^officials to^{complete their works} I an process, the present case was also^got registered.^DW4, |o,, ",ln ,l lit,t t.1 J.I".u Ls Supe.intendent Export,^{Customsand CentralExcise,} tr,:il fritfltfl I.itl. - e et *J, Hyderabad furnished Ex.D6 XT-I^{Diary showingthe} of accused No.1 on L9.O9.2OO2,^{24.09.2OO2and} -J.,,. r1!IIII

¶102

t*u I,lili,'.lili,'.,'. t,l.Il.II Il;l; ,l 1r1r l+t l'i I r.ii ti { fr $,1 I^:r ri^', i I fritfltfl r1!IIII

¶103

t I i I I II, II

¶104

Paac l2 of20

¶105

27 .O9 .2OO2. The prosecution tried to dispute the entries in Ex.D6 il I stating that there is every possibility of manipulating t sarne. "I However, DW4 vehemently stated that the custody otr* ou w: I the head of the office i.e. Divisional Assistant CoMMISS of I Central Excise and that the said Divisional Commissioner I oI l"JExcise reviews the entries therein. The said evidence of DW refutes 1 the contention of prosecution that Ex.D6 was manipulatedl to help the accused

¶106

Basing on the evidence on record in the form of PWs.2, J 13 and 15 the prosecution tried to establish that the tainted currency was recovered from the place where accused No.3 pt and the chemical tests conducted on the fingers of accused Nos 1an 3 I I 1 and also on some of the material objects yielded poSrtrve. I accused No. 1 vehemently contended that the said amo "Iji repaid by PWI in Iieu of hand loan availed by her while she wgs going to Tirupati. PWl could not able to strongly oppose the same since she pleaded ignorance regarding her trip to Tirupati and tha there is no such demand for illegal gratification for issuance o favourable certificate.

¶107

1 6 As per rhe evldence of P.!V I accu Sed No 2 de e 1,, -rat^dPw ;i1l ]- egal grarifi cation fof Speedv iS Suance of certificate }Io e I date ot trap accuSed No ) as on ea e Ex ept PW S 1 on |lthq i 1u r a I I : l ,i

¶108

,++H' 'str'{ i t !:'.i

¶109

lI{t

¶110

" l..t-j.

¶111

IF{it;{ ?! t'l :i il ,) l:.'^r l: i .: '; l,l t Page l3 of20 i therlwitness deposed regarding demand of illegal^{gratilication} by the ;' acluded. tl Furthermore, . as per their evidence accused No.2 I ir { delnanded the shid amount but not the accused No.1. :.i : I i Public Prosecutor contended that the variation : wlt, respect de of demand and date of demand is of no i I Ittl! uence w*1"., he accused was caught red handed during trap ,&i ili i r H et' there is a discrepancy with respect to visit of 't th accuI ofhce of PW 1 and demand. When the facts sppken to by PWI are true, chance of^discrepancy in this^regardis i very less and in such circumstances and^{more particularly in view of} t.! thi spontaneous reply given by accused^{No. 1 regardingthe receipt of} t i,: tainted currency notes the said^{discrepancy in this regardweakens} :,i the case of the prosecution. It is also^{a fact to be noted that as per} i: the I piosecution witnesses, accused^{No. 1 is not the ultimate authority} ':aI rl roJ ,"i","J.. of rcertificate and that she is^{one of} the^officerswho n'I q l-ir iI $Y +t, 1. same . It is not the case of the^prosecution I that the r.lrlI, I tlrt : fti recovered from accused No.l. '-f .;^ri :i[LI -t" i ,{ ''5. :ll tl i ,l ,! 18. PW1 deposed that aJter recovery of^money,shewas I i :, i asked to sit in another room and after^{completionof pre-trap} i II !.: proceedings she was asked to sign on the^papers including^the second mediators report. It is also^{revealed duringthe cross-} examination of PW1 that after^{the CBI officialsentered the room and} Ii il : :L {{ litfir filt. i.^.,

Pagc 14 of 20

r$l

questioned accused No.1 she stated that PWl was her friend arrd on iit Friday, PWl took a hand loan of Rs.1O,00O/- and returned the pame to her. Ex.P2 complaint does not show that PWl and heri Assistalt I ! Kamnakar i.e. PW16 went to the office of accused on 17.09.20 o2 and I submitted Ex.Pl application. Telephone call data to prove the telephonic conversations between PWl and the accused.N oI s.1 and ll 2 are not before the Court to test the genuineness or erac of 1. evidence of PWl. PW1 also pleaded ignorance resardlng cr^st n I of CC No.29 of 20O3 on the file of the learned Princip alSpe ial u e for ACB & SPE Cases, Hyderabad by Karunakar and her eposl n in the said case. She even denied her statement before ! the CBI under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PWI admitted in her evidence that she resided in Vijayawada for some time

¶116

Recitals of Ex.P23/second mediators' report, at .page No. 1 1, shows that PWI stated to accused No.1 that from the morningl she had been trying to meet her to hand over t and thadli PWl had been to Tirupati and came back on the to hand over the money. PW13 also admitted the said vers *r I in Ex.P23. Evidence of PWl3 and recita-ls 3/ seco I I mediators' report shows that while handing ove monpy to accused No.3 accused No. I did not give any instructions. When PWl. I pleaded ignorance regarding hcr trip to Tirupati, the above said recitals of Ex.P23 clearly proved that.PW I is not coming foryvard witti t: i

'; ll rl

I J , ,ii

I'agc I5 of20 e i.rsl n hni^j hence her evidence cannot be relied upon without i{ utbtlri ts ntiI co boration. However, except PW1 and PW16 no :; tneSs dCposed regarding the demand of accused No.2 ori behalf of .i.', '. cused No. 1. r Recitals of Ex.P27 lfrrst mediators' report^further .t i [, nowS that instead of mentioning accused No.1 as her/she', she^was i: intioned as 'him/his' The said mistake was also continued in 1 il P23/second mediators' report Basing on the above mistakes, i 1 "drnid I^{counsel. for the accusedvehemently contended that without} i go ngi through the contents of trxs.P21^{and 23 the mediators/PWs'2} il ' lt I ? li I I ..rh J .igJ.a thLm without there^{being their presence.Evidence of} , i 6 LnJ",nJ Ex.D6/XT-1 Diary shows the moments of the^staff ti l{ 'Ir f i f^{4; I} m mI..",."1,01 ng the accused and that CBI did not seize^{the same.} I i: I per the evidence of PW14 and recitals of Ex.P31 on^24.O9.2OO2, i accused Nos.1 and 2 went to the^{office of} PWl.^{However,recitals of} Ex.P2 complaint and evidence^{of PWs.land 16 it was on 19.O9.2OO2.} 20. PW7, the then Superintendent,^{CustomsandCentral} ExciSe, Saroonagar Range, Ground^{Floor, from whose officethe} j ;irI .l,l ,. aihtdd currincy was recovered^{by the trap laying offrcerpleaded} . i o.1,ce re ing the identity of accused No.3 and^{recovery of} {TII n.[, oo,., ,n. rack located in his office. The^{said evid} ence of Pw7 l I c"ts othbroo t of the case to raise a doubt^{regarding the} version of : rosecu.ll tion. As per the casti of prosecution accused No.3 was a !r l Sepoy, attending duties in^{the office of accusedNo. 1 but PW7, who} i ii 'l II

Page l6 of 20

.i:,

.;, aI -.{ ,{f

,, s I 4

also belongs to the same of{ice pleaded ignorance regarding his identity. As per the evidence of PW15, the then Inspector of Police il IL and assisted the trap laying offrcer, there was no lshogtirgg, illl stampeding or chasing found during the course of trER ,Rrgcee{in$s. l'|i ll ln such "i...r-"arrr""s, the evidence of prosecutioq witnessed aird liill also the recitals of second mediators' report stating that afler r5ceiRt i of tainted currency, accused No.1 instn-rcted accused No.3 to conceal the same and upon observing the same PW2, accompanying witness traced him and found the place where accused No.3 kept the tainted money became doubtful. PW16, who accompanied PWl to the offrce of accused No.1 for submitting Ex.Pl application pleaded ignorance regarding the identity of accused No.2. Though PW16 was declared I hostile, nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination

¶128

prosecution to disprove his evidence.

¶129

2L. Evidence of PW9, who was the Director of ,r S l company is very crucial to test the veracity of evidence of PfVl as he pleaded ignorance regarding demand of accused and source o tainted currency provided by PW1 to the CBI. PW9 vehemen I contended that on 30.O9.2OO2 he did not pay the tainted currency ofi :l Rs. 10,00O/- to PWl. PW13 trap laying officer admitted that they did not seize the inspection report from the office of accused No,l.iI I Telephone call data was not called for and the attendance registers of accused were also not seized by the prosecution ri

¶130

ii ri, I tt is I il +.bit I,I I'fi ;lf-r{.ri

¶131

:, i Ir,t.a.I i.I i.I|;- l .. i , l

i ll . :li

l '{it i i

i' '( ; i 1..t t: I

Pagc l7 of 20

bSen.. of accused No.2 on that day and assigning^{duty of accused} t;i, o'.3 in the office premises of abcused No.1. jl i 22. So far as the complicity and accusation levelled against t i : t dccusI ed No.2 are concerned, he was allegedly accompanied i$, .: No. ;i 1 ,l the business premises of PW1 and demanded^to 'formality'of paying Rs.10,00O/-^{to Rs.15,00O/-for} t* of certificate. Admittedly, he was on leave on^the trap:and that no substantial or^{corroboratingevidence is} available on record to fix his complicity.^{PW1 6, who allegedly} ir acbompanied PWl to the office^{of accusedNo.1 for submittingEx.P1} application 1 stated that he does^{not know accused No.2. In that view} of i the matter, the said allegation of^{PW 1 cannot stand for legal} scrutiny and the ,, deposition of PWI^{alonecannotsufhce to fixhis} I otplicity in commission of offence. Further,^{the prosecution failed} it .lr. oL establish I the charges levelled^{againstthe accusedNo.2.} l'lr il tf fi ore the Cturt below, found him^{not guiltyof the offenceswith} ':'? 1 I I JichI he was charge-sheeted and^{accordingly, acquitted him.} ;r ,i ; li. ,r i il :12s..! Thrii:gh the prosecution laid charge-sheet^againstthe icu3ed i: lr fo.i r the offence under Section 120-8^{IPC also,} it^failedto estabiish the element of criminal^{conspiracy among the accused.} 24. Basing on the deposition of^{DW3 the accused tried to} criate a doubt in the mind of the^{Court regarding the genuineness} lir alh .ieracity of the evidence of^{PW1and PW16 mainly contending}

¶139

i r. I i: 1Ilrl tit1 ,. [:tr ri i

¶140

I'ase lll of 20

¶141

1r! li-

¶142

that they used to exert pressure on the Government offi"1ls I of filing false complaints with a view to threaten them to do ;F: I works. Evidence of DW3, who worked as Inspector, of Police, ,I t? shows that CC No.29 of 2003 on the fr.le of the learned PrincigaJ Special Judge for ACB & SPE Cases, Hyderabad wa.s got ;egis,terld by PW16 herein wherein PWI was a witness. fhorleh th" t"a..rLa ri Public Prosecutor contended that both cases are different and cannot have impact while deciding this case, it shows the manoeuvre of P 1 II T in approaching the CBI or ACB officials complain alns t,ne Government officials with the help of PW16. ng l 25. The manoeuvre of PWl in trying to suppress {he fact] of her Tirupati tnp and her deposing as a witness in CC No.29 of 2O03 makes her evidence suspicious. It gives raise a doubt in the mind of the Court that PWI did not approach the CBI with clean hands. Further, to some extent, PWl, PW16 and PW9 did not support the case of the prosecution.

¶143

Another circumstance to be taken into considerationt while deciding the complicity or otherwise of the accusqd isg T itt there is no ,lillevidence on record to establish that accused I demanded the bribe amount in the presence of accused Nq.1 oq U il accused No.l is having knowledge regarding such demand -rg" P accused No.2 having been instructed by accused No. 1. Furtherj,{ when the accused No.2 had a-llegedly acted as a conduit for the entirq

¶144

ri r{'t ', ii r!-1 ri

jI :

Ii.r: I 1:. 1r'.,i .

tI t : l I\

t I

I I t.t. iI I i

;

Pegc l9 of 20of 2020

I Pegc l9 of 20of 2020 I; ) I +L I TT 1

¶154

r tct oI his labsence on the date of trap leaves many unexplained

¶155

1tl l:I I I L""[,o[= -l^{lnd of the Court.} When there was direct """"s5 61dl;;^:;: ,[ I. exlls b tr;veen PWl and accused No.2, what made^.PWl 16: fi41d6y61:'.-^-: I .-. e tatn ed curiency notes in the absence of accuSed Nb:2 is not ( in sudh- circumstances, basing on the highly interested *- x 1, , ti tule eposition of PWs.l and 16 the complicity of the accused iI ann6t e fxedi ln view of the above referred discrepalcies in the

¶156

: p.l SCtCu on evidence, it is not believable to accept the case of the ll f ,l sJ; o,\ tf,"l tfr. accused No. I clemanded and accepted the illegal i I rl t l rItrlrca ofi f.or{.l^pW t for issuancc of fcvourable report in favour of I T l1 he hfmI lttlil i i {rii lz I Whe., the above factual matrix^{are evaluated'viiththa.'} , 'i.t material1 I available on record, grounds urged herein, the law laid down i the decisions relied upon and the submissions made on eithei si e, finding accused Nos.1 and 3 for the offences punishable under S ctions 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act and t, il . ! ."t,,i. 01 of IPC by the Court below is not correct since the t J"a Nd. 1 cduld able to shake the prosecution case by adducing

¶157

l1' lI r el:I 1 .l O*b bontending that she had acquaint.nce I ;*ith PWI'i I I f^; . I pn r lto llritde date of trap, out of the said acquaintdlce, PWI I aJ[ ed h'and Lan of Rs: i0,00O/: to meet her expenses forr'her tritri',1; i, ,.:;i:g:1., . I

¶158

to, Tirrp ti and after returning, she repaid the same and in such .

¶159

i i*t having previous experience in complaining against the I9cess, -.1 II^ll,: 'i,l :l 'I ;l

siH I

I'agc 20 ol2(l

l'^1,-' t

public scrwants with tl-rc l-rclp of pW16, pWI got t-:,,,"t accus;d No.1 in the prcsent case. pW9, who is cmcial to .ihelpiosccgtign case, being the Director of the company and,also ,t$,,${. t.,lt application for obtaining necessary.perrnissions, ait$rffilfl bn.l.t'tp. t case of PWl and pleaded ignorance regarding her allr"f' the accused. Further, the evidence on record also tailedIr { h the prosecution case against the accused No.3 su 'Po'' susprcrous clrcumstances surrounded around the of t prosecution, it is not safe to hnd accused Nos.I and 3 guilty for the offences as alleged. Instead of proving its case beyond rpasonablc doubt, thc prosecution failed to ctarify the discreparcics in the i!l prosecution evidence. Accordingly, under these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the accused are entitled for acquittal. i { c d 2a. Accordingly, the present appeals d"".! lrto "1" setting aside thc hndings made vide judgment dated 17 1 2r)07 1n I I CC No.25 of 2OO3 on the hle of tJle learned Special Judge forI CB I I I I Cases, IJyderabad. i

¶164

In the result Criminal Appeal Nos. 1725. of 2OOZ anI 1763 of 2OO7 are allowed. Miscellaneous applibations; I if ill! pending, sha-ll also stand closed. JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /1tSECTIofi orrrcen

i.,tt i$+ ;'iit+ ;

;-, ,:^r I

'i i{r;I *.1 ii tl I I

¶169

E il! .I

¶170

To,

¶171