In the court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada
Present: Sri A. Satyanand, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum – III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Friday, 21st (Twenty first) day of April 2023
C.C.No.55/2011
( Cr.No.02/RCT-ACB-VJA/2011) ComplainantState represented by District Inspector, Krishna Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada. Smt.Ilavala Meena Devi, Special Public Prosecutor Represented by AccusedSri Mundru Ravi, S/o Nageswara Rao, 42 years, (B-2 seat), Senior Assistant, O/o Deputy Director, District Treasury, Krishna District, Machilipatna, R/o D.No.37-3-13, Badavapeta, Near Labbipeta, Vijayawada. Represented bySri Dittakavi Ramchand, Advocate
This case came before me on 11.04.2023 for final hearing. Upon hearing arguments, perusing the record and having considered the matter till this day, this Court has delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. The state being represented by the District Inspector, ACB,
Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Cr. No.02/RCT-ACB-VJA/2011 with the following averments:
1.1) Accused was Senior Assistant, B-Section, office of the Deputy
Director, District Treasury Office, Krishna, Machilipatnam. As such, he is a public Servant as defined under Sec.2 (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
1.2) L.W.1 Dhulipala Prasanna, retired from service on 30.6.2010 as
Gazetted Head Master, Grade II, from ZP High School, Konthamatmakuru,
Nandigama Mandal of Krishna District. Deputy Educational Officer,
Nandigama sent his pension proposals to A.G.Office, Hyderabad and the 2 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
same were dispatched to the District Treasury Office, Krishna,
Machilipatnam on 23.12.2010 for making arrangements for payment of amounts. On the After noon of 06.01.2011, LW.1 went to the Office of the
District Treasury Officer and learnt that the accused was dealing the subject and requested him to transmit his pension papers to Sub Treasury Officer,
Nandigama to make arrangements for payment of amounts for which the accused demanded Rs.1,500/- as bribe. As the accused delayed processing of family pension file of K.M.S.Sugnanam, though he was against payment of bribe, LW.1 accepted to pay the amount.
1.3) On 10.01.2011, L.W.1 lodged a written complaint with LW.9
Superintendent of Police, ACB, Vijayawada Range. He after getting the facts of the complaint and the antecedents of the accused verified by T.S.K.Ravi, the District Inspector, registered the case and at 10.30 A.M. on 12.01.2011.
After securing mediators, LW.9 observed necessary formalities and successfully laid trap, at 5.30 P.M. on 12.01.2011 and recovered the tainted amount from the upper table drawer of the accused. Hence, he arrested him, and produced him before the court and later handed over investigation to L.W.10 Inspector of ACB, who after examining witnesses, obtained sanction order from the Government of A.P. and filed charge sheet.
2. Basing on the averments of the charge sheet, the then Special
Judge, took cognizance of the offences under Sec.7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of the accused, on hearing both sides, framed charges under Sec.7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 against the accused and questioned the under section 240
Criminal Procedure Code after reading out and explaining the charges and 3 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
the accused pleaded not guilty of those charges. Hence, trail was conducted.
3. During the trial, prosecution has examined L.W.1 Dhulipala
Prasanna as P.W.1. Prosecution has examined K.S.K.Malleswara Rao and
S.V.Naga Kalyani as P.Ws.2 and 3 to prove the procedure to be followed in processing of pension papers. To prove maintenance of registers relating to the pension papers in the office of the District Treasury Officer, prosecution examined Sudagani Venkata Neelachala Rao as P.W.4. To prove that the accused earlier delayed the process of pension benefit papers, prosecution examined Kalagani Mercy Suseela Sugnanam as P.W.5. To prove the pre and post trap proceedings, prosecution has examined one of the mediators
Ganapavarapu Venu Gopal as P.W.6. It examined P.Y.B.Rajesh Kumar, Section
Officer, Finance Department, AP Secretariat as P.W.7 to prove sanction orders. The Investigating Officers A.Venkata Rao and T.S.K.Ravi are examined as P.Ws.8 and 9 respectively. Prosecution got Exs P.1 to P15,
Ex.X1 and Mos 1 to 11 marked in support of its case.
4. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, when examined under Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code for the incriminating material available in the evidence of the prosecution, the accused denied the same as false and stated that on 5.1.2011 while he was having lunch, Teachers
Union Leaders went to him and enquired about the pension papers of P.W.1 and then he harshly responded and that on 12.01.2011 at 5.00 P.M. when
PW.1 enquired about his pension papers, he informed him that they were already dispatched and then he tried to put amount in his hands, but he pushed it away and then he dropped it in the table drawer and in the meanwhile ACB people came there and caught him and that as he is heart patienthe kept some amount in his purse for his personal use. Accused also 4 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
filed written statement along with his medical record stating that he never demanded or received any bribe from P.W.1 and that he is suffering from heart ailment. He got the dispatch register summoned from the DTO office,
Machilipatnam and examined S.Ravi Kumar, Deputy Director as D.W.1 and got the relevant entry in dispatch register relating to dispatch of pension payment order of P.W.1 marked as Ex.D1.
5. Heard both sides who filed written arguments as well. The learned
Special P.P. filed reply arguments also.
5.1) In her written arguments and reply arguments, besides reiterating the averments of the charge sheet, learned Spl. P.P. contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 coupled with Exs.P1 to P15 clearly establish the initial demand of the accused for bribe to do official favour, and the demand and acceptance of bribe on the date of trap, recovery of tainted amount, and that there is no need for corroboration of the evidence of P.W.1 who has no enmity with the accused and hence, as the accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 20 of Prevention of corruption Act, he shall be punished according to law. In support of her contentions, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has relied on the following decisions:
1) Madhukar Bhaskararao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 2001
SC 147 ),
2) Shiv Raj Singh Vs. Delhi Administration ( 1969] 1 SCR 183 ),
3) State of A.P. Vs. P.Satyanarayana Murthy (Crl.Appeal No.580/2001 Dt.03.10.2008 of SC),
4) Maha Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration ( 1976 AIR 449 ) and
5) Girja Prasad (dead) By Lrs Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ( (2007) 7 SCC 625 ) 5.2) The defence counsel contended that the accused was falsely implicated in this case as he arrogantly responded to the leaders of
Teachers Union when they enquired for pension papers of PW.1 and hence, 5 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
P.W.1 who is also union leader implicated him in this case though there was no delay on his part in dispatching his pension payment order and that by the time of the alleged trap, no official favour is pending with him and that the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D1 clearly establish the same. He further contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses so also the sanction order suffer from inconsistencies contradicting each other and hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offences with which he was charged.
In support of his contentions, the defence counsel relied on the following decisions:
1) Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2016 (11) SCC 357 ),
2) B.N.Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka (2015 Crl.L.J.3015),
3) K.Narasimhachary Vs. State, Inspector of Police, ACB (2003 Crl.L.J.3315), and
4) Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of A.P. ( 1979 Crl.L.J.633).
5.3) I have gone through the decisions cited at bar over which there is no quarrel among the advocates of both sides. In Madhukar Bhaskararao
Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2001 SC 147), it was held that in 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 drawn 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 reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like gratification or any valuable thing. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or 6 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
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.
6. InState of A.P. Vs. P.Satyanarayana Murthy (Crl.Appeal
No.580/2001 Dt.03.10.2008 of SC), it was held that merely because some peresons were not examined, same cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of a reliable witness. In Maha Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration ( 1976 AIR 449 ), it was held that any statement made by the accused in answer to questions put by the Inspector is inadmissible under section 162
Cr. P.C. and neither the prosecution nor the accused can take advantage of these answers and that the conduct of the accused would be relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act if his immediate reactions lo the illegal overture of the complainant or his action in inserting unwanted something in his pocket were revealed in the form of acts accompanied then and there or immediately thereafter by words or gestures reliably established. In Girja Prasad (dead) By Lrs Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ((2007) 7 SCC 625), decision in Tahir v. State (Delhi) (1996) 3 SCC 338) wherein it was held that where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case was relied on.
7. In Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2016 (11) SCC 357 ), it was held that enquiry by the accused as to whether money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence leveled against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso 7 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence under Sec.7 or 13 of the Act. In B.N.Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka (2015 Crl.L.J.3015), by observing that the illegal gratification by way of bribe will normally be received by a person secretly and not in presence of public allowed the appeal against conviction holding that when as per the evidence of prosecution so many people as well as the co-employees of the accused were present, and they all were sent out by the Inspector without recording statement of one or two such independent witnesses raises reasonable doubt about the prosecution case. In K.Narasimhachary Vs. State, Inspector of Police, ACB (2003 Crl.L.J.3315), it was held that the accused officers coming into contact with the tainted amount in process of pushing the same from table or thwarting the attempts of the complainants to thrust into hands or pocket need to be taken into account and mechanical acceptance of trap held to be prone to result in injustice. In Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of A.P. ( 1979 Crl.L.J.633), it was held that the grant of sanction is not an ideal formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which efforts protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must there be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant.
8. Basing on the above rival contentions of both sides, the following points arose for determination:
1) Whether there is valid sanction for prosecution of the accused?
2) Whether the accused being a public servant, demanded and accepted Rs.1,500/- on 12.01.2011 as gratification other than legal remuneration from Dhulipala Prasannafor sending PPO of Dhulipala Prasanna to Sub Treasury Office?
3) Whether the accused has misconducted himself as public servant by obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means?
8 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
4) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sec. 7 and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt?
5) To what result?
9. POINT No.1:
9.1) In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the accused was working as Senior Assistant in District Treasury Office, Machilipatnam,
Krishna, as on the date of trap and as such he was a public servant within
Sec. 2 (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9.2) As per Sec.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections. 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of Central Government if the employee is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union, and of the State Government if he is employed in connection with the affairs of the State, and in any other case by the authority competent to remove him from his office.
9.3) According to the prosecution, as the Government of A.P., being the competent to remove the accused from service, issued G.O.Ms.No.233
Fiunance (Admn.III), Dt.19.10.2011 for prosecution of the accused. To prove the same, prosecution has examined Sri P.Y.B.Rajesh Kumar, Section Officer in Finance Department, A.P. Secretariat as P.W.7 and got the G.O. issued for prosecution of the accused marked as Ex.P14. According to the accused,
Ex.P14 was issued mechanically without application of mind and that the
Investigating Officer did not send the dispatch register to the Government along with the draft final report and hence, Ex.P14 is not valid.
9.4) P.W.7, P.Y.B.Rajesh Kumar saying that as he used to come across the files containing the signature of the then Prl. Secretary, Finance,
Government of A.P. Smt. Ranjiv R.Acharya, he can identify her signature, identified Ex.P14 as was issued by the then Prl. Secretary stating that under 9 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
Ex.X1, he was authorized to give evidence and that on 16.01.2011 the office of Chief Secretary received Radio Message from ACB about trap of the accused, and suspended him on 17.01.2011, and thereafter, on 15.07.2011,
Finance Department has received draft final report through A.P.Vigilance
Commission advising prosecution of the accused andconsidering the same, on perusal of entire record, the then Prl. Secretary issued Ex.P14 to prosecute the accused.
9.5) P.W.7 denied the defence suggestion that Ex.P14 was issued mechanically, without examining relevant material and without applying mind. The accused did not cross-examine P.W.9 about Ex.P14 sanction proceedings except suggesting that Ex.P14 is nothing but a replica of draft sanction order prepared by them. But, the alleged draft sanction order was not brought on record as evidence. Even if Ex.P14 is in the format of the draft sanction order sent by ACB, it cannot be a sole ground to say that the sanctioning authority has not applied mind before issuing Ex.P14 proceedings according sanction for prosecution of the accused.
9.6) Perusal of Ex.P14 sanction order shows that the then Prl.
Secretary to the Government of A.P., after fully and carefully examining the
Final Report, FIR, mediatornamas, gist of statements of witnesses and circumstances of the case, considered that the accused should be prosecuted in a Court of Law for the offences under Secs.7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C.Act, 1988, accorded permission for prosecution of the accused.
9.7) In S.Kumara Swamy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Manu/AP/ 2810/2013), the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., held that examination of sanctioning authority is not necessary, and the examination of officer who is acquainted with the signature of the sanctioning authority is sufficient to prove sanction. It was further held that the sanctioning authority vividly 10 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
mentioned the particulars of the case touching the first demand, main trap events, facts constituting distinct offences committed by accused by exercising power under Sec.19 of PC Act and accorded sanction, it must be said that the sanction order spells out that it was issued on proper application of mind and mere non mentioning of the documents referred is not a consequence at all. The decision in Shiv Raj Singh Vs. Delhi
Administration (1969] 1 SCR 183), is also to the same affect.
9.8) In this case, P.W.7 clearly identified the signature of the then Prl.
Secretary to Government on Ex.P14 sanction proceedings and deposed that it was with the signature of the then Prl. Secretary to Government. His evidence was not denied by the accused even by way of suggestion. Simply because, Ex.P14 is a replica of the draft sanction order, it cannot be said that the sanctioning authority did not apply its mind before according sanction for prosecution of the accused. Hence, I have no hesitation to conclude that Ex.P14 sanction proceedings are valid and were issued after proper application of mind. Accordingly, this point is answered.
10. POINTS 2 TO 4:
10.1) As all the above points are interrelated and dependent on each other, they are being dealt in common to avoid repetition of facts and for better appreciation of the respective contentions of both sides.
10.2) In this case, as stated above, there is no dispute about the fact that the accused was a public servant as was working as Senior Assistant in
District Treasury Office, Machilipatnam by the date of trap on 12.01.2011.
As per my finding on point no.1, Ex.P14 sanction orders for prosecution of accused is valid.
10.3) According to the prosecution, on 06.01.2011 P.W.1 has approached the accused requesting to send his pension payment order to 11 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
Nandigama Sub Treasury and he demanded him for bribe of Rs.1,500/- and hence on 10.01.2011, PW.1 presented Ex.P1 report to P.W.8, who after following due procedure, successfully laid trap on 12.01.2011 and recovered the tainted amount from the table drawer of the accused and arrested him and hence, the accused shall be punished for the offences under Sec. 7 and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
10.4) According to the accused, he never demanded nor accepted any bribe from P.W.1 and that when Union Leaders of P.W.1’s association approached him to enquire about pension papers of P.W.1, he arrogantly replied and hence, they bore grudge against him and got this case foisted and that on the date of trap, when P.W.1 approached him he informed him that his PPO was already dispatched and then P.W.1 tried to put money in his hands, but he pushed it away and then, PW.1 dropped the same in to his table drawer, and in the meanwhile, ACB officials went there and implicated him in this case and that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is with contradictions and not believable and on the other hand, the evidence of
D.W.1 and Ex.D1 clearly show that no official favour was pending with the accused by the time of alleged trap and hence, he is entitled for acquittal.
10.5) In this case, the accused did not deny PW.1’s approach and enquiry for dispatch of his pension papers on the date of trap. In fact, the accused admitted that P.W.1 went to him and inquired about his pension papers and then he informed PW.1 that his PPO was already dispatched.
10.6) The accused did not dispute recovery of M.O.3 tainted amount of Rs.1,500/- from his table drawer and when tested with Sodium Carbonate
Solution his right hand fingers yielded positive result under M.O.8. But, the accused contended that the amount was dropped by P.W.1 into table drawer as he pushed away the same when P.W.1 tried to put it in his hand and 12 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
immediately the ACB officials went there and seized the MO.3 along with his money (under M.Os.4 to 7) which he kept with him as he is a heart patient.
10.7) During his evidence, P.W.1 Dhulipala Prasanna deposed that his pension papers were dispatched to the District Treasury Office,
Machilipatnam on 23.12.2010, and on 06.01.2011, he went to that office and met the accused in the evening and was demanded for Rs.1,500/- as bribe and though he expressed his inability, the accused insisted for payment and hence he unwillingly agreed, and on 10.01.2011 he presented
Ex.P1 report to DSP, ACB, Vijayawada and as asked by him, he went to their office at 10.30 A.M. on 12.01.2011 with the proposed bribe and then the
DSP, got him enquired through the mediators about the contents of report, noted the numbers and denomination of the amount produced by him, smeared with phenolphthalein powder and kept in his left side pocket instructing to pay the same to the accused only on his further demand and thereafter explained the chemical test.
10.8) P.W.1 further deposed that on the date of trap, they reached the Collector’s office at 4.15 P.M. and from there as asked by DSP, he entered into the office of the District Treasury, met the accused and on his enquiry whether he brought the demanded amount, he gave it to the accused who received it with right hand and kept it in the right side table drawer and handed over Ex.P2 copy of memo and on noticing correction of
Nandigama by rounding it off and noting Kanchikacherla on his asking, the accused informed that he would ask Kanchikacherla on phone to send the same to Nandigama Office and that he would dispatch the same on the next day and then he gave prearranged signal and then the trap party entered into the office asking him to wait outside and thereafter he was called in and enquired about the things happened and that his statement was recorded by the Magistrate under 164 Cr.P.C.
13 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
10.9) P.W.2, K.K.S.K. Malleswara Rao, Sub Treasury Officer has deposed that on 12.01.2011, ACB officials raided their office and recovered money from the accused and that the test conducted to the right hand fingers of the accused yielded positive result, and several days prior to that incident, he saw P.W.1 sitting at the seat of the accused in his absence. He spoke about the procedure for processing pension papers. Stating that on receipt of the pension papers sanctioned by A.G. office, A section (inward) will enter the same in Register and then by entering the same in
Distribution Register, A section will forwarded the same to the Sub Treasury
Officer who in his turn, will entrust the same to the Accountant concerned and he will then enter details in Pension Payment order Register, gratuity register, and forward the same to him and he will verify the same and forward it to the Deputy Director for final approval, and the Deputy Director after approval sent back to the Accountant for dispatch, and that by the date of trap, the accused was Accountant of Vijayawada Division which consists Vijayawada, Kanchikacherla, Nandigama and Jaggaiahpet areas.
10.10) P.W.2 further deposed that the Pension papers of P.W.1 were received by their office on 03.01.2011 and were forwarded to him on 04.01.2011 and that on the same day, he handed over the same to the accused who put them up before him on 10.01.2011 and on the same day, he verified and forwarded the same to the Deputy Director on the next morning and the Deputy Director approved the same on 11.01.0211 and that the accused gave them to dispatch section on 12.01.2011. PW.2 stated that the correction of the word ‘Nandigama’ in Ex.P2 was made by him.
Through PW.2, the prosecution got the covering letter of AG Office, Inward
Register, Distribution Register, marked as Exs.P3 to P5 respectively.
10.11) Chief Accounts officer, S.V.Naga Kalyani also as P.W.3 deposed about the procedure for approval of pension payment order and deposed 14 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
that the pension papers in this case were received by Inward section on 3.1.2011, and after noting the same in Distribution Register, the same were sent to P.W.2 on 4.1.2011, and on the same day, they were forwarded to the accused, who after receiving them on 04.1.2011, put up the same on 10.01.2011 before P.W.2, and after scrutiny those papers were forwarded to the Deputy Director of Treasuries who approved the same on 11.01.2011 and sent to the accused for dispatch and they were dispatched on 12.01.2011.
10.12) P.W.4 Senior Accountant, Sudagani Veera Venkata Neelachala
Rao deposed that on 3.1.2011, he received the registered parcel from the officer of Account General, Hyderabad entered the same in Pension Register and handed over the same to the Superintendent under Ex.P4 and it was entrusted to the accused under Ex.P5.
10.13) P.W.5 Kalagani Mercy Suseela Sugnanam was examined to prove the alleged delay caused by the accused in processing file for sanctioning family pension to her. She did not speak anything against the accused. According to her, after death of her husband, she applied for family pension in the office of D.E.O, Machilipatnam and made several requests, but she did not personally meet anybody and that she does not know the accused. Though she was cross-examined by the Spl.P.P., with the permission of the court, except getting her alleged statement under
Sec.161 Cr.P.C. to ACB, marked as Ex.P8, nothing could be elicited against the accused.
10.14) One of the mediators i.e., G.S.N.Murthy as P.W.6 deposed that on the instructions of their Superintendenting Engineer, APSPDCL, he along with L.W.7 went to the ACB office at 11.00 A.M. and there the DSP after introducing them to his staff, gave Ex.P9 copy of FIR asking them to enquire
P.W.1 about the genuineness and that when they read over the contents, 15 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
P.W.1 admitted them to be true, and then P.W.1 gave Rs.1,500/- brought by him towards proposed bribe and numbers of those notes were recorded by
L.W.7 and that on the instructions of Dy.SP, constable sprayed phenolphthalein powder to those notes and kept them in the pocket of
P.W.1, and the DSP instructed P.W.1 to give the same to the person who demanded bribe only on further demand, and collected M.O.1 and 2 samples of those powders and explained the chemical test to them and to that effect Ex.P10 mediators’ report was prepared.
10.15) P.W.6 further deposed that on the same day, they reached office of Deputy Director, District Treasury, Machilipatnam by 04.15 P.M. and there the DSP instructed P.W.1 to go to the accused and pay the tainted amount on his demand and if he receives, to give signal by wiping his hair with right hand, and as the remaining staff members took vantage positions
P.W.1 went into the office at 5.00 P.M and came out by 5.30 P.M. and gave signal and then they all entered into B Section and found the accused, and then the DSP after introduction asked the accused who was shivering and stated that he committed blunder and requested the DSP to save him, and the test conducted to right hand fingers alone gave positive result, and on being asked about the result, the accused picked up M.O.3 from his table drawer and gave it to DSP, and on verification, numbers of those notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in Ex.P10 and then the DSP inspected the drawer and found M.Os.4 to 7 cash and conducted to the table drawer which also yielded positive result and then the DSP seized M.os.8 to 10 resultant solutions and M.O.11 sample of Sodium Carbonate Solution used in trap proceedings, called P.W.1 and recorded his statement and seized
Ex.P2 produced by P.W.1 and that the accused also produced Ex.P11, P4, to
P6 and then the Dy.S.P examined witnesses, prepared Ex.P12 rough sketch 16 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
and to that effect Ex.P13 mediators report was prepared and served on the accused.
10.16) Investigating Officer, A. Venkateswara Rao as P.W.8 deposed that on 10.01.2011 on receipt of Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at 11.00 A.M., he forward it to P.W.9 for enquiry about its genuineness and antecedents of the accused, and that basing on P.W.9’s endorsement at 10.15 A.M. on 12.01.2011, he registered Ex.P15 FIR, requested Superintendent Engineer to depute independent witnesses and after appearance of witnesses, he got the contents of Ex.P9 confirmed by P.W.1 through the mediators and got the numbers of M.O.3 cash produced by P.W.1 noted and got the same smeared with phenolphthalein powder and kept it in the pocket of P.W.1 instructing him to pay the same to the accused only on his further demand and give signal if he accepts the same, and collected M.Os.1 and 2 and got prepared
Ex.P10 mediators’ report.
10.17) P.W.8 further deposed that after pre-trap proceedings, they all reached District Treasury office at 4.15 P.M. and there he instructed P.W.1 to go to the accused and pay the tainted amount only on his further demand and if he accepts the same to give signal, and accordingly P.W.1 went into the office and came out at 5.30 P.M. and gave pre arranged signal and then they all entered into the office asking P.W.1 to stay outside, and got conducted test to the both hands fingers of the accused and got positive result only for his right hand fingers, and then on his instructions, the accused opened the table drawer and shown M.O.3 whose numbers are tallied with the numbers noted in pre-trap proceedings, and on his instructions, mediators searched the right side table drawer and found
M.Os.4 to 7 out of which M.O.6 contains the words M.P.S.Sundar, and then he seized the same and that the test conducted to white paper on which
M.O.6 was found also gave positive result, and then he seized M.Os.8 to 11 17 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
and called P.W.1 and recorded his statement and that P.W.1 produced
Ex.P11 and he seized Ex.P5 Inward Register, Ex.P6 Attendance Register and prepared Ex.P12 rough sketch of the scene and later examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 and recorded their statements and got Ex.P13 post-trap proceedings prepared and served the same on accused and arrested the accused and handed over the further investigation to P.W.9.
10.18) P.W.9 deposed that on 10.1.2011, P.W.1 handed over Ex.P1 for enquiry, and accordingly he made enquiries and submitted endorsement that the contents of the petition are genuine and the suspected officer was enjoying bad reputation, and later he assisted P.W.8 in pre and post trap proceedings and took up further investigation on the instructions of D.G., and examined P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 and later on receiving explanation from the accused by serving notice, submitted final report to D.G., ACB, and on receipt of Ex.P14 sanction order, filed charge sheet.
10.19) The accused summoned the dispatch register and got the photo copy of the relevant entry regarding dis.No.B2/102/2011
Dt.12.01.2011 relating to P.W.1 under which PPO No.19-020610/SP was dispatched with Registered post receipt No.3653 marked as Ex.D1 through
D.W.1. On perusal of Ex.D1 it appears that on 12.01.2011, Pension Payment orders of P.W.1 D.Prasanna and of B.Krishna Rao were sent to the STO of
Kanchikacherla at 2.00 P.M. In this case, D.W.1 clearly stated that B2 mentioned in the dispatch register, relates to the seat of the person dealing the pension papers and the accused was dealing that seat by 12.01.2011.
Though D.W.1 stated that he cannot identity the hand writings on Exs.P2 and P11, he stated that Ex.P11 bears initial and signature of the then
Deputy Director Surendra Babu. Evidence of D.W.1 coupled with Ex.D1 clearly proves dispatch of PPO of P.W.1 to Kanchikacherla, Sub Treasury
Office at 2.00 P.M. i.e., even before the alleged trap at 5.35 P.M.
18 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
10.20) During his evidence P.W.1 deposed as if the accused after receipt of amount, handed over the original of Ex.P2 copy stating that he would dispatch the same on the next day. In fact, PPO of P.W.1 was already dispatched at 2.00 PM in Post office as appearing from Ex.D1 and proved by
D.W.1. In Ex.P11, stamp as “dispatched” was also there. Though P.W.1 in his
Ex.P1 complained that his pension papers were dispatched by the
Accountant General, Hyderabad on 23.12.2010, perusal of Ex.P3 letter coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 shows that it was received in the the office of District Treasury officer on 03.01.2011 and the same was placed
before P.W.2 on 04.01.2011. P.W.2 deposed as if on the same day i.e., on
4.1.2011, he sent the same to the accused and he put up the papers on 10.01.2011 and after verification they were forwarded to Deputy Director who approved the same on 11.01.2011.
10.21) But during his cross-examination, PW.2 clearly admitted that as per the attendance register, the accused was on Casual leave on 04.01.2011. While answering to the question “Therefore your evidence that you handed over the pension papers to the AO on 04.01.2011 is false, P.W.2 answered that he handed over the papers to the concerned sections on the same day and the papers of complainant relating to accused might have been given to him on his return”. Ex.P7 entry in Ex.P6 Attendance register clearly shows that the accused was on Casual leave on 04.01.2011 and the entry regarding receipt of Pension papers by B 2 section in Ex.P5 register did not contain any date near the initial. But the entry in respect of
B5/73/11 X1, bears initial with Date 06.01.2011. Entry relating to P.W.1’s paper was noted as 10th after the first entry in that page. Hence, it can be presumed that the accused might have received the same on 06.01.2011 and did not put date after his initial.
19 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
10.22) P.W.2 clearly admitted that Saturday and Sunday are public holidays to their office. Ex.P6 Attendance register shows that 8th and 9th of
January 2011 are public holidays being 2nd Saturday and Sunday. P.W.2 further admitted that the work load in the section of the accused is more when compared to other sections. Even according to P.W.2, the accused put up the pension papers before him on 10.01.2011 i.e., on Monday. Hence, it is clear that the accused prepared pension papers within two working days which after taking the work load of the accused as stated by P.W.2 into consideration cannot be said to be inordinate delay in processing of Pension
Papers of P.W.1.
10.23) P.W.1 though contended that on the evening of 06.01.2011, he went to the office of the District Treasury Officer and found him absent, he met the accused and on his request to forward his pension papers, the accused demanded for bribe, he presented Ex.P1 report to P.W.8 at 11.00
A.M. on 10.01.2011 without explaining the delay for reporting the incident.
During his cross-examination, P.W.1 clearly stated that P.W.2 STO is superior to the accused, and the District Treasury officer is head of all the sections in that office, but he did not complain against the accused to his superiors till his report on 10.01.2011. Though the perusal of dates after his signature and the name of station at the end of the 2nd page of Ex.P1 appears to be corrected as 10 from 12, the accused bluntly denied the suggestion that he corrected the date and that Ex.P1 was prepared on 12.01.2011 with ante date for the purpose of filing this case.
10.24) P.W.1 though denied the suggestion that on 05.01.2011, their
Union Leaders approached the accused and pressed him for completion of work of P.W.1 while he was having lunch and as he responded irritatingly and reprimanded them, they developed grudge against him and wanted to teach him a lesson by involving him in ACB case, admitted that he was the 20 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
member of United Teachers Federation and worked as Office Bearer for some time prior to his working as Head Master.
10.25) P.W.8 stated that he requested S.E orally for mediators. If it is subsequent to registration of F.I.R. and on receipt of instructions of SE, P.W.6 and L.W.7 approached him, naturally it will take some time. But P.W.6 mediator stated that he and L.W.7 on being asked by their Superintendent
Engineer, went to the ACB office by 11.00 A.M. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 8 shows that the mediators reached ACB office at 11.00 A.M. which suggests that even prior to registration of Ex.P15 F.I.R., P.W.8 secured the mediators. Though the Ex.P9 F.I.R. was registered at 10.30 A.M. in
Vijayawada, it reached the Court only at 5.15 P.M. on 12.01.2011.
10.26) P.W.6 deposed as if he picked out the tainted amount of
Rs.1,500/- from the drawer of the table. But, in Ex.P13 it was mentioned as if the other mediator G.Venkata Gopal picked up the same. Likewise, in
Ex.P13, it was mentioned as if the accused sat before the table facing towards East, but Ex.P12 rough sketch and the subsequent recitals at page
No.9 shows that the accused having his seat on South East Corner of the room as B2 clerk at Sl.No.5 and thereby he might have sat facing towards
North. Though P.W.6 during his cross-examination denied that the lines at the end of page No.9 and 1st line of Page 10 of Ex.P13 about preparation of rough sketch by PW.9, it appears that they were inserted subsequently by adjustment.
10.27) P.W.8 clearly admitted that Ex.P11 contains the stamp with initial Dt.12.01.2011 as ‘dispatched’. He admitted that non Gazetted officers are not entitled to use Green ink pen and in Ex.P11, the name of town ‘Nandigama’ was struck off and the name ‘K.Cherla’ was written with
Green ink. According to P.W.1, after receiving M.O.3 tainted amount, the accused issued original of Ex.P2 to him. P.W.6 deposed that Ex.P11 and 21 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
Ex.P2 were produced by the accused. On perusal of Ex.P2 i.e., the alleged copy of PPO handed over to P.W.1 and Ex.P11 alleged to be produced by the accused after trap, one can easily say that they are not same. Ex.P2 is with fullThe signature of Deputy Director without any date, whereas Ex.P11 contains initial with Date as XI.0I.XI. Likewise, striking off ‘Nandigama’ at two places in Exs.P2 and P11 with initials are different. In Ex.P11 the name of place of the Sub Treasury Officer written as ‘K.Cherla’ by striking off ‘Nandigama’. In Ex.P2 ‘Nandigama’ was corrected as ‘Kanchikacherla’. Had
Ex.P11 and original of Ex.P2 are carbon copies of PPO dispatched to STO,
Kanchikacherla under Ex.D1 and they were prepared simultaneously on the same day, there will not be any chance for difference in writing names, so also in signatures of the Deputy Director of District Treasury.
10.28) P.W.1 deposed as if when he questioned the accused about addressing the PPO to the STO of Kanchikacherla instead of Nandigama by rounding off the word Nandigama, the accused stated to him that he would inform Kanchikacherla on phone to send the same to Nandigama Office and will also intimate the same to Nandigama office on phone. P.W.2 during his chief-examination itself explained the correction in Ex.P2 stating that the pensioner being Head Master of Nandigama Mandal, should have got the photo attested by next controlling officer in the limits of Nandigama, but it was found attested by the Head Master in the limits of Kanchikacherla and due to confusion he made the correction. But, it appears improbable and an after thought.
10.29) Had P.W.1 noticed the correction of place of STO in PPO order on being supplied with the copy, he would have immediately insisted P.W.2 or the accused for correction of place as Nandigama and would not have agreed for dispatch of that order on the next day as stated by the accused that he would phone to Kanchikacherla to send it to Nandigama and also 22 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
inform by phone to Nandigama as they will not pay pension at Nandigama, when the PPO was addressed to Kanchikacherla Sub Treasury. Taking the fact that P.W.1 is a retired Head Master and was in a hurry to receive pension and having given report to ACB, his conduct in not insisting for dispatch of PPO to Nandigama Sub Treasury appears to be against natural human conduct and improbable.
10.30) The conduct of P.W.1 in not reporting the alleged demand of the accused for bribe on 06.01.2011 till 10.01.2011, his refusal to admit the correction of date in Ex.P1 report, securing mediators by PW.8 even prior to registration of Ex.P15 F.I.R., the fact that P.W.1 is Teachers Union Leader, and prompt processing of pension papers of accused within two days (three days even if accused contention that somebody on behalf of P.W.1 approached on 05.01.2011 for enquiry and he repremanded them and reacted harshly is correct) and dispatch of PPO corrected by P.W.2 probablize the defense case that as the accused reacted arrogantly with the
Teachers Union leaders, they have foisted false case with ante date and got the tainted amount touched with hand while refusing to receive when offered by P.W.1 and dropped the same in the right side drawer of table.
Hence, after considering the above facts, I have no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe of Rs.1,500/- and demand and acceptance of the same on 12.01.2011 at 5.30 P.M. so as to draw presumption against the accused and thereby to conclude that the the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences Under
Sec.7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C.Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, all the points are answered against the prosecution.
23 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
11. POINT NO. 5:
In view of my above discussion on points 1 to 4, accused is not guilty of the charges framed against him and is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered.
12. In the result, I find the accused not guilty of the charges under
Sec.7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly, I acquit him under Sec.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bond of the accused shall be in force for six months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. MO.3 cash of Rs.1,500/- shall be returned to PW.1 Dhulipalla Prasanna and Mos 4 to 7 shall be returned to the accused as the same were seized from his table drawer at the time of trap and the accused claimed the same. M.Os1, 2 and 8 to 11 shall be destroyed after appeal or appeal period is over.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this 21st day of April 2023.
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases
-cum- III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the Prosecution: For the Defence:
P.W.1: Dhulipala PrasannaD.W.1: S.Ravi Kumar
P.W.2: K.K.S.K.Malleswara Rao
P.W.3: S.V.N.Kalyani
P.W.4: S.V.V.Neelachala Rao
P.W.5: Kalangi Mercy Sueela Sugnanam
P.W.6: Ganapavarapu Venugopal
P.W.7: P.Y.B.Rajesh Kumar
P.W.8: A.Venkata Rao
P.W.9: T.S.K.Ravi 24 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the Prosecution:
Ex.P1/10.01.2011 : Complaint given by P.W.1 Ex.P2/01.11.2011 : Memo order copy L.Dis.No.B2/102/11 Ex.P3/26.11.2010 : Covering letter of AG office, Hyderabad Ex.P4/--: Inward Register copy Ex.P5/12.01.2011 : Form T.A.22 Copy of B Section Distribution Register Ex.P6/--: Attendance register Ex.P7/04.11.2011 : Casual leave in Sl.No.19 by name M.Ravi Ex.P8/27.03.2011 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 Ex.P9/12.01.2011 : Copy of FIR Ex.P10/12.01.2011 : Mediators report (pre trap) Ex.P11/01.11.2011 : Carbon copy of memo L.Dis.No.B.2/102/11 Ex.P12/12.01.2011 : Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P13/12.01.2011 : Mediators report II (post trap) Ex.P14/19.10.2011 : Sanction order G.O.Ms.No.233 Ex.P15/12.01.2011 : Original FIR FOR DEFENCE : Ex.D1:Attested copy of relevant entry in Dispatch Register along with copy of post receipt Ex.X1Proceedings in O.O.Rt.No.111 Dt.20.02.2020 issued to Addl. Secretary to Government.
MATERIAL OBJECTS
MO.1 : Sealed cover containing phenolphthalein powder
MO.2 :Sealed cover containing Sodium Carbonate Powder
MO.3 :Tanted amount of Rs.1,500 (3 x 500/-)
M.O.4 :Cash of Rs.300/- (3 x 1000/-)
M.O.5 :Cash of Rs.1,100/- (2 x 500/- and 1 x 100/-)
M.O.6 :Cash of Rs.400/- ( 3 x 100/- and 2 x 50/-) stapled with paper containing M.P.Sundar
M.O.7 :Cash of Rs.2,400/- (2 x 500/- 14 x 100/-)
M.O.8 : Resultant solution of right hand fingers of accused
MO.9 :Resultant solution of left hand fingers of accused
MO.10 :Resultant solution of Surface of paper on upper table drawer
MO.11 :Sealed cover containing Sodium Carbonate Powder
Spl.Judge, ACB, Vja.
25 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
CALENDER & JUDGMENT
CALENDER CASE TRIED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR ACB CASES-CUM-
III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA
C.C.No.55/2011
Cr.No.02/RCT-ACB-VJA/2011
Date of Offence: Prior to 10.01.2011 Date of FIR: 12.01.2011 Date of Charge sheet: 08.11.2011 Date of framing of charges: 26.07.2012 Date of Commencement of evidence: 28.06.2018 Date on which judgment is reserved: 11.04.2023 Date of the judgment: 21.04.2023 Date of Sentencing Order, if any: 21.04.2023
Accused Details Rank of accused: Sole Name of accused: Mundru Ravi, S/o Nageswara Rao 42 years, B-2 Seat, Senior Assistant, O/o Deputy Director, District Treasury, Krishna District, Machilipatnam R/o D.No.37-3-13, Badavapeta, Near Labbipet, Vijayawada. Date of arrest: 12.01.2011 Date of release on bail: 01.02.2011 : Secs.7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Offences charged with P.C.Act, 1988 Whether acquitted or convicted: Acquitted U/s.248 (1) Cr.P.C. Sentence imposed: -- :-- Period of detention undergone during trial for purpose of Sec.428 Cr.P.C.
EXPLANATION FOR DELAY AND REMARKS:- Accused appeared and received copies of documents on 06.01.2012.
Thereafter charges for the offence punishable U/sec.7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Accused Officer framed on 26.07.2012. Thereafter PWs 1 to PW9 are examined and got 15 exhibits and
M.Os.1 to 11 marked. Later Accused was examined under section 313
Cr.P.C., and reported no defence and the case is posted for Arguments. The
Special Public Prosecutor and the counsel for accused submitted written 26 C.C.No.55/2011, Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vja.
arguments. At last detailed oral arguments heard on both sides on 11.04.2023 and Judgment is pronounced on 21.04.2023.
Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases
-cum- III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
Copy submitted to
The Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
Copies to :
1. The Special Public Prosecutor, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range.
2. The District Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada.