Sri A.Srinivasa Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB

CASES-CUM– II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

NELLORE.

Wednesday, the 25th day of November, 2021

Present: A. Srinivasa Kumar,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE No. 19 of 2015

1.Name of the :State represented by Inspector of Police- Complainant III, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Tirupati Range,Tirupati.

2.Name of the Accused : Gattamaneni Bhaskar, Son of Krishnaiah Naidu, 43 years (as on raid), Assistant Executive Engineer, Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA), Tiruapti, Chittoor District.

3.Crime Number: 02/RCA-TCT/2006 of ACB, Tirupati

Range, Tirupati.

4.Section of Law:Under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5.Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

6.Finding of the Court: Accused is found guiltyfor the charged offence Under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

7.Result (Sentence or : In the result, the Accused is found order) guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Code -: 2 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh rupees only) and in default of payment of such fine, the Accused Officer shall further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. The remand period of the

Accused officer if any shall be given set off under Section 428 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The properties of

Item Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 11 and 15 in

ANNEXURE-A (Assets)worth of

Rs.39,78,905/- (Rupees thirty nine lakhs, seventy eight thousand, nine hundred and five only) as shown in the charge sheet, shall be confiscated to

the State.

This case is coming up for final hearing on 02.11.2021 before me in the presence of Sri K.V.Srinivasa Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and that of Sri B.V.Vardhana, Advocate for the accused, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2 -: 3 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

J U D G M E N T in C.C.No. 19 of 2015

The sole accused who has worked as Assistant Executive

Engineer, at the relevant point of time has been charged for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred as Act) at the instance of the Inspector of

Police-III, Anti Corruption Bureau(ACB), Tirupati Range on the allegation against the accused that he being admittedly a Public Servant, amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.

2. The Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati, conducted raids with the permission of this Court on 28th January, 2006 at the residence of the accused situated in Flat No.504, Vishnu Residency Apartments, Balaji

Colony, Tirupati and also in the house of one Smt M.Nirupama, M.R.Palle,

Tirupati. He also conducted raids in the office premises of the accused situated at Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA) Office, Tirupati and apart from that he also conducted search in the bank lockers of

Indian Overseas Bank, Tirupati, which was in the name of the wife of the accused and his mother-in-law.

3. So far as the brief history of the accused is concerned, it has been narrated in the charge sheet that the accused was the native of

Gundigunta village, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District and he hails from a very poor family having two sisters. It is further contended in the charge sheet that the wife of the accused was a partner in M/s.Vijaya

Construction, Tirupati and he has two sons who were studying in school at the relevant point of time. According to the charge sheet, the check period took up by the Investigating Officer (IO) was from August, 1986 to 31st

January, 2006. According to the investigation done in this case, the 3 -: 4 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 accused was found with total assets worth of Rs.31,08,562/- during the check period and so far as the income of the accused is concerned, it could be found out as Rs.36,20,709/- and so far as the expenditure is concerned, it was found as Rs.92,21,691/-. It has been stated in the charge sheet that the savings of the accused during the check period as

Rs.56,00,982/-. Finally, it has been found out the disproportionate assets of the accused as Rs.87,09,544/- for which the accused allegedly failed to give proper explanation and that was the reason as to why, he has been charge sheeted for the above said offence. After ascertaining the sanction orders from the Government, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offence.

4. The accused made his appearance on 8th August, 2007 before the predecessor of this court, who framed charges against him as he pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried and the predecessor of this court framed charge against him as said above, for the offence under

Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. The prosecution in its efforts to establish the charges against the accused examined as many as 18 witnesses amongst whom, PW.1 was the Investigating Officer in this case and Exhibits P1 to P80 were got marked. On 21st June, 2018, the predecessor of this court examined the accused as per the procedure contemplated under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) while explaining the evidence spoken by each witness against him and the accused replied to the said examination stating that the evidence of witnesses, who have spoken against him was not correct and according to him, the said evidence was falsehood. Subsequently, the accused as a matter of his right, examined as many as 18 witnesses, including his wife as DW.17 and he too marked 4 -: 5 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 26 documents i.e., Exs.D1 to D26. After closure of his evidence, this court heard the arguments on both sides on several adjournments and the

Advocate for the accused as well as the Special Public Prosecutor have filed their written arguments along with the Judgments rendered by the

Hon’ble Apex Court and also the Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh. This

court to avoid burgeoning of the Judgment, discussed the arguments and also the evidence, raised by the Counsel for the Accused and the Special

Public Prosecutor, at the relevant portion of this Judgment. Nevertheless, the following points are formulated in this case:

(1) Whether the accused is a Public Servant so

that to attract Section 13(2) read with Section

13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988?

(2) Whether the prosecution could establish the

nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or

property which was allegedly found in his

possession?

(3) Whether the said properties allegedly found

in the possession of the accused were

disproportionate to his known sources of income?

(4) If so, to what relief?

Point No.1:-

(1) Whether the accused is a public Servant so

that to attract Section 13(2) read with Section

13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988?

6. As already stated above, the accused worked as an Assistant

Executive Engineer in TUDA and therefore, he is a public servant comes under the definition of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. Point Nos.2 to 4:-

(2) Whether the prosecution could establish the

nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or

property which was allegedly found in his

possession?

5 -: 6 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

(3) Whether the said properties allegedly found

in the possession of the accused were

disproportionate to his known sources of income?

8. Since both these points are interrelated and complementary to each other, this court decided to answer them together. It is a well established principle of Law even in special Acts, like Prevention of

Corruption Act, that most of the burden is on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused i.e., to establish the disproportionate allegedly acquired by the accused. At the same time, it is also the Law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in so many case that even the accused will have burden to establish the alleged facts which are in his exclusive knowledge.

9. Before going in to the crux of the matter, this court would like to state in brief, the contentions raised by the Special Public Prosecutor and also the learned Advocate for the accused. The learned Special Public

Prosecutor while drawing the attention of this court to entire case record has vehemently contended that the accused miserably failed to rebut the evidence adduced against him, particularly with regard to the fact about the properties allegedly earned by his wife i.e., DW.17 and finally, he requested this Court to convict the accused.

10. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the accused with equal vehemence has contended that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the disproportionate assets of the accused and he has contended that whatever the properties shown in the list were acquired by the wife of the accused with her own income and therefore, the accused is innocent.

He further contended that even the accused has intimated such businesses and acquisition of properties by his wife to his department and therefore, such property of his wife cannot be included either in the 6 -: 7 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 income or in the expenditure and assets. Both the Special Public

Prosecutor and the learned Advocate for the accused have submitted the citations and this Court has perused them and noted such Law rendered by the superior Courts. However, this court would like to state about such citations rendered by both of them. The advocate has cited the following

Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

(a) M.Krishna Reddy Vs. State, the Deputy Superintendent of Police; 1992(4) SCC 45

(b) Vasant Rao Guhe Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 2017 SCC 37(B)

(c) K.Govardhan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; 2001(1) ALD (Crl)886 (AP)

(d) Krishnand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1977 SCC 796

(e) Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan; AIR 1976 SCC 985

11.The special Public Prosecutor has cited the following

Judgments for perusal by the Court:

(a) Subash Kharate Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; 2000 Crl.L.J 1178

(b) P.Satyamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; 1992 (4) SCC 39

(c) Sub Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam Vs. S.S.Culcarry; 2006 (7) SCC 172

(d) Sreemala Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; 2003 Crl.L.J. 2956

12. This court has perused the above quoted Judgments meticulously and followed the Law. Therefore, the heavy burden is on the prosecution to establish that disproportionate assets allegedly are acquired by the accused during his service.

13. As already stated by this Court, the prosecution as well the 7 -: 8 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 accused have examined 18 witnesses each and marked so many documents. To better appreciate the Judgment, it is inevitable on the part of this court to have a glance at the evidence spoken by each witness and it would be helpful also to ascertain the facts in a proper perspective.

14. PW.1 is the Investigating Officer and at whose guidance, the raid was conducted on 31st January, 2006 has stated in his evidence about the position of the accused as on the date of the raid as Assistant

Executive Engineer in TUDA, Tirupati and also about the manner of raid conducted by them on that day. This witness has also stated about the documents and the articles seized at the time of the raids and also about the family background of the accused. According to this witness, the accused hailed from a poor family and therefore, it was highly improbable on his part to acquire that much of money and properties during his tenure. This witness also explained each item of the income, expenditure and the assets found during the course of raids and according to him, the accused failed to explain the disproportionate disparity and also failed to give proper explanation regarding the said assets and according to him, the accused had acquired assets worth of Rs.87,09,544/-.

15. PW.2, namely K.C.Narayana, who was the Retired Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax has stated in his evidence that as per the directions of the then Commissioner of Income Tax, he furnished a true copy of the Income Tax Return filed by the accused for the Assessment year 2002-2003 and the same was marked as Ex.P80. According to this witness, the accused shown his salary income as Rs.1,23,984 and taxable income as Rs.72,124/-.

16. PW.3, namely P.Balasubrahmanyam, who was a real estate 8 -: 9 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 mediator, gave his evidence about his acquaintance with the wife of the accused as business partner and he also had acquaintance with one

Rajendra Babu Naidu, who was also doing real estate business. According to this witness, he obtained an agreement of sale from the villagers of

Damineedu to purchase 30 acres of land at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and the said land according to him, belongs to the Government.

17. PW.4, namely B.Lokanatha Reddy, who was a document writer gave his evidence that the agreement of sale dated 22nd March, 2004 shown to him at the time of evidence was scribed by him and according to him, the said agreement of sale was executed by one C.P.Rambabu and others in favour of the wife of the accused i.e, DW.17 for Rs.79,00,000/- and an advance of Rs.14,50,000/- was paid to the vendors.

18. PW.5, namely M.Sumati, who is a housewife and wife of one

Vijaya Mohan gave her evidence that she has a house in Balaji Colony,

Tirupati, constructed in the year 1986 under the supervision of the accused and so far as the wife of the accused is concerned, it is her evidence that she is her far relative. She further stated that herself, one

Sailaja and Nirupama started Vijaya Constructions during the period 1997- 1998 and constructed houses and apartments and the said partnership was dissolved for some reasons.

19. PW.6, namely A.K.VenkateswaraRao, who was a retired

Assistant Accounts Officer, in Electricity department of Andhra Pradesh, gave his evidence that the Service connection bearing No.5525600098064 stands in the name of the wife of the accused as a domestic connection and he also spoken about the money deposited by the wife of the accused etc.,

20. PW.7, namely Janardhan Raju, who was working as a 9 -: 10 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Correspondent to Saraswathi Vidyanikethan in Tirupati, has stated in his evidence that he worked as a Headmaster for the said school for 30 years and the children of the accused studied in the said school and tuition fee of Rs.12,760 and Rs.720/- was collected.

21. PW.8, namely C.Viswanath, who was a retired Revenue Officer, gave his evidence that he worked as such in the Municipality, Tirupati from 11.05.2006 to 30.08.2008 and according to this witness, the house bearing Door No.6-1-246/12, stands in the name of the accused and another house bearing Door No.15-522/20 stands in the wife of the accused i.e, Sailaja (DW.17). He further stated in his evidence that even another house bearing Door No.18-8-24-G/403 stands in the name of the accused.

22. PW.9, namely Kaki Babu who also worked in the Electricity

Department, Andhra Pradesh as Assistant Divisional Engineer gave his evidence that he worked as such in the Municipality, Tirupati from June 2004 to December, 2006 and his prime evidence is that he along with ACB officials went to the house of the accused situated at Vishnu Residency,

Balaji Colony, Tirupati on 31stJanuary, 2006 along with one

A.K.Venkateswara Rao. According to this witness, they conducted search in the house of the accused and also took inventory report and a cash of

Rs.56,000/- was also recovered and even they seized locker keys etc.,

23. PW.10, namely K.Ramakrishna, who worked as

Superintendent in the office of Assistant Executive Officer, Reception-I,

Tirumal Tirupati Devastanam (TTD), at the relevant point of time also cooperated the Investigating Officer as a mediator, who witnessed the conducting of raids on 31st January, 2006 in the house of the said 10 -: 11 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Nirupama and according to him, he drafted Ex.P15 mediator report in this case.

24. PW.11, namely S.Durga Rao, who worked as Professor in

Management Studies, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati has stated in his evidence that he knew the accused, who worked as an Engineer in

Tirupati Municipality and he further stated that the accused was the person who got constructed Vishnu Residency apartment along with two others and he also purchased a Flat No.104 in the said apartment from the accused and the said two others for a consideration of Rs.6,50,000/-.

It is his further evidence that he later sold away the said Flat etc.,

25. PW.12, namely Mohammad Nowshad who worked as a Senior

Assistant in Public Health Engineering Department, Tirupati at the relevant point of time has stated in his evidence that on 1st February, 2006 he went to ACB Office, Tirupati on the instructions of his Executive Engineer and it is his prime evidence that the ACB officials took him along with another person Raghavendra, who worked as Junior Assistant in the same department to the Overseas Bank, Tirupati in which a locker was opened in their presence by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB and the

Inspectors, wherein they found some silver articles. According to him, he also signed in Ex.P33 mediator report.

26. PW.13, namely R.Ravi Chandra, who was goldsmith by profession and also gold appraiser gave his evidence, that in the year 2006 and on 31st day of one month he went to ACB office, Tirupati, along with electrical weighing machine, wherein he weighed some gold and silver ornaments in the house of the accused.

27. PW.14, namely C.Sasi Chandramouli, who worked as Assistant 11 -: 12 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Director of Agriculture, Pakala, gave his evidence that on 30th January, 2006, he received a phone message from his office directing him to attend the ACB office, Tirupati and accordingly, he went to the ACB office, wherein he was asked to come to the office on the next day at about 9.00 am and so, he went to the said office again at 9.00 am on the next day, from there he accompanied the ACB officials along with one K.V.Krishna

Reddy. According to this witness, they opened the table drawers and the almyrah of the accused in the office and some documents were verified and even inventory report was taken. Exs.P13 and P14 are marked through this witness.

28. PW.15, namely P. Mohan Reddy, who worked as Vice Chairman in TUDA from 18th April, 2006 to 17th October, 2006 has stated in his evidence that that knew the accused as Assistant Executive Engineer in

TUDA and he was the appointing authority of the accused and according to him, in the month of November, 2006, he received a Final Report from the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad requesting him to accord sanction to prosecute the accused and accordingly, he gave sanction to prosecute the accused in this case.

29. PW.16, namely M.Narasimhulu, who worked as Manager, PPD,

SBI, Tirupati gave his evidence that on receipt of letter from the Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati, dated 3rd March, 2006, he gave particulars with regard to the gold loans obtained by the accused and his wife. He also spoke about the housing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- obtained by the accused and also about closure of the said account on 27th June, 2003. He also spoke about another housing loan worth of Rs.4,00,000/- and also about its closure. Ex.P37 was marked through this witness.

30. PW.17, namely P.K.Kishore Babu who worked as 12 -: 13 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Administrative Officer in TUDA from 2004 to 2013 gave his evidence that he knew the accused as Assistant Engineer in their office and he acknowledged the salary particulars of the accused.

31. Finally, PW.18 namely Suresh Babu who worked as Senior

Manager, Credit Card Division, Andhra Bank, Tirupati gave his evidence that the Credit Card was issued in favour of the accused and he also submitted Ex.P61 Credit Card Account statement to that effect.

32. Now coming to the evidence of the accused as already stated above, he examined as many as 18 witnesses including himself and his wife and marked Exs.D1 to D26 to rebut the presumption of allegation made against him with regard to the disproportionate assets owned by him.

33. The first witness examined by the accused in this case was one V. Sudhakar Naidu allegedly doing real estate business in Tirupati and he has stated in his evidence that he knew the accused and also his wife i.e., DW.17 and according to him, the wife of the accused was doing real estate business, particularly in the construction field. It is his prime evidence that the wife of the accused had purchased a land to an extent of Ac.92.5 cents from Munirathnam Naidu on 25.04.2005 for a consideration of Rs.13,89,000/- and according to him even registered sale deed was executed in her favour by the vendor. The purpose of his examination by the accused is that he also affixed his signature as a witness in the said sale deed along with another witness namely, Hari.

34. D.W.2 namely, G. Srinivasulu, who was doing construction business in Tirupati also acknowledged his acquaintance with the accused and his wife and according to him, one Sumathi, one Nirupama, one 13 -: 14 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Giridhar and one Madhu had purchased some land in an extent of 130 ankanams situated in Tirupati in the year 2000 from one Seetharamarao.

He acknowledges his ignorance of the sale consideration and however, he stated that they constructed an apartment with 20 flats in that place and sold out all the flats to so many persons and one flat to the wife of the accused for consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- and it was a semi finished flat.

Thereafter according to this witness the wife of the accused finished the flat by spending an amount of Rs.2,85,000/-. He further stated that they have also executed registered sale deed in favour of the wife of the accused on 22.05.2001.

35. D.W.3 namely, Valluru Prasad, who was also doing real estate business in Tirupati, acknowledged his acquaintance with the accused and his wife and he affirms in his evidence that the wife of the accused was doing real estate business and according to him the accused had purchased a flat bearing No.403 in Narayana Residency, Maduranagar,

Tirupati from one J. Narayana Reddy and one Subba Rathanamma on 29.08.2003 for a consideration of Rs.3,56,000/- by way of a registered sale deed. He also acknowledged in his evidence that he attested the said registered sale deed as one of the witnesses along with one Siva Kumar.

36. D.W.4 namely, Chinthala Vanajakshi also acknowledged her acquaintance with the accused and his wife and according to her, the wife of the accused purchased a house site on 24.05.1996 for a consideration of Rs.3640/- and the wife of the accused herself paid the said consideration.

37. D.W.5 namely, Cuddapah Rambabu, who also acknowledged 14 -: 15 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 his acquaintance with the accused and his wife has stated in his evidence that in the year 2004 he has purchased the land to the extent of Ac.4.02 cents situated in Padi village of Tirupati Rural from Jana Chaithanya

Housing Private Limited, Guntur for a sole consideration of Rs.58,00,000/- and according to him the said purchase of land was by way of an agreement of the sale only. However, it is his further evidence that in the same year of 2004, he had also purchased another land in the same village, but to an extent of Ac.1.64 cents from one N. Ramalinga Reddy for a consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- and according to him, this land was also purchased by way of an agreement of sale. It is his further evidence that in the same year i.e., 2004 he sold out the above said two lands to the wife of the accused for consideration of Rs.79,00,000/- under an agreement of sale and according to him, the wife of the accused paid a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- as advance and he further stated in the same year 2004 the wife of the accused sold out the said lands and executed registered sale deed in favour of the vendees. Exs. D1 to D5 are the sale deeds alleged to have executed by him are marked in this case through him.

38. Subsequently, D.W.5 has been recalled at the instance of this court vide its orders dated 26th August, 2019 in Crl.M.P No.219 of 2019, wherein this witness for the first time stated about his designation as

Charted Accountant, much against his previous evidence as Auditor. D.W.5 has added in his chief examination that it was mentioned in the said agreement of sale i.e., in Ex.P2 about their willingness to execute registered sale deeds either in faovour of the wife of the accused or in the favour of the third parties, recommended by the wife of the accused. He has admitted in his evidence that they used to obtain only agreements of 15 -: 16 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 sale from the vendors as it was a practice and custom in real estate business. He further added in his chief examination that one Usha, who was an elder sister of the wife of the accused gave her an amount of

Rs.9,00,000/- to pay the said Rs.14,50,000/- and according to him, the wife of the accused gave only Rs.5,50,000/-. He further stated that the wife of the accused executed an agreement of sale in favour of the said

Usha, he also mentioned the names nine persons to whom they allegedly executed registered sale deeds at the instance of the wife of the accused.

39. D.W.6 namely, Kuniki Siddaiah Naidu, who worked as attender in TUDA, Tirupati, acknowledged his acquaintance with the accused as

Assistant Executive Engineer, TUDA, Tirupati and his evidence was that in the month of May, 1999 he had purchased TVS Max 100 motorcycle from the accused for a consideration of Rs.9,500/- and he also issued a sale letter dated 27th May 1999 under Ex.D6.

40. DW.7, namely C.Chandravathi, who also acknowledged her acquaintance with the accused and his wife gave her evidence that the wife of the accused was maintaining tailoring and embroidery works since 1990 to 2005 and she was one of the workers in that institution and according to her, the wife of accused used to earn Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/- per month from the said business.

41. DW.8, namely Dandu Jayachandra who has stated in his evidence that on 26th August, 2004, he gave a cheque for Rs.10,000/- to the accused in favour of Country Club, Secunderabad as a subscription of membership.

42. DW.9, namely Maddineni Vijaya kumar has stated in his 16 -: 17 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 evidence that he was one of the attendant in the Narayana Residency in 4th Floor and he used to pay rent to the accused @ Rs.3,000/- per month and he totally paid Rs.30,000/- towards advance. The accused also issued

Ex.D7 letter to him towards the receipt of the said money.

43. DW.10, namely G.Sridhar Naidu, who is the younger brother of the father-in-law of the accused namely Srinivasulu Naidu has stated about the financial condition of the accused and according to him he gave a sum of Rs.3,95,000/- to the accused during the period 1997-2002. It is also his evidence that on the marriage occasion of his youngest son namely Vishnu Naidu, a breakfast was arranged and he paid Rs.2,900/- towards the expenses of the said breakfast. Ex.D8, dated 28th May,2006 was marked through this witness.

44. DW.11, namely G.V.Ravi Kumar, who was a resident of

Bangalore and who also brother-in-law by courtesy of the accused, gave his evidence that he gave a some amounts to the accused as hand loans during the year 2001-2005 to the accused for the business of his wife and according to him, he gave a sum of Rs.5,09,000/-.

45. DW.12, namely Matli Rajitha gave her evidence that she knows the accused and also his wife and children. In the year 1993, she along with the wife of the accused purchased a house site from the

Habeeb Ahamed for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and subsequently the same was sold out by them for a consideration of Rs.32,000/- in the year 1995.

46. DW.13, namely G.Janakiramaiah, who acknowledged his acquaintance with the accused and his family gave his evidence that in the month of January, 2006 one Anantha Lakshmi, who is his relative purchased 50 ankanams of land from the wife of the accused for 17 -: 18 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Rs.1,60,000/- under a registered sale deed and he paid the said amount by way of Demand Draft to the wife of the accused.

47. DW.14, namely P. Sivaiah, who also acknowledged his acquaintance with the accused and his wife gave his evidence that he was one of the witnesses to the registered sale deed between the accused and one Kanaka Kumar Chand and according to him the said house site was sold away to the said Kanaka Kumar Chand for Rs.13,300/-.

48. D.W.15, namely P. Raja Gopal, who worked as Tahsildar,

Tirupati rural mandal from 07th March, 2017 gave his evidence that he could not say the ownership of the land in survey numbers 48 to 69 and 166 to 176 of Daminedu village, without going through the records.

49. D.W.16, namely ASRK Srinivasa Sai, who worked as Area

Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited, Tirupati gave his evidence that in the year 2001 the accused and his wife jointly availed a loan of

Rs.2,90,000/- from the LIC Housing Finance Limited and in the year 2002 the accused and his wife availed another loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for the renovation of their flat etc.,

50. D.W.18 and D.W.17 who are the accused and his wife respectively gave their evidence to rebut the presumption which is available against them, particularly to account the income, expenditure and the assets during the check period. Therefore, this court would like to deal with their evidence meticulously and in detail.

51. D.W.17, namely Gorintla Sailaja, has stated in her evidence that she is a graduate in B.Sc., and she is resident of Tirupati and one

Gorintla Srinivasula Naidu was her father, who during his lifetime acquired

Ac.25.00 cents of land at Gorintla and her mother namely, Gorintla 18 -: 19 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Ammanni has Ac.20.00 cents of land at Govindapuram village of Erpedu mandal. She asserts in her evidence that she is an Income-tax Assesse, who used to file returns regularly to the Income-tax Department. She also mentioned the name of the said Usha as her elder sister, who was residing at Chennai at the relevant point of time and now residing in Canada. It is her further evidence that her marriage with the accused was performed on 31st January, 1990 and at the time of marriage her parents gave her

Rs.3,00,000/- as Pasupu Kumkuma and gold of 100 sovereigns and the silver articles about 800 grams. She also stated that even her relatives gave gifts worth of Rs.25,000/- and cash of Rs.25,000/- at the time of the marriage to her husband i.e.., the accused. After the marriage according to her, her parents presented so many household articles viz., fridge, sofa set etc., furniture. So far as her source of income is concerned, she has stated in her evidence that she invested a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- in money lending business and she also did tailoring and embroidery business. Apart from the said business, according to her, she started real estate business in the year 1991 and even her husband i.e., accused informed the same to his Department vide his letter dated 14th February, 1991. Apart from the above said business, according to her, she also did construction work along with her partners namely, Nirupama, Rajendra Naidu, Sumathi,

Usha, Mohan, Madhu, Nagarani, Kesavala Naidu, Vishnu Vardhana Rao and

Giridhar. It is her further evidence that she was also one of the partners in

Vishnu Constructions, Vijay Constructions, Sai Developers, Sreshta

Constructions at Tirupati and she admitted that the said partnership was also reduced into writing and also registered as per Indian Partnership

Act. To establish her income, she also filed Income-Tax Returns along with the said certificates of partnership and marked as Exs.D10 to D16.

52. It is her further evidence that on 23rd March, 2004, she 19 -: 20 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 entered into the said agreement of Sale with DW.5 to purchase the said

Ac.5.66 cents of land situated in Padipeta village for a total consideration of Rs.79,00,000/- and she paid the said Rs.14,50,000/- as advance towards Ex.P2 agreement of sale in favour of DW.5 and even according to her, her sister Usha was also one of the vendees in Ex.P2 and she paid the said Rs.9,00,000/- as advance. She also stated in her evidence that even the amounts paid by her was endorsed on the reverse side of Ex.P2 agreement of sale and she would state that she received an amount of

Rs.1,80,000/- as commission in the said real estate business. It is her further evidence that she purchased land to an extent of Ac.92.50 cents at

Thummulakunta village for a consideration of Rs.13,89,000/- on 25th April, 2005 from one Munirathnam Naidu under Ex.P17. It is her further evidence that on the same day she obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from one Venkata Ramanaiah by depositing

Ex.P17 sale deed with him. She marked Exs.P38 and 39 promissory notes executed in favour of the said Venkata Ramanaiah. It is her further evidence that on 22nd May, 2001 she purchased a Flat in the said Vishnu

Residency bearing No.504d from her partners under Exs.P19 and to purchase the said flat according to her, she obtained a house loan of

Rs.2,90,000/- from the LIC Housing Finance Limited and she also availed another loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.08.2002 from the same LIC Housing

Finance Limited, Tirupati. It is her further evidence that one Dwarakanadh

Reddy purchased the house under Ex.P22 and later sold away the same to one Ananthalakshmi for Rs.1,60,000/- on 27.01.2006. She also stated that she purchased the house site from one Vanjakshi for a consideration of Rs.3,640 under Ex.P23. She also purchased a loan to an extent of

Ac.1.59 cents along with two others i.e, Sumathi and Nirupama from PW.3 under Ex.P48. It is also her evidence that the said land purchased from 20 -: 21 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

PW.3 being a Government land, she gave back the said land and took

Rs.3,00,000/- from PW.3 and PW.3 postponed to give the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is also the evidence of DW.17 that on 23rd

May 2001, she purchased a land in an extent of 50 acres from PW.3 under

Ex.P49 for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. As the said land under Ex.P49 was also a gift land, PW.3 refunded Rs.4,00,000/- to her and he is liable to pay the balance of Rs.1,00,000/- to her. On 20th June, 2001, according to

DW.17, she entered into an agreement with PW.3 along with one Rajendra

Naidu to purchase Ac.9.75 cents of land situated in Damineedu village for

Rs.20,47,500/- and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid in advance by the said Rajendra Naidu. She once again stated that even the said land could not be purchased, as it came to light that even the said land was also a

Government land and the vendor refunded the said amount to her.

53. On 5th May, 2001, she along with the said Rajendra Naidu entered into an agreement of sale with PW.3 for purchasing Ac.29.69 cents situated at Damineedu village for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- paid to PW.2 as advance and even the said land was a government land, so PW.3 returned Rs.8,00,000/-. On 25th June, 2001, she entered into an agreement of sale along with same Rajendra Naidu and according to the said agreement, she had to invest 30% and the said Rajendra Naidu had to invest 70% in the transactions. On 17th February, 2002, both of them again entered into an agreement of sale with one Satyanarayana Sharma and Ranganatha Sharma to purchase Ac.33.24 cents of land each situated at Kotha Agraharam village and the said Rajendra Naidu paid

Rs.6,00,000/- as advance under Ex.P52 and once again, she came to know that even the said land was Government land and so, the vendor returned advance amount etc., In the month of April, 2001, according to 21 -: 22 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

DW.17, she sold away her gold ornaments in Sri Rama Jewelers through the accused for Rs.2,26,980 on 27.01.2006, she sold out the house site covered under Ex.P22 to one Ananthalakshmi Devi. On 28th January, 2006, she withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- from Andhra Bank, Tirupati.

Finally, she has stated in her evidence that her husband got six acres of land in Gummadigunta towards ancestral properties.

54. Finally, the accused as DW.18 gave his evidence stating that his father was an agriculturist having 6 acres of land at the said

Gummadigunta village and Poyya village and he has three children, among whom two are daughters and one is son and the marriage of his elder sister was performed in the year 1981 by selling away 2 acres out of 6 acres of land and the marriage of second sister was performed in the year 1983 by selling way another 2 acres of land out of the said 4 acres of land and therefore, 2 acres were remained to him and the said two acres has been sold away by her mother in the year 2001 to one Tirupati Naidu and the said land was also mutated in his name and he filed Ex.D19 and

D20 pattadar passbooks to affirm the sale consideration of the said two acres. According to DW.18, his mother gave some money to him for the education of his children and she also took Ac.5.55 cents of land on lease from one Kalavathi under Ex.D21 lease agreement. It is also the evidence of DW.18 that his father-in-law gave him DW.17 a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with gold and silver ornaments towards Pasupu Kumkuma and also a cash of Rs.25,000/- etc.,

55. He further stated that his father-in-law died in the year 1981, at the time of his death, he had 25 acres of land at Chipparapalle i.e, gunturuvandlapalle, Penumuru mandal. Apart from that, his father-in-law also maintained a hotel namely Vijaya hotel in Tirupati and even his 22 -: 23 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 mother-in-law had 20 acres of land etc., He further stated that he has stated all the facts in his explanation i.e, Ex.D1 and finally, he stated that he is innocent and not liable for any punishment.

56. Now, a crucial point would arise as to whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution against the accused is worth for consideration and as to whether the accused could rebut the presumption available against him in this case.

57. The advocate for the accused raised several contentions to disprove the allegations made against the accused in this case and according to him, the accused worked as an Assistant Executive Engineer to supervise the Civil works conducted by the contractors during his period and the total value of those contract works as per the accused was

Rs.1,76,095/- only and as he would question the prosecution as to how it was probable on his part to earn that much of money stated by the prosecution during that period i.e., Rs.87,09,544/-. He would further contend that admittedly, the accused purchased only one property that too out of his savings and obtaining loans, but the Investigating Officer failed to consider the said aspect and proceeded against the accused unnecessarily. He would further contend that whatever the properties shown in the assets column and also in the expenditure column exclusively belong to the wife of the accused i.e., DW.17 and DW.17 also has rendered plausible explanation regarding her sources to acquire that much of properties and he also contended that DW.17 being a business woman acquired the said properties unconnected to the accused income.

The advocate has further contended that even the accused as per “Andhra

Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964” (hereinafter referred to as

CCA Rules) has intimated his acquisition of properties and also the 23 -: 24 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 acquisition of properties by his wife to the department, but the department since did not respond within time, permission is deemed to have been given by the department as per Rule-9 of the said Rules.

Finally, the advocate has vehemently contended that as per the citations submitted by him, the accused is entitled to clear acquittal.

58. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor with equal vehemence has contended that mere intimation to the department, even as per Rule-9 of the said CCA Rules, has not been followed ;by the accused as per Exs.D23 and D24. As the said intimations does not contain the prescribed pro-forma and therefore, the explanation of the accused regarding his acquisition of properties cannot be considered in this case. He further contended that the perusal of the cross examinations of DW.17 and DW.18 i.e, the wife of the accused and the accused respectively is sufficient to establish that the accused failed to rebut the presumption available against him in this case. According to the Special

Public Prosecutor, DW.17 and DW.18 have clearly admitted the facts in their cross examinations, disclosing that whatever the properties noted in the assets and expenditure columns were acquired by the accused illegally. Finally, the Special Public Prosecutor requested this Court to punish the accused as Law.

59. As per the Investigating Officer, the value of the assets in the possession of the accused was Rs.31,08,562/-. But, the value of the assets as per the explanation given by the accused is Rs.5,40,288/- only.

The remaining assets as per the accused was acquired by his wife i.e.,

DW.17 to a tune of Rs.24,89,340/-.

60. So far as the income of the accused is concerned, it has been 24 -: 25 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 valued at Rs.36,20,709/- by the Investigating Officer. But the accused valued the same as Rs.17,78,000/- only. So far as the expenditure is concerned, the Investigating Officer has valued the same as

Rs.92,21,691/-, but the accused valued the same as Rs.17,59,796/-

Sl.No Description G.Sailaja G.Bhaskar DW.17+

(DW.17) (Accused) Accused

1. Total Assets Rs.20,35,776/- Rs.10,72,786/- Rs.31,08,562/-

2. Total Income Rs.13,99,570/- Rs.22,21,139/- Rs.36,20,709/-

3. Total Rs.74,59,626/- Rs.17,59,796/- Rs.92,19,422/- Expenditure

61. Now we have to see as to whether such version of the accused is reasonable and plausible. It is well establish principle of Law as stated by the advocate for the accused that mere not intimating the acquisition of assets by the public servant to his department itself is not sufficient to conclude that such assets were acquired illegally by the accused by misusing his power as public servant. It is also well establish principle of

Law that the properties of their kith and kin cannot be considered as assets of such public servant, unless such kith and kin failed to establish their sources of acquiring of such properties. Therefore, the burden is equally on the accused to establish that the assets which are in his possession were acquired by him and also his wife i.e, DW.17. Therefore, this court would like to appreciate the evidence of the wife of the accused i.e, DW.17 and the accused i.e, DW.18 before going into the evidence of other persons.

62. As already discussed by this Court supra, DW.17 gave several explanations with regard to her sources of income to acquire the said properties and she would say that she had done real estate business, construction business, tailoring and embroidery work business and she 25 -: 26 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 also stated that she got lot of money from her parents by way of gold and silver ornaments and also cash. But in her cross examination, she tumbled down by almost disproving her evidence and also her sources of income.

The Special Public Prosecutor when questioned DW.17, about the hotel business i.e, “Vijaya Hotel” run by his father so that to establish her income from her, she has stated that she does not remember as to whether his father had maintained any records nor the said hotel business had been entered into any municipal records. Even she has admitted in the same cross examination that she had no occasion to look into any documentary proof to show about such hotel business run by her father.

Therefore, this court has no hesitation to disbelieve the version of the wife of accused DW.17 with regard to the said hotel business. Because, hotel business is not a small business without any records that too in a big town like Tirupati.

63. It was the version of DW.17 that her father had 25 acres of land at Chipparapalle village and his mother had 20 acres of land in

Govindapuram village and she was given 2 acres of land out of the said 25 acres of land by his father in the year 1991. But, DW.17 has admitted in the cross examination that she was not issued with any pattadar Pass book and title deed books to show her title over the said 2 acres of land.

Therefore, even the said evidence of DW.17 is highly unbelievable, because there is no such farmer in our State of Andhra Pradesh who has not been issued with Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deed books towards his lands and moreover, it is also mandatory on the part of every farmer to get such books from the Government, otherwise, it is punishable as per

Andhra Pradesh Pattadar Pass Books Act. Even she has admitted that she did not file any documentary evidence to show her mutation of her name 26 -: 27 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 in the revenue records towards the said 2 acres of land.

64. It was the evidence of DW.17 that even her father used to get

Income by leasing out the said lands to farmers. But, in the cross examination, she has frankly admitted about her ignorance of any documents to show such leasing out of land to the farmers. Even she admitted that she does not know as to whether the Commercial Tax

Department issued any Certificates with regard to the said hotel business.

She has also admitted at Page No.9 of her cross examination that she has not filed any documents to show about such properties of her parents including the said hotel business, except her oral evidence.

65. Another strange admission made by DW.17 which is quite contrary to the evidence of her husband i.e, DW.18, who has stated in his chief examination that his father had 6 acres of land and he had sold away 4 acres of land to the marriages of his sisters and only 2 acres remained to his share. But, DW.17 has stated in her cross examination that her husband has 6 acres of land at Ummadigunta village of Thotambedu

Mandal of Tirupati. Therefore, such contradiction would also effect the case of the accused.

66. So far as her tailoring and embroidery works are concerned,

DW.17 has admitted in her cross examination that she used to do the said business in the year 1994 with 10 sewing machines and 7 employees. But she did not file any documentary evidence to establish the said fact, nor

DW.7 who tried to help the accused with regard to the said tailoring and embroidery works done by DW.17 also failed to give proper evidence, as she frankly admitted in her cross examination about her ignorance of the said business and also she failed even to mention in which flat, DW.17 was 27 -: 28 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 running such business. As already stated above, it is the evidence of

DW.17 that she maintained 10 Sewing embroidery machines and also 7 employees to run the said business, but she failed to produce any documentary evidence, particularly to establish the said fact. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to disbelieve the evidence of DW.17.

67. So far as her real estate business is concerned, that she procured Rs.5,00,000/- from her younger brother and elder sister in the year 1991 and the first real estate transaction was in the year 2005 and she stopped the said business due to the raids conducted by the ACB officials. This court feels it appropriate to mention such admissions made by DW.17 in Page No.11 of her cross examination, which is as follows:

“………………….Myself and Rajendra Naidu are operating the bank accounts on behalf of our partnership firms. Myself,

Rajendra Naidu, Sumathi, Nirupama, Madhu, Kesavulu

Naidu, Vishu Vardan Rao, Nagarani, GS Usha, Mohan and

Srinivasulu and etc., are the common partners in all the partnership firms entered by us. I am not aware whether dissolution of the partnership firm are mentioned in the said partnership deeds or not. I am not aware what is meant by dissolution of the firm. I did not give any notice to the other partners while I was retiring from the partnership firms on the ground of raids conducted by the

ACB police concerned in my house. Initially I invested a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in each partnership firm. My total investment for each partnership firm till my retirement was Rs.10 lakhs each. Books of accounts were maintained in each partnership firm. We used to audit the accounts books maintained in the all the partnership firms for twice in a year. It is recited in all the partnership deeds that the books of accounts will be audited by 31 st March of every year by calculating the profits and losses, which is false.

I am not aware my share in the profit and losses 28 -: 29 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 covered by the four partnership deeds. By the time I retired from partnership firms the books of accounts were in the custody of the auditor concerned. I do not remember the name of the auditor, who audited the account books of partnership firms. Even after the ACB raids I did not approach our auditor, who looked after the audit of account books of the partnership firms and tried to verify the account books to know about my share in the profits and losses of the concerned partnership firms.

Rajendra Naidu got prepared the four partnership deeds and placed before me and I signed in the said deeds at relevant columns. The said Rajendra Naidu, one of the partners looked after the registration of the said four firms. I never attended before the registration authorities at the time of registration of the said four firms. The original partnership deeds were kept with Rajendra Naidu.

I do not know whether the said original partnership deeds now available with the Rajendra Naidu or not.

Copies of firms registration certificates were available with one of the partner by name Srinivasulu and

I collected the copies of firms registration certificates from the said Srinivasulu and filed before this court……………………………………………………………………………………… …………I have shown the income derived from the partnership firms in my IT returns after deducting the losses sustained by me in the said partnership business ……………………………………………………………………………………………… …….. I started the real estate business in the year 1991 and continued up to ACB raids. I did not file any documents to show that I made ventures in the real estate business. I do not have any documentary proof that I derived income in real estate business……………………………………………………………………………… …………. I know that permissions has to be obtained from the government to transact the real estate and partnership business. No permission was accorded by the government i.e, the competent authority of my husband 29 -: 30 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 to conduct businesses by me………………”.

68. As one could carefully observe the above part of the evidence and the admissions made by DW.17, she was really ignorant of everything she stated in chief and it appears that she deposed only at the instance of her husband to safeguard her husband from legal action.

69. DW.17 also filed Exs.P40 to P44 Income Tax Returns to corroborate her version of income from the businesses. But, she has admitted in her cross-examination, she does not have any documentary proof to show the sources of nature of her income as shown under

Exs.P40 to P44. Such admission itself is sufficient to presume that the said

Income Tax Returns are filed only for the purpose of defence of the accused. Even otherwise, a perusal of Exs.P40 to P44, a fact is clear that the income shown in the said returns is not that so high, so that to purchase such huge properties and also to do real estate business with high estates. Ex.P40 would disclose that the Income Tax paid by DW.17 was only Rs.913 and likewise, in other Income Tax Returns. When we read

Exs.P40 to P44 with that of the admissions made by DW.17, it is very clear that she filed those returns only to safeguard the interest of her husband i.e, the accused. In the next part of her cross examination,

DW.17 has admitted that Ex.P2 agreement of sale does not contain her name or name of her elder sister as vendees of the said property. This court also has perused Ex.P2 and other documents, which are discussed clearly in the later part of the Judgment, that the name of DW.17 is not appearing in any document. Moreover, it is very easy for any person to file as many documents as possible to show that he dealt with the properties mentioned in those documents. As already stated by this court in the above part of the Judgment, DW.17 entered into so many agreements of 30 -: 31 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 sale with several persons, including Exs.P48 to P53, knowing fully well, that those lands are government lands. A person can be a fool for one or two times, but not always. Therefore, such attitude of DW.17 creates a presumption against the accused that he was behind all these transactions. Another interesting point to be noted in the admissions made by DW.17 in her cross-examination, that though she realized, subsequently all the dealings under Exs.P48 to P53, that the said lands of government lands and vendors failed to pay the balance amounts, she did not initiate any action against them to recover the balance amounts from the said person i.e., P.Bala Subrahmanyam. Such attitude would further confirm that the said agreements of sale are created. Notwithstanding the said finding, the agreements of sale will not create any title upon on the vendees. She further admitted in the same cross-examination, that her bank accounts do not reveal about the amounts standing to her credit, so that to spend the same to deal with the persons. DW.17 has stated in her chief examination that she borrowed several amounts from several persons to do her business. But, in the cross examination, she frankly admitted that she never executed any documents like promissory notes in favour of those persons, who lend money to her nor she filed any Income

Tax Returns showing such borrowing of amounts from others. She even admitted that herself and the accused have no landed properties i.e., agricultural lands in their names. She also admitted about her failure to file any documents with regard to her agricultural income.

70. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the version of DW.17 with regard to her business and sources of Income is highly not believable, which leads to a presumption against the accused that he was the person, behind such earning of property. Coming to the evidence of 31 -: 32 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 the accused i.e., DW.18, the following are the findings of this Court.

71. DW.18 that is the accused has admitted in his cross examination that his wife i.e, DW.17 does not have any licence to do money lending business, nor she applied for the same. He also admitted that Ex.D22 i.e, intimation letter dated 14.02.1991 allegedly given by him to the Department with regard to his sources of income does not disclose the money lending business and other businesses done by his wife i.e,

DW.17. He further admitted that he was well aware of the Law under

Rule-9 of the CCA Rules, 1964 that an employee shall intimate to the head of the department about acquisition and disposal of his movable and immovable properties and such information shall be as per Annexure-I of the said Rules. Even the advocate banked upon Rule-9 to contend that, mere intimation is sufficient for the employee to give information with regard to his acquisition of property and disposal of property to his employer or to the department and there is no need of any permission from the department. But, such contention of the advocate is not at all correct, more particularly under the facts and circumstances of this case.

To answer the said contention, this Court would like to state about Rule-9 in brief.

72. Undoubtedly, it has been mentioned under Rule-9 that a government employee shall give intimation to government about his acquisition or disposal of movable or immovable property including the purchase, sale, gift or otherwise by himself or through others. At the same time, it has been mentioned under Rule-9 of the procedure to intimate such acquisition or disposal of property to the government. A government employee shall submit such intimation under Annexure-I of the said Rules.

He has to submit initially his name and designation, scale of pay and 32 -: 33 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 present pay, purpose of such intimation with regard to acquisition and disposal of property, mode of acquisition of mode of disposal of such property along with the particulars of the property as to where it is situated and whether such immovable property is an agricultural land or commercial land and whether such land is free of encumbrances. The employee also has to mention the value of such property and his sources as to how could purchase such property. In case of disposal of property, he has to submit a copy of sanction along with said particulars, including the name of the person to whom he is going to sell. He has to particularly to state that the said person to whom he intends to sell the property has no dealings with him, department wise, etc. But, in Exs.D22 to D24, there is no such information at all furnished by the accused with regard to such intimation. This court has perused Exs.D22 dated 14.02.1991 allegedly signed by the accused to his department and it contains only six sentences stating that his wife is intending to do real estate and money lending businesses. Likewise, Ex.D23 contains seven sentences stating that he acquired Flat No.12 in Rohini Deluxe Apartment, situated in

Ramcharandas Colony, in the year 1995 and he intended to sell that property and also to purchase another Flat in Narayana Residency. Finally,

Ex.D24 contains only four sentences stating that he intends to purchase a

Flat in the said Rohini Deluxe Apartment etc. How can one could expect such intimations as genuine intimations made by the accused to his department about acquisition of such property and also about the intention of his wife to do real estate and money lending business.

Notwithstanding the said intention, the contention of the advocate for the accused is not correct as the said rules prescribe to get permission from the head of the department before acquisition and to dispose off any movable or immovable properties. The advocate has further contended 33 -: 34 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 that, as the department failed to give permission within a month, it is deemed permission from such department. Such contention of the advocate is not correct and moreover, Exs.D22 to D24 since not in the prescribed proforma, they cannot be considered as permission sought by the accused. Moreover, the accused also admitted in the cross examination about the absence of particulars of the property in Exs.D23 and D24 intimations.

73. Now coming to the witnesses, who supported the version of the accused, this court dealt with the evidences of those witnesses in detail.

74. As already stated by this court, DW.1 namely, Sudhakar Naidu has stated in his chief examination about his knowledge of the real estate business done by the wife of the accused i.e, DW.17 and he also stated that DW.17 purchased Ac.92.5 cents of land on 25th April, 2005 from one

Munirathnam Naidu for Rs.13,89,000/-. He also stated that he was one of the witnesses to the said registered sale deed. But, in the cross examination, he has stated that he was not aware as to whether DW.17 had secured any license from the government to do real estate business and he also stated about his ignorance as to how many properties DW.17 purchased in that real estate business. Finally, he denied the suggestion put to him about his ignorance of facts regarding real estate business.

75. DW.3, namely Valluru Prasad initially stated in his examination in chief on 3rd July, 2018, about the real estate business done by DW.17 and also about the purchase of Flat No.403 by the accused in Narayana

Residency, Madhura Nagar, Tirupati from one Narayana Reddy and Subba

Rathnamma on 29th August, 2003 for a consideration of Rs.3,56,000/-.

34 -: 35 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Later, DW.3 who was recalled as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and he was further examined in chief on 10th July, 2019 i.e, after one year of his first examination in chief and he has stated in that second examination in chief that he was the registered owner of a car bearing No.TN09 AB7392 and according to him, he purchased the said car by availing a loan from ING Vysya Bank. Therefore, this witness intends to support the version of the accused with regard to the said car possessed by him. It is his version that on 30th January, 2006 being one of the marriage anniversaries of the accused, he entrusted the said car to him to go to Tirumala. Now, we have to see as how far his evidence can be taken into consideration.

76. DW.3 admitted in his cross examination, that the accused stood as guarantor to the said loan and this admission under the facts and circumstances of this case would lead to an inference that the accused purchased the said car binami in the name of DW.3. Some documents were also marked i.e. Ex.D18, which is statement given by the ING Vysya

Bank, disclosing the installments paid towards the loan of the said car.

But, DW.3 has stated in his examination about the payments made towards the said loan was by the accused. He also stated that he paid all the installments by way of cash and at the same time he admitted that he did not fill up the information in the forms required at the time of payment of the installments by way of cash. When the Special Public Prosecutor while showing Ex.P53 questioned DW.3 as to whether the signature contained under the column “customer” in Ex.P53 was that of his signature and DW.3 expressed his ignorance about the said fact which also leads to an inference that he has spoken falsehood to help the accused in this case. He further admitted in the same cross examination that the 35 -: 36 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 accused promised to return the said car within two days after the marriage day and in the meanwhile, the ACB officials conducted raids. He also admitted about the lack of receipts with him to show the payment of insurance money to the said car. All these admissions would conclude that the said version of the accused, that the said car does not belong to him.

77. Another important witness whose evidence requires a detailed appreciation is DW.5 Cuddupah Rambabu, who also initially when examined in chief on 3rd July, 2018 has stated that he knew both the accused and his wife and he purchased Ac.4.02 cents of land in the year 2004 from the said Janachaitanya Housing Private Limited, Guntur for

Rs.58,00,000/- under an agreement of sale and apart from the said land, he also purchased Ac.1.64 cents in the same village from one Ramalinga

Reddy for Rs.16,00,000/-under an agreement of sale and he sold away both the said lands to the wife of the accused DW.17 in the year 2004 for

Rs.79,00,000/- and DW.17 paid Rs.14,50,000/- as advance and in the same 2004 year DW.17 sold out the said lands to several persons and he registered those documents on behalf of DW.17. It is his further evidence that the said Jana Chaithanya Housing Private Limited, Guntur executed general power of attorney in his favour to sell away the said lands and

Ex.D1 to D5 sale deeds was marked through him. In the cross examination, he expressed his ignorance about the date as to when the said general power of attorney was executed in his favour and he also admitted about his failure to file the said general power of attorney on the file of this court to establish the said authority given to him by Jana

Chaithanya Housing Private Limited, Guntur. He also admitted in the same cross examination dated 3rd July, 2018 about his failure to file any documents to show about his payment of Rs.1,87,000/- to DW.17 as 36 -: 37 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 commission for doing real estate business etc., This witness also has been recalled by this Court vide its Order dated 26th August, 2019 in

Crl.M.P.No.219 of 2019 and this witness stated several facts which have

not been spoken by him in the earlier examination in chief dated 3rd July, 2018. The additional facts stated by him are that Ex.P2 agreement of sale

dated 22.03.2004 was executed by him along with the said Kumar Harish

Babu in favour of DW.17. He further admitted in second examination in chief that he did not execute any registered sale deed in favour of DW.17 with regard to Ex.P2 transaction. However, he agreed to execute the sale deeds infavour of the persons who are indicated by DW.17. But, his cross examination is very crucial, wherein the facts admitted by him would disprove his evidence itself.

78. The first question posed to him by the Special Public

Prosecutor was the circumstances as to why he did not mention all the said facts in his examination in chief, dated 3rd July, 2018. Such question is very crucial to assess the attitude of DW.5. A doubt would arise in the mind of any person as to why he failed to mentioned the additional facts in his first examination in chief and therefore, the second examination in chief must be appreciated meticulously and carefully. He admitted in his cross examination about not mentioning the help of DW.17 by her sister

Usha under Ex.P2, who allegedly gave Rs.9,00,000/- to DW.17 at the time of Ex.P2. He also admitted that DW.17 entered into Ex.P2 agreement of sale, though ownership was not established to her or to this witness i.e,

DW.5. As already stated by this court, mere an agreement of sale will not confer any title on any person to deal with such property and therefore, whatever the property allegedly dealt by this witness and DW.17 are not believable. Moreover, this witness has clearly admitted in the same cross 37 -: 38 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 examination that he had no registered sale deed in his favour to the said two lands executed by the real owner i.e, Jana Chaithanya Housing Private

Limited, Guntur. The said admission would fortify the finding of this court with regard to the validity of Ex.P2. He further admitted in the same cross examination that he also informed the accused about his wife entering into the said transaction and the said admission is clear that the accused has knowledge about such business and his failure to obtain permission from his department became fatal to his case. He further admitted that he received amounts from DW.17 some by way of case and some by way demand drafts allegedly given by DW.17. He further admitted that DW.17 was well aware about the real owner i.e, Jana Chaithanya Housing Private

Limited Ramalinga Reddy and so a question would arise as to why she did not deal with the property directly with the said Jana Chaithanya Housing

Private Limited. This court has perused Exs.D1, D1-A to D5 sale deeds very carefully and noted that the name of DW.17 is not mentioned in any one of the sale deeds. Such admission would lead to an inference that the said registered sale deed though appear to be original transactions are only placed in this case to substantiate the defence raised by the accused regarding the real estate business of DW.17.

79. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the evidence of DW.5 is highly unbelievable and cannot be taken into consideration in this case and whatever the properties allegedly purchased by DW.17 were not with her money, but with the illegal amounts of the accused.

80. Now coming to the evidence of other witnesses, i.e., DWs.6 to 16 is concerned, their evidence cannot be believed under the facts and circumstances, that too when this court already come to a conclusion that

DW.17 had no sources of income to acquire such huge properties.

38 -: 39 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

However, DW.6 has stated that he had purchased TVS Max 100 Motorcycle from the accused for a sum of Rs.9,500/-. The evidence of DW.6 has no much significance in this case. As purchase and selling of the said vehicle was not beyond the earning capacity of the accused.

81. DW.7 tried to cover-up the version of DW.17 about the tailoring and embroidery business done by DW.17, but failed as she gave different version with regard to the number of sewing machines owned by

DW.17 and according to her, there were only 4 sewing machines and whereas DW.17 has stated 10 sewing machines. Therefore, her evidence cannot be believed.

82. DW.8 gave his evidence about the membership of the accused in a Country Club, Secunderabad and also about his payment of

Rs.10,000/- as subscription.

83. DW.9, who allegedly stayed as a tenant of the accused in the said Narayana Residency has stated about his staying in the flat as tenant for 20 months and also about his payment of rents to the accused and he also produced Ex.D7 dated 9th February, 2006 given by him to the accused regarding payment of rent. His evidence also cannot be believed das he frankly admitted that Ex.D7 was recently issued to him by the accused after the registration of this crime. Therefore, his evidence cannot be considered.

84. DW.10 who is younger brother of the father-in-law of the accused has stated so many things particularly with regard to his helping of the accused by giving money etc., and also bout the payment of

Rs.2,900/- to the restaurant etc., He also produced Ex.D8 dated 28th May, 2006 about the borrowal of Rs.3,95,000/- by the accused from him. This 39 -: 40 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Ex.D8 also was issued after registration of the said agreement against the accused and therefore, it has no value. Though DW.10 is blood-related to the wife of the accused i.e, DW.17, admitted in his cross examination about his ignorance of the real estate business done by DW.17.

Immediately in the next sentence he realized his misstate and admitted that she done the said real estate business in the year 1996 or 1997.

These two versions made by him would lead to an adverse inference that he has spoken falsehood. He also admitted about his inability to produce any documents to show his lending of such amounts to the accused in this case. Therefore, his evidence cannot be considered in favour of the accused.

85. DW.11 also stated that he has lent Rs.5,09,000/- to DW.17 during the period 2001 to 2005 and he also produced Ex.D9 dated 28.05.2006. This receipt also was issued after registration of this case against the accused and therefore, it has no value at all. He admitted in his cross examination that the said amounts given to the accused were by way of cheques and also by way of cash and the said cheques were to drawn in Vysya Bank and he also admitted that he had stated the said transactions in his Income Tax Returns. But, he failed to produce any such documents to believe his version. He further admitted that the accused himself came to his house at Bangalore and obtained Ex.D9 letter. Such admission would fortify the finding of this court that this witness has spoken falsehood.

86. DW.12 has stated that in the year 1993, herself and DW.17 together purchased house site from the said Habeed Ahamed for

Rs.30,000/-. But, in the cross examination, she admitted about her not filing any documents to show about such purchase of house site from 40 -: 41 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Habeeb Ahamed. Therefore, her evidence also cannot be believed.

87. DW.13 has stated that in the month of January, 2006, one

A.Anantha Lakshmi Deve, who was her senior maternal aunt purchased a house site to an extent of 50 ankanams from DW.17 for Rs.1,60,000/- and by way of a registered sale deed and according to her she mediated the said transaction between DW.17 and Ananthalakshmi Devi. She strangely admitted in her chief examination itself that the said Ananthalakshmi Devi was not present in the office of Sub-Registrar, Tirupati for registration.

Such admission itself is sufficient that her version is not acceptable. She further admitted in the cross examination about not mentioning such version of the business of the said Ananthalakshmi Devi in the Sub- registrar’s office, Tirupati in the said registered sale deed. Finally, she admitted in the same cross examination about her failure to file authorization letter executed by the said Ananthalakshmi Devi in her favour to complete the registration of the said sale deed. Therefore, the evidence of DW.13 also cannot be believed. Therefore, the evidence lead by the accused to support his version is not believable and this court did not believe such evidence.

88. Now, this court would like to deal with the explanation submitted by the accused with regard to his Income, Expenditure and

Assets.

89. Item No. I of the Assets mentioned in the charge sheet as

Annexure-A is a piece of land in an extent of Ac.92.5 cents situated at

Thummalagunta village vide Doc.No.2793/2005 standing in the name of

DW.17 and registered in Tirupati. The accused has stated in his explanation that the said property was acquired by his wife i.e, DW.17 41 -: 42 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 with her own Income and he also stated that the said income is clear in the Income Tax returns filed by Dw.17 from the year 1999. But DW.17 has already stated about her failure to file the Income Tax Returns for the year 1999 and till the date of the raids conducted by the ACB officials. Except

Exs.D.14 to D.16 are the Income Tax Returns for the years 2004, 2006 and 2007. Therefore, how can the accused expect to believe his version of purchase of the said property by DW.17 with her own income?. As this court has already come to a conclusion about the evidence of DW.17 is highly unbelievable with regard to her acquiring of the said assets, this court cannot accept such explanation furnished by the accused with regard to the said item.

90. Now coming to Item No.II of the assets, it is a house plot situated at Vishnu Residency apartment, Balaji Colony, Tirupati in the name of DW.17. Here also, the accused gave some explanation stating that his wife purchased the said property with her own income. The same fate would attract to the said explanation of the accused as stated above.

91. Item No.III, of the assets is the said house Flat of the accused situated in Narayana Residency Apartment, Madhura Nagar, Tirupati and the accused gave his explanation stated that the said house Flat was not completed with full construction and he spent Rs.1,90,500 to complete the said work and according to him, he paid only Rs.5,55,500/- and not

Rs.6,49,764/-. As a source of income to purchased the aid Flat, the accused has stated that he had incurred a housing loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from State Bank of India, Tilak Road branch, Tirupati and the remaining amount of Rs.1,55,500/- was paid by him out of the sale consideration on

Flat No.12 of Rohini Deluxe Apartment, Tirupati i.e, Rs.4.18,500/-. But the accused failed to produce any such document to establish his taking of 42 -: 43 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 loan from the State Bank of India, Tilak road Branch, Tirupati. However, the prosecution marked Exs.P25 and P26 statements furnished by the

State Bank of India, Tilak Road Branch, Tirupati for the period 2006 and

Ex.P35 is the particulars furnished by TUDA, Tirupati, dated 28th February, 2006, disclosing the statement particulars furnished by the State Bank of

India, Tilak Road branch, Tirupati, dated 26th October, 2005. Ex.P26 is a relevant document to consider as to whether the accused had obtained such loan from the bank in the year 2003 i.e, on 29th August, 2003. The said particulars are furnished in at Page Nos.12 to 14 of Ex.P26. This court has meticulously gone through the pages of 12,13 and 14 and found that there is no such information with regard to obtaining of loan of

Rs.4,00,000/- by the accused from the said bank. Ex.P26 was marked through PW.1 and he was also cross examined and the advocate questioned him with regard to Ex.P26 at page No.30. The advocate did not raise about such loan obtained the accused from the said bank in such cross examination.

92. The said explanation offered by the accused is admitted by the prosecution itself by showing the same as Item No.7 in Annexure-B as

Rs.4,00,000/- obtained by the accused from the State Bank of India, Tilak

Road Branch, Tirupati, and another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was obtained from the same bank on the same day i.e., on 18th August, 1997 of

Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, the said property cannot be taken into consideration as a disproportionate asset of the accused and the same has to be deducted. The only flaw committed by the accused is by not informing the same to his department, which is an issue to be dealt with by the department and not by this Court.

93. So far as Item No. IV of the assets is concerned, it is a house 43 -: 44 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 site allegedly purchased in Survey No. 231/5 and 223/1 vide

Doc.No.2466/2002 showing in the name of wife of the accused, DW.17.

The accused offered his explanation with regard to the said property that

DW.17 purchased the said property and according to him, it is evident in

Exs.D14 to D16 Income Tax Returns about her income as Rs.5,65,000/- and odd and he further explained that on 28th January, 2006, his wife sold away major portion of the said house site under Sale Deed No.3387/2007

dated 28th January, 2006. This court has perused Ex.D16 which is the

Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2005-2006 marked and found that there is no mention of such purchase and said sale of property by DW.17. Even this court has perused Ex.D.14 Income Tax Returns and found there is no such information with regard to purchase and sale of the property. Therefore, the said version of the accused cannot be believed.

94. Item No.V is also a house site situated in the place i.e.

Vedanthapuram in Survey No.223/3, vide Doc.No.2459/1996 in the name of DW.17. The same finding would attract to this property also and the version of the accused cannot be believed. The item Nos.VI to VIII are small amounts of Rs.500/- Rs.2,155 and Rs.580/-, this court did not take much cognizance on those items, it is possible even to a poor person, to maintain the said balance.

95. Item No.IX is the bank balace of Rs.40,981/- lying to the credit of DW.17 in Andhra Bank, Balaji Colony Branch, Tirupati and the accused offered his explanation stating that his wife could save the said money out of the sale consideration of Item No.IV. When this court did not believe the said version of the accused with regard to Item No.IV of

DW.17, this cannot be believed that the said amount was the earning of

DW.17.

96. Item No.X is a two wheeler from the brand TVS Victor bearing 44 -: 45 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

No. AP 03 F 3894, standing in the name of the accused and he offered his explanation stating that when he could purchase the said vehicle by availing a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the City Finance, Tirupati and the remaining amount of Rs.15,600/- was paid out of his salary. But, the accused failed to establish the fact. Except stating in his chief examination that he purchased three two wheeler vehicles by obtaining loans from City

Finance and ING Vysya Bank, and he could pay the Installments out of his salary, the accused failed to adduce any documentary evidence to show about his obtaining the finance from the city finance, Tirupati.

97. Item No. XI also which is a two wheeler vehicle from TVS

Suzuki Max-100 Rx, bearing No.AP 03 C 913.

98. Item No.XII are the household articles worth of Rs.2,09,870/- as stated in the charge sheet and the accused offered his explanation that the value of the household articles were only Rs.47,350/-. Whatever the cost may be, the household articles as noted by the Investigating Officer were not that so high, where it makes improbable on the accused to purchase those things. Therefore, this court did not take cognizance of this Item to assess as assets of the accused.

99. Item No. XIII is a car from Hundai Santro LS Car bearing

No.TN 09 AB 7392. The accused offered his explanation stating that this vehicle belongs to DW.3, who is Valluru Prasad, but he borrowed the said car from him on the occasion of his marriage day on 30th January, 2006 and he kept the said care in his house, so that to return the same after two days, but the ACB officials came and seized the said car also. To buttress the said explanation, he examined DW.3 initially on 3rd July, 2018 on which day, DW.3 spoke about only real estate business done by DW.17 45 -: 46 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 and he nowhere mentioned about the purchase of the said car by him though, the issue was an important and serious one on the part of the accused and he spoke about the said car only when he was recalled at the instance of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. as per Orders in Crl.M.P.No.

1410/2019, dated 8th March, 2019 on which day, this witness stated that the said car belongs to him and he had also obtained insurance policy, i.e.,

Ex.D17 in his name etc., He also stated about the lending of the said car to the accused on 30th January, 2006. But, as already stated by this Court above, his evidence was not believed by this Court and therefore, the said explanation cannot be considered and this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the accused failed to establish his version over the said car with him on the date of raid.

100. Item No.IVX is another two wheeler from Honda Activa and the accused offered his explanation that he purchased the said vehicle from out of the departmental loan of Rs.30,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.14,324/- was the loan from ING Vysya Bank, Tirupati, but the accused did not give the particulars with regard to data as to when he obtained loan from his department nor he filed any documentary evidence to establish the said fact.

101 Item No.XV is cash of Rs.56,380/- found in the house of the accused, for which he failed to offer any explanation. Therefore, these are the assets noted by the Investigating Officer in his charge sheet, for which the accused failed to offer any explanation.

102. The accused added Item Nos. XV to XVII in his explanation, which are the house properties allegedly purchased by him and his wife.

So far as Item No.XV is concerned, it is Flat No.12, Rohini Deluxe 46 -: 47 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Apartment, bearing D.No.6-1-246/12, Ramacharandas Colony, Tirupati and he offered his explanation that he purchased the said flat on 2nd

December, 1996 by way of a registered sale deed for a consideration of

Rs.2,90,000/- and according to him, he obtained a house loan of

Rs.2,00,000/- from the State Bank of India, Tilak Road Branch, Tirupati and the remaining amount of Rs.90,000/- was paid out of his salary. Here also, the accused failed to give particulars of the account number of the bank from which he incurred loan and also about the date as to when he obtained the said loan. He further stated that he sold the said property on 27.06.2007 for Rs.4,18,500/- under registered sale deed dated 27.06.2003.

103. Item No.XVI: according to the accused, in house plot No.14 allotted by the department in S.No.195/1 of Chenigunta village by way of

Registered Sale Deed dated 14.04.1990 on payment of Rs.10,268/- and the same was recovered from his salary in equal installments and he also sold away the said property on 5th July, 1990 for Rs.13,350/-. This court has perused Ex.P35 salary particulars of the accused, particularly of the year 1990 and found there is no such information with regard to the recovery of the installments of Rs.10,268/- from his salary and therefore, his explanation cannot be believed.

104. Item No.XVII, which is stated as additional assets by the accused is the land to an extent of Ac.13.66 cents at Muthyalareddipalle, under a registered sale deed dated 9th June, 1993 for Rs.35,000/- and his wife paid a sum of Rs.17,500 as her share and later the same was sold away for Rs.34,200/- on 9th March, 1995. Here also, the accused failed to substantiate the same fact. According to the accused, the total value of the assets was Rs.10,16,472/- and not Rs.35,65,880/-.

105. Now coming to the expenditure stated in Annexure-C, the 47 -: 48 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 accused offered his explanation from page nos.21 to 36. The first Item of

Annexure-C is expenditure of Rs.53,50,000/-. The accused would state about Ex.P2 agreement of sale allegedly entered by his wife/DW.17 to do real estate business etc., but this court, as already stated above, did not believe such version of DW.17 and therefore, the said explanation offered by the accused cannot be considered. Likewise, Item Nos.2 to 6 would attract the same fate. As DW.17 and the accused failed to substantiate their explanation and this court has already discussed the same in the above part of the Judgment. The accused admitted the expenditure in

Item Nos.8 to 12 and therefore, this court need not go into those items.

So far as Item No.13, which is the expenditure incurred for repayment of house loan is concerned, the accused offered his explanation, stating that

DW.17 paid the said amount in monthly installments out of her income and the same is shown as Item No.2 in assets. The said explanation also cannot be believed, as this court gave its finding in the above part of the

Judgment about no sources of DW.17 to acquire such properties. The same fate would attract to Item No.14 which is also a house loan of

Rs.88,253/-. The accused admitted about the expenditure in Item Nos.15 and 16 and therefore, they need no discussion and even he admitted Item

Nos.18 to 20, and Item Nos.22 to 28 of Annexure-C. Item Nos. 29 and 30 needs no explanation i.e., with regard to the accused joining in Country

Club, Hyderabad and paying Rs.10,000/- and also the expenditure incurred to pay the premium to United Insurance Company etc., So far as

Item No.38 is concerned, it is a vehicle loan took by the accused to purchase a motorcycle i.e, AP03L 3894. Even he disputed Item No.39, stating that he resided in the said house bearing D.No.10-13-553,

R.R.Colony, Tirupati as a tenant for 4 years and he paid only Rs.94,800/- towards rents and not Rs.1,98,200/-. Except the said explanation, the 48 -: 49 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 accused failed to adduce any evidence with regard to the said explanation.

Even he disputed the household Expenditure in Item No.40 and according to him the household expenditure was only Rs.2,34,000/- and not

Rs.4,16,248/- as stated by the prosecution. The said aspect alleged by the prosecution cannot be taken into consideration as they failed to give particulars with regard to the said expenditure allegedly spent by the accused towards household articles. The accused admitted about Item

Nos.42 and 43 of Annexure-C, the accused failed to explain Item Nos.46 to 51 of Annexure-C.

106. From the discussion made by this Court as stated above, the fact is very clear that the accused failed to offer reasonable explanation with regard to his possession of properties and even he failed to establish those properties as that of DW.17 i.e, his wife. Even the advocate for the accused failed to elicit any valid information from the cross examination of prosecution witnesses in this case. One could observe from the first paragraph of cross examination of the Investigating Officer i.e, PW.1, the advocate relied upon the source of information based on which they registered this crime against the accused. Such contention of the accused cannot be considered that too when he miserably failed to establish his assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income.

Moreover, a source of information alone shall not be criteria to assess this case. As one could carefully observe the entire cross examination of PW.1 is covered with suggestions indicating the source of income of DW.17 to earn the said properties, PW.1 denied those suggestions. Moreover, the accused himself has admitted in his explanation/Ex.D1 about the assets,

Income and expenditure and his only contention was whatever the properties acquired were by his wife. But, this court in the above part of 49 -: 50 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 the Judgment has clarified about the failure of DW.17 and DW.18 to establish the sources of income or income of DW.17 and acquiring of big properties. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a presumption can safely be drawn by this Court that the accused amassed wealth in the name of his wife i.e. DW.17 by illegal means.

107. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the accused has miserably failed to account the said assets acquired by him during the search period and this court further has no hesitation to conclude that The properties of Item Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 11 and 15 in ANNEXURE-A (Assets) as shown in the charge sheet, are disproportionate assets acquired by the accused, which shall be confiscated to the State. This court took the expenditure of Item Nos.1 to 6 and 13 to 16, to assess the expenditure of the accused, which is unaccounted and when the Income is deducted from the said expenditure, it comes to Rs.39,78,905/-. In support of findings of this Court, this court relied on a Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in a case decided between “N.Pusuputhy Vs. State” decided in

Crl.Appeal No.628/2014, dated 2.2.2018, in which the Hon’ble High

Court under similar circumstances and by placing its reliance on several

Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in clear terms that the unaccounted immovable properties acquired by the accused would come under the explanation to Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

108. This Court has perused the above said Judgments of the

Hon’ble Apex Court meticulously and found that the said Law laid down by

the Courts is well settled, but the accused as stated in the above part of the Judgment, miserably failed to account for such assets acquired by him 50 -: 51 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 during his employment. As one could peruse from the contents of the written arguments filed by the advocate for the accused, he has totally banked upon the Income Tax Returns submitted by the wife of the accused and he would contend that such filing of Income Tax Returns showing the assets is sufficient on his part to account such assets. But, the Special Public Prosecutor while placing his reliance on a Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case decided between “Jayalalitha Selvi Vs. State” contended that mere disclosing the assets in Income Tax Returns does not mean that the accused has accounted his assets.

109. Therefore, from the findings of this court made above, the only asset mentioned as Item No.III in Annexure-A of the charge sheet i.e, the house purchased by the accused vide Document No.5322/2003 situated in Narayana Residency Apartments, Madhura Nagar, Tirupati, the remaining properties allegedly acquired by DW.17 are the disproportionate assets of the accused in this case. So far as the income of the accused is concerned, this court is well aware of the principle that a 10% shall be added to the income of the accused to avoid the mistake and this court takes the value as mentioned in the charge sheet i.e, 36,20,709/- as the

Income of the accused and the value of the assets is taken as

Rs.75,99,614/-. Therefore, Rs.39,78,905/- is the value of assets

acquired by the accused, which are disproportionate to his known

sources of income.

110. As already stated by this court in the above part of the

Judgment, it is the contention of the advocate that the accused since supervises the contract works worth of Rs.1,76,095/- only, how could it be possible on his part to earn the properties worth of Rs.87,00,000/-? Such 51 -: 52 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 contention of the advocate under the facts and circumstances of this case is not sustainable, as the accused miserably failed to establish his source of income to earn such big properties. As already stated by this Court, the

Law is very clear that the burden of proof will also be in the part of the accused regarding the facts which are exclusively in his knowledge. But, in this case, the accused failed to discharge such burden and therefore, such contention raised by the advocate for the accused has no legs to stand.

111. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this court, that the accused is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

112. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, accordingly he is convicted under Section 248(2) of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 25th day of November, 2021

Sd. A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore 52 -: 53 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Order of Sentence: Dt. 25.11.2021

The Accused Officer, who is now convict in this case is present

before this Court and he is questioned on the quantum of sentence to be

imposed on him as per the procedure contemplated under Section 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and as a reply the accused officer has stated before this Court that, he has an old aged mother and also two children to be looked after by him and therefore, to show some lenience in awarding the sentence on him. But, this court is not inclined to show much lenience on the below mentioned ground:

2. As we all know about the corruption which is rampant in our state as well as in the whole country and showing lenience to the corrupt officers is nothing but encouraging corruption in the society and also giving wrong signals to the society, particularly to the public officials, like the accused. Therefore, this court is not so lenient in awarding sentence to the accused and accordingly, the following sentence is imposed on him.

3. In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 accordingly, he is convicted under Section 248(2) of

Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) years with a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh rupees only) and in default of payment of such fine, the Accused Officer shall further undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year for the offence under

Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The remand period of the Accused officer if any shall be given set off under 53 -: 54 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The properties of Item Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 11 and 15 in ANNEXURE-A (Assets) worth of Rs.39,78,905/- (Rupees thirty nine lakhs, seventy eight thousand, nine hundred and five only) as shown in the charge sheet, shall be confiscated to the State.

Pronounced by me in the open court by way of dictation to the

Stenographer, transcribed by her and signed by me on this the 25th day of

November, 2021.

Sd. A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined

For prosecution:

PW.1: M. Giridhar Rao, Investigating Officer PW.2: K.C.Narayana PW.3: P. alasubrahmanyam PW.4: B.Lokanadha Reddy PW.5: M.Sumathi PW.6: A.K.Venkateswara Rao PW.7: M.Janardhana Raju PW.8: C.Viswanadh PW.9: Kaki Babu PW.10: K.Ramakrishna PW.11: S.Durga Rao PW.12: Md.Noushad PW.13: R.Ravichandra PW.14: S.Sasichandramouli PW.15: P.Mohan Reddy PW.16: M.Narasimhulu PW.17: P.Karunakar Kishore Babu PW.18: K.Suresh Babu

For defence: DW.1: V.Sudhakar Naidu DW.2: G.Srinivasulu DW.3: Valluru Prasad DW.4: Chintala Vanajakshi DW.5: Cuddapah Rambabu DW.6: Kuniki Siddaiah Naidu 54 -: 55 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

DW.7: C.Chandravathi DW.8: Dandu Jayachandra DW.9: Maddineni Vijayakumar DW.10: G.Sridhar Naidu DW.11: G.V.Ravikumar DW.12: Matli Rajitha DW.13: G.Janakiramaiah DW.14: P.Sivaiah DW.15: P.Rajagopal DW.16: A.S.R.K.Srinivasa Sai DW.17: Gorintla Sailaja DW.18: Ghattamaneni Bhaskar

Documents Marked

For prosecution: Ex.P1: Letter and statement of loan account containing 13 pages issued by Sri Annavaram Sivaramakrishna Srinivasa Sai, Area Manager, LIC Housing Finance Limited, Tirupati about A.O. obtaining the Housing Loan.

Ex.P2: Sri B.Lokanadha Reddy, Chittatur, Kolapalli, R.C.Puram Mandal to speak to the facts of his statement recorded on 03.03.2006 and about Telugu handwriting in the unregistered deed and etc., facts.

Ex.P3: Letter and statement of loan account total of 13 pages issued by Sri Chapa Murali, Assistant Administrative Officer, LIC of India, City Branch-I, Tirupati about payment of premium of AO and family members.

Ex.P4: Letter issued by Smt.Kalpana, Headmistress, Cambridge High School, Balaji Colony, Tirupati towards the Educational Expenditure of the children of A.O.

Ex.P5: Letter issued by the Headmaster, Sri Saraswathi Vidyanikethan English Medium School, R&R colony, Tirupati towards the educational expenditure of the children of the A.O.

Ex.P6: Proceedings of the authorization issued by the Joint Director, ACB, Hyderabad, Dated: 27.01.2006.

Ex.P7: FIR in Crime No.2/RCA-TCT-2006, dated: 28.01.2006

Ex.P8: Search Warrant, dated 28.01.2006

Ex.P9: Inventory Proceedings dated: 31.01.2006

Ex.P10: Search list, dated : 31.01.2006

Ex.P11: Returned Search warrant entrusted to Sri Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police

Ex.P12: Returned Search warrant entrusted to Sri Allabakshu, Inspector of Police.

55 -: 56 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Ex.P13: Inventory proceedings, dated: 31.01.2006, conducted by Sri Ravi Kumar, Inspector of Police. Ex.P14: Search list dated 31.01.2006

Ex.P15: Inventory proceedings dated 31.01.2006 conducted by Sri Allabakshu, Inspector of Police

Ex.P16: Search list dated 31.01.2006

Ex.P17: Registered Sale deed, dated 25.04.2005 along with plan as well as annexures.

Ex.P18: Seizure Memo, dated 15.02.2006

Ex.P19: Photocopy of Sale deed issued by SRO, Tirupati.

Ex.P20: Evolution Report issued by Deputy Director, ACB, Hyderabad

Ex.P21: Photocopy of sale deed dated 29.08.2003 relating to the plot purchased from M/s Sai Sree Developers, Tirupati for a sum of Rs.3,65,000/-.

Ex.P22: The original registered sale deed dated 16.05.2002 in the name of Smt Sailaja, wife of accused

Ex.P23: Registered Sale Deed dated 17.05.1996 in the name of Smt.Sailaja, wife of accused

Ex.P24: Original of NCS Certificate for an amount of Rs.500/- in the name of accused

Ex.P25: Statement of Account relating to Account No.01190031760 in the name of accused of SBI, Tilak Road Branch, Tirupati.

Ex.P26: Statement of Account relating to account No.01190017639 in the name of accused of SBI, Tilak Road Branch, Tirupati.

Ex.P27: Statement of account in the name of Smt G.Sailaja, Wife of accused bearing Account No.ASB/01/00051969 of Andhra Bank, Balaji Colony Branch, Tirupati.

Ex.P28: Letter dated 06.02.2006 issued by the RTO, Tirupati.

Ex.P29: Original RC of TVS Victor bike

Ex.P30: Purchase bill for sewing machine for Rs.2,800/-,dt: 27.10.2003

Ex.P31: Washing Machine Bill for Rs.13,850/-, dt: 02.11.2005

Ex.P32: Letter of Kun Honda Motor Cycle Pvt.Ltd., Tirupati, dated: 03.02.2006 for Rs.44,324/- 56 -: 57 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Ex.P33: Locker proceedings at Indian Overseas Bank, Tirupati, dated: 01.02.2006 which contains small silver items values Rs.1000/-

Ex.P34: Statement of account from SBI, Tilak Road Branch, Tirupati for the account No. 10624587201 in the name of Accused.

Ex.P35: Pay-drawn particulars received from Tirupati Urban Development Authority, Tirupati relating to Accused.

Ex.P36: Certificate issued by TUDA in respect of source of income for motorcycle.

Ex.P37: Letter dated:15.02.2006, issued by the Chief Manager, SBI, Tilak Road Branch, Tirupati, in respect of gold loan.

Ex.P38: Promissory note executed by Sri E.V.Ramanaiah, in favour of Smt.Sailaja, wife of accused

Ex.P39: Promissory note executed by Sri E.V.Ramanaiah, in favour of Smt.Sailaja, wife of accused

Ex.P40: Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 1999-2000 Ex.P41: Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2000-2001 Ex.P42: Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2001-2002 Ex.P43: Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2002-2003

Ex.P44: Covering letter dated: 09.03.2006 for the IT returns

Ex.P45: Letter dated:17.04.2006 issued by the Manager, Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, Tirupati in respect of availing loan for AC

Ex.P46: Letter dated 20.03.2006 issued by Assistant Manager, City Financial Consumers Finance India Limited, in respect of purchase of Motor cycle bearing No.AP03L3894.

Ex.P47: Statement of account relating to account No.300334412130, in respect of availing personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from SBI, Tilak Road Branch, Tirupati.

Ex.P48: Agreement dated 26.05.2001, relating to purchase of Ac.1.50cents at Tiruchanuru stands in the name of wife of accused and 2 others.

Ex.P49: Agreement dated 23.05.2001 reflecting sale of land of Ac.50.00 and payments made to one Sri Balasubrahmanyam towards share agreement.

Ex.P50: Agreement dated 20.06.2001 in respect of Ac.9.75cents of land at Daminedu village in the name of accused and one Rajendra Naidu.

Ex.P51: Sale agreement dated 5.5.2009 in respect of Ac.29.69 cents of wife of accused and one Rajendra Naidu.

Ex.P52: another sale agreement dated: 17.5.2002 in respect of 57 -: 58 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Ac.33.24 cents in the name of wife of accused and one Rajendra Naidu.

Ex.P53: Receipt for Rs.11,875 towards instalment for Santro car in the name of V.Prasad

Ex.P54: Receipt for Rs.251 in the name of accused which was paid to Sri Saibaba Samsthan, Shirdi.

Ex.P55: Receipt showing purchase of Nokia Cell phone for Rs.10,500/- from Golden Plaza, Tirupati.

Ex.P56: A receipt for Rs.3000/- paid towards development charges to the Cooperative society bearing No.264, dated: 10.10.1995.

Ex.P57: Receipt for Rs.2,900/- to the restaurant at Tirupati towards meals and tiffins, dated: 21.05.2005.

Ex.P58: Letter from the Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Tirupati, dt: 3.2.2006 for payment of Rs.504/- towards the premia of the motorcycle of the accused

Ex.P59: Gas Card issued by T.T.Traders, Tirupati in the name of N.Balakrishna Reddy.

Ex.P60: Letter issued by T.T.Traders, Tirupati stating that gas connection was released in the name of N.Balakrishna Reddy.

Ex.P61: Statement of account relating to the Credit Card by Andhra Bank, of the accused.

Ex.P62: Andhra Bank issued a letter dated: 6.2.2006

Ex.P63: Letter from APSPDCL, Tirupati, showing demands and payments in respect of paying Rs.28,600/- to his house at Balaji Colony, Tirupati.

Ex.P64: Letter BSNL, Tirupati, along with the list of payments made towards Mobile Phones (3 Nos.) and land phone ( 1No.)

Ex.P65: Letter dated: 6.2.2006, from the Manager, Country Club, Hyderabad mentioning a payment of Rs.10,000/- to the club as a life member. Ex.P66: letter from Divisional Manger of Insurance Company, for paying Rs.1,353/- as premia for TVS Victor Motorcycle.

Ex.P67: Letter from Chit Fund company showing the payment of Rs.72,388/- towards chit by the accused.

Ex.P68: Letter showing that the accused was a member of Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd., Nellore and paid Rs.2,100/- towards registration.

Ex.P69: Letter from the Customer Care, Reliance Infocom, Tirupati, for 58 -: 59 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021 the accused having a land as well as mobile phone by incurring an amount of Rs.16,919/- with statement of account.

Ex.P70: Letter from the Municipal Corporation, Tirupati, for the payment made by the accused towards the property tax for the 3 flats owned by him, along with the statement of account.

Ex.P71: Copy of policy bearing No.612700/11/04/01007, dated 21.5.2005 in respect of insuring his house at Narayana Residency, with SBI, Tilak Road Branch and the payment for premia at Rs.2,314/-

Ex.P72: Receipt relating to payment of premia collected from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., with regard to availing a loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., for the flat at Vishnu Residency Apartments, vide Policy No.2002/394, dated:1.1.2002, for Rs.1,296/-

Ex.P73: Receipt for Rs.1,016/- towards donation to an Ashramam by name Sathyalok Rajupet, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittor District., dated: 24.2.2001.

Ex.P74: A letter from JNTU, Hyderabad, containing the accused spent Rs.12,280/- for completing his B.Tech (Civil) Engineering through the distance education.

Ex.P75: Letter from the Joint Sub Registrar, Tirupati, dated: 06.07.2006, along with extract of sale deed, dated:9.6.2003

Ex.P76: Letter from the Joint Sub Registrar, Tirupati, dated: 21.03.2006, along with extract of sale deed, dated:9.3.1995.

Ex.P77: Letter from the Joint Sub Registrar, Tirupati, dated: 7.2.2006, reflecting Rs.1,59,840/- along with stamp duty was paid by the accused towards registration fee in the name of his wife.

Ex.P78: Letter from the Joint Sub Registrar, Tirupati, dated: 3.7.2006, reflecting Rs.44,320/- along with stamp duty was paid by the accused towards registration fee.

Ex.P79: Sanction Order issued by the Vice Chairman, TUDA, Tirupati,

dated: 30.3.2007 to prosecute the accused.

Ex.P80: True copy of Income Tax Report of G.Bhaskar (Accused Officer) for the assessment year 2002-2003

For defence:

Ex.D1: Explanation of accused officer given to PW.1

Ex.D1-A: Certified copy of Regd.Sale Deed, dated 8.11.2004, executed by Cuddupah Rambabu, in favour of K.R.Venkat Reddy and others.

59 -: 60 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Ex.D2: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 20.08.2004, executed by Cuddapah Ramababu in favour of Dodipalli Jala Chandramohan Reddy.

Ex.D3: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 5.8.2005 executed by Cuddupah Rambabu in favour of V.Sudhakar Naidu.

Ex.D4: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 5.8.2005, executed by Cuddapah Ramababu in favour of V.Sudhakar Naidu.

Ex.D5: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 20.8.2004, executed by Cuddapah Ramababu in favour of Arikala Siva Sankar Reddy.

Ex.D6: Sale letter dated:27.05.1999 for purchasing TVS Max-100 Motorcycle from the accused, by one Kuniki Siddaiah Naidu.

Ex.D7: Letter dated 9.2.2006 issued by DW.9 to the accused

Ex.D8: letter dated 28.5.2006 given by DW.10 to the accused.

Ex.D9: letter given by DW.11 in respect of hand loans given to the accused

Ex.D10: Certified copy of firm registration certificate of Vishnu Constructions, dated 6.11.1997.

Ex.D11: Certified copy of firm registration certificate of Vijaya Constructions, dated 8.5.2000.

Ex.D12: Certified copy of firm registration certificate of Saisree Developers, Tirupati, dated 03.12.2001

Ex.D13 Certified copy of firm registration certificate of Shresta Constructions, Tirupati, dated: 30.8.2005

Ex.D14: Income Tax Returns of the accused for the assessment year 2003-2004

Ex.D15: Income Tax Returns of the accused for the assessment year 2005-2006

Ex.D16: Income Tax Returns of the accused for the assessment year 2006-2007

Ex.D17: Insurance Policy from ING Vysya Bank, for the car bearing No.TN 09 AB 7392

Ex.D18: Statement of account showing the clearance of loan obtained for the car

Ex.D19: Pattadar Pass Book standing in the name of Subrahmanyam Naidu 60 -: 61 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

Ex.D20: Pattadar Pass Book standing in the name of Subrahmanyam Naidu

Ex.D21: Lease agreement dated: 6th November, 1998

Ex.D22: Intimation letter to the department dated:14.02.1991.

Ex.D23: Intimation letter dated 27.4.2000 to the department about his purchase of Flat in Narayana Residency

Ex.D24: Intimation letter dated 12.10.1995 about the purchaser of flat in Rohini Deluxe Apartment.

Ex.D25: Certificate along with work statement during the period from 1995 to 2006, dated 26.5.2006.

Ex.D26: Office copy of further explanation of accused, dated: 1st August, 2006 to the Joint Director, ACB, Hyderabad.

Sd. A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore 61 -: 62 :- C.C.No.19 of 2015(Assets) Dated:25.11.2021

SUBMISSION OF CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.19/2015

ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT,

NELLORE

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Sentence or offence report/ apprehen-release on commencemclosure of order complaint sion of bail ent of trial trial accused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31.01.200628.01.2006 (search (search 01-02-2006 02-02-2006 13.09.2011 18.02.2020 25.11.2021 Warrant) conducted)

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY AND REMARKS:

The above case was taken on file on 08.05.2007 and registered as C.C.No.13 of 2007. Copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused on 20.06.2007 as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Later charges were framed on 08.08.2007. Trial was commenced on 13.09.2011 and concluded on 28.11.2017. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.06.2018, in which the accused stated to Court, that he has defence evidence on his behalf and examined as many as 18 witnesses including himself as DW.18.

Arguments were heard on 02.11.2021. On 25.11.2021, the judgment was

pronounced. Since this case was transferred from this region to

Rayalaseema Region and also due to Covid-19 Pandemic situation, the delay has been caused.

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

NB:- Originally this case was numbered as CC.No.13/2007 on the file of this Court. Later, per Orders in G.O.Rt.No.2066, Law (LA & J Home Courts- C) dated 3.11.2012, and as per proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court in ROC No.3902/E1/1998. Dated 17.1.2013 in Dis.No.1/2013, dated 7.2.2013 was transferred to the of the Special Judge for ACB Cases in Rayalaseema Region (FAC) at Kurnool, as per directions of the Hon’ble High Court, on the point of jurisdiction and the said Court after receipt of record from this Court, renumbered the same as C.C.No.50 of 2013 on their file. Later, as per proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court, the case was again retransmitted this court and after receipt of this record, this court assigned number as C.C.No.19/2015 and later proceeded with further proceedings.

62

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES-CUM–

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: NELLORE

Thursday, the 1 st day of April, 2021

Present: A. Srinivasa Kumar,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore

CALENDAR CASE No.30 of 2017

1.Name of the : State represented by Deputy ComplainantSuperintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore.

2.Name of the Accused : Vaddiboyna Sivalinga Reddy S/o late Venkata Subba Reddy Age 48 years, Former Mandal Revenue Inspector-II Office of Tahsildar, Venkatachalam Mandal Venkatachalam, SPSR Nellore District R/o House No.25-1-557, 3rd Street Postal Colony, Nellore SPSR Nellore District.

3.Crime Number: 01/RCT-ACB-NLR/2016 of ACB, Nellore, Nellore Range.

4.Section of Law: Under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

6.Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty under sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988

7.Result (Sentence or : In the result, Accused is found not guilty order) for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

from the date of the Judgment.

The case property marked under

M.Os. 1 to Mo.4 and Mo.6 to Mo-8, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.5 which was recovered from the accused shall be returned to PW.1 after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up for final hearing on 25.03.2021 before me in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Subbaiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and that of Sri P. Vijaya Kumara Reddy and Sri Md. Fazil Ahamad,

Advocates for the accused, and upon hearing the arguments, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.), Anti Corruption Bureau(ACB), Nellore filed the charge sheet against the accused, who at the time of the alleged offence was working as

Mandal Revenue Inspector-I in the office of Venkatachalam Mandal, on the allegation that the accused accepted a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) from the complainant on 2nd January, 2016 to do an official favour to the complainant and the Provision of Law under which the accused has been charged is Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. This court has stated the facts and circumstances under which the accused has been charged for the above said offences.

2. On 31st December, 2015, at about 5.00 pm, one Pandillapalli

Srinivasulu Reddy, Son of late Venkata Krishna Reddy (herein after referred to as Complainant) approached the Dy.S.P., Nellore and lodged a complaint against the accused inter-alia alleging that his son namely, Sadasiva Reddy had purchased a land to an extent of Ac.2.91 cents in Survey Nos.2922, 2926, 1244 and 1245 from one Alapaka Krishaniah, Bellamkonda Ramanaiah and one Yedukondalu in the year 2014. As the reason for filing complaint by him, the complainant has stated that his son i.e., Sadasiva Reddy being a

Software Engineer, since residing in Bagalore, he filed the said complaint.

3. It is the prime allegation of the complainant that on 16th

September, 2015, he applied for pattadar passbook on behalf of his son in

Meeseva Centre at Venkatachalam along with the link documents and also title deeds and after 10 days, he approached the concerned Village Revenue

Officer (VRO) namely Sridevi and requested her to send her report with regard to the said land immediately and she accordingly sent a report to the accused being the Mandal Revenue Inspector. When the complainant approached the accused and requested him to send his report, the accused allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe to do such official favour.

But the complainant expressed his inability to give such large amount and however, he inclined to pay some amount and paid Rs.3,000/- to the accused on that day. But according to the complainant, the accused did not send the report in spite of several requests made by him, on the reason that he did not pay the balance amount of Rs.7,000/-. The complainant once again expressed his inability to pay the said Rs.7,000/- and persistently met the accused several times and also made several phone calls to his cell bearing

No.9490777493 and requested him to do his job. But, the accused sticked on to his demand of Rs.7,000/- and emphasized with the complainant, that he will not complete his job unless he pays such balance of Rs.7,000/-. The complainant has further alleged in the complaint that on 31st December, 2015 he met the accused at the Mandal Revenue Office, Venkatachalam and on that day, the accused after bargain, accepted to receive a sum of

Rs.5,000/- from him. The complainant having no such intention to pay the said Rs.5,000/- approached the Dy.S.P., and lodged the said complaint.

4. The Dy.S.P. immediately registered the said complaint as Crime

No.1/RCT-ACB-NLR/2016 against the accused for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as P.C.Act)

During the course of investigation, the Dy.S.P. secured the presence of two mediators namely, Kum K.Jyosthna and one Sangam Vasudeva Rao who were working as Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer and Junior Accounts Officer respectively (LW.2 and LW.3) on 2nd January, 2016 at 6.00 pm. Meanwhile, at 6.02 pm on that day, the accused made a call to the complainant to his cell phone through his cell phone and enquired with the complainant about his location and as a reply, the complainant told him that he was in

Vedayapalem on his way to Venkatachalam and then, the accused asked the complainant to wait for him at Ayyappa Swamy temple, Vedayapalem since he was on his way to Nellore from Venkatachalam. Then, the trap party i.e.,

Dy.S.P (LW-15), the mediators, the complainant and other staff members reached nearby the Ayyappa Swamy temple at 6.30pm and meanwhile, the accused also came there in his car and parked the same opposite to the hotel “Vandana Fast Foods and Café”. It is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant met the accused nearby the said hotel, wherein the accused demanded to pay the bribe amount and the complainant handed over the currency notes quoted with Phenolphthalein powder with his right hand, counting the same with both hands and kept the said money in his right side back pant pocket with his right hand. Immediately, the trap party caught hold of the accused, conducted a chemical test with the help of sodium carbonate solution, wherein the sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour soon after the accused rinsed the fingers of his both hands into the liquid. The tainted money of Rs.5000/- was recovered from the possession of the accused and also the Dy.S.P. seized the said amount along with relevant files from the office of MRO, Venkatachalam on that day i.e, on 2nd January, 2016, after explaining the grounds of arrest and after compliance of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Finally, it is the conclusion of the prosecution that the accused demanded and accepted the said Rs.5,000/- from the complainant to do an official favour i.e., to send a favourable report to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) for issuance of pattadar Passbooks.

5. On 29th August, 2018, the accused made his appearance and the predecessor of this court while following the procedure under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) examined the accused after explaining the acquisition and when the accused pleaded not guilty and denied the offence, the predecessor framed charges against him for the offence under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (P.C.Act). In support of its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW.1, the said K.Jyosthsna as PW.2, one Srinivasa Prasad as PW.3, the said Sridevi, Village Revenue Officer as PW.4, one Shaik

Basheer Ahammad as PW.5, the son of the complainant namely Pandillapalli

Sadasiva Reddy as PW.6, one Venkata Sudhakar as PW.8, one Venkatesh as

PW.8, one Ramesh as PW.9, one Viswanadham Sudesh as PW.10, one

Venkata Rathnam as PW.11, one Jagadish as PW.12 and the said Dy.S.P. as

PW.13. The accused also examined one Kommi Sankaraiah as DW.1 and

Satyanarayana Singh as DW.2.

6. Prosecution got marked Exs.P1 to P21 and whereas the accused did not mark any documents on his side. The prosecution also marked Mos.1 to Mo.8 and MO-5 is the said bribe amount of Rs.5000/- seized from the possession of the accused.

7. After completion of trial, the accused was examined as per the procedure contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) while explaining the incriminating evidence spoken by each witness against him and the accused as a reply denied the truth in the such allegations and pleaded before this court that he neither demanded the bribe from the complainant, nor the complainant paid such amount to him and according to him, the said crime has been foisted on some grudge by the complainant i.e, PW.1.

8. Heard the learned Advocate for the accused and the learned

Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and both of them have submitted their written arguments in support of their contentions.

9. Besides the oral arguments advanced by the advocate for the accused, this court also perused the written arguments filed by him. As one could observe from the contents of the written arguments submitted by the advocate, he primarily relied upon a crucial point with regard to the absence of “official favour” on the part of the accused to help the complainant in this case. The advocate also quoted the admissions made by PW.2, PW.3, PW.5,

PW.7, PW.8 and PW.13 in their depositions in his written arguments and contended that such admissions made by the witnesses itself is sufficient to conclude about the absence of an “official favour” on the part of the accused to help the complainant and therefore, the accused is entitled to clear acquittal. Except the said crucial point, the advocate did not concentrate much on other aspects contended by the Special Public Prosecutor. The advocate for the accused has relied upon the following Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, which are discussed narrated below.

(a) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao, reported in 2004 Crl.L.J, 1412

(b) State of Maharashtra Vs. Mallinath Rajaram Harsure, reported in 2021, Crl.L.J. 476

(c) “B.Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014(2) ALD(Crl) 73(SC)”

(d) “Selvaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, 2016(1) SCC (Crl) 19”

(e) “T.Ramesh Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2010(1) ALD(Crl.) 342 (AP)

(f) State of Kerala Vs. C.P.Rao 2011(2) SCC (Crl) 1010

(g) K.Giri Vs. State, ACB, Hyderabad, 2008(2) ALD (Crl) 821 (AP)

(h) Som Parkash Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 Crl.L.J. 490 (SC)

(i) Kursheed Khan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 981 Crl.L.J. NOC 63 (AP)

10. This court has meticulously gone through the said judgment quoted by the advocate for the accused and noted that the prosecution to establish the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act should establish the “official favour” pending on the date of trap, to seek for punishment of the accused and the said Judgments would further indicate that mere recovery of amount from the accused is not sufficient and the prosecution should necessarily establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused etc.,

11. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has elaborately discussed all the points in his written arguments and contended that there is ample evidence to establish the demand, acceptance and official favour on the part of the accused and therefore, the accused is liable for the above said offence. The prosecution has relied upon the following Judgments in support of its contention.

(a) B.Hanumantha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1992 (SC) 1201

(b) T.Sankar Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh., 2004(3) SCC 753

(c) M.Narasinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 Crl.L.J., 515

(d) Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India, 2014 (9) SCC 1

(e) N.Hema Chandra Sashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013(4) SCC 642

(f) Subrhamanya Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh, 2012(3) SCC 64

12. This court also perused the above said judgments very carefully and noted the points with regard to the circumstances under which a presumption can be drawn against the accused about his acceptance of money to do an official favour etc.,

13. On perusal of the written arguments submitted by both the parties, this court formulated thefollowing points for consideration:

1) Whether the accused is a public servant as per Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, so that to proceed against him under this Act?

2) Whether there was no “official favour” pending on the part of the accused to do any favour to the complainant

i.e., PW.1 as on the date of the offence?

(3) Whether there was any demand and acceptance of bribe

by the accused from P.W.1 in this case?

(4) Whether the prosecution could establish the charged

offences against the accused under Sections 7, 13(2) Read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(5) If so, to what relief?

14. Point No.1:-

(1) Whether the accused is a Public Servant, as per Section

2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so that to proceed against him under this Act?

15. Admittedly, the accused worked as Mandal Revenue Inspector in

Mandal Revenue Office, Venkatachalam, which is a government post and therefore, the accused is a “Public Servant” as per Section 2(c) of P.C. Act, 1988.

16. Point Nos.2 to 4:-

2) Whether there was no “official favour” pending on the part of the accused to do any favour to the complainant

i.e., PW.1 as on the date of the offence?

(3) Whether there was any demand and acceptance of bribe

by the accused from P.W.1 in this case?

(4) Whether the prosecution could establish the charged

offences against the accused under Sections 7, 13(2) Read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

17. As already discussed by this Court, in the factual matrix, it is the case of the prosecution in brief that the complainant i.e, PW.1 applied for mutation of the land of his son i.e., PW.6 and also for pattadar pass books in

Meeseva Centre on 16th September, 2015 and he also approached the concerned Village Revenue Officer(VRO), i.e., PW.4, who after enquiry gave her report recommending for mutation and also to issue pattadar Pass Books in favour of PW.6. Later, Pw.1 approached the accused being the concerned

Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI) and requested him to send his report recommending for issuance of pattadar pass book and also for mutation, but the accused is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and PW.1 gave him a sum of Rs.3,000/- as initial payment and PW.1 continuously requested the accused to send his report. But, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused was persistent for the remaining Rs.7,000/- and finally he reduced the said amount to Rs.5,000/- and demanded PW.1 to pay the said amount. As PW.1 did not intend to pay the said money approached the

Dy.S.P. i.e, PW.13 and lodged Ex.P2 complaint, which was registered as

Ex.P21 against the accused for the said offence.

18. As one could understand from the Provisions of Section 7 and

Section 13(1)(2) of P.C. Act, that an act of employee would come under the said definitions, particularly, the definition regarding misconduct, when such employee accepts illegal gratification from a person to do an official favour.

Now, the question would arise as to whether the prosecution could establish the prime ingredients of demand, acceptance and official favour on the part of the accused so that to attract the Penal Provision of Section 7and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988?

19. To answer the said question, it is necessary on the part of this

Court to have a glance at the evidence spoken by each witness in this case.

20. The complainant namely Srinivasulu Reddy as PW.1 gave his evidence reiterating the facts as alleged by him in Ex.P2 complaint and finally stating that the accused on 2nd January, 2016 gave Rs.5,000/- in “thousand” rupee denomination as a part of the trap arranged by PW.13 on that day.

PW,.1 has specifically stated in his evidence that he lodged Ex.P2 complaint with PW.13 on 31st December, 2015 and on 1st January, 2016 at about 2.00pm, one constable made a call to his Cell Phone asking him to attend the

ACB Office, Nellore at 4.00 pm on the next day i.e, on 2nd January, 2016 along with Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, PW.1 went to the ACB office at 3.45 pm and met PW.13, who introduced him to the mediators i.e., PW.2 and LW.3 and then PW.13 gave copy of Ex.P2 complaint to PW.2 and LW.3 requesting them to verify the correctness of the contents and after verification, the mediators endorsed in the said copy as the contents are true and correct.

Even according to PW.1, mediators inquired with him about the correctness of the contents of Ex.P2 complaint and he replied positively about the correctness with them. According to PW.1, he handed over the currency notes of Rs.5,000/- to the mediators, who counted the said money and also noted down the numbers of the currency notes in pre-trap proceedings.

21. PW.1 has further stated in his evidence that on the directions of

PW.13, one constable brought two tumblers filled with water and he prepared solutions with the help of Sodium Carbonate powder and the said constable when dipped his fingers into the said liquid, there was no change in colour of the liquid. Then, according to PW.1, the said constable applied the

Phenolphthalein powder and put those notes in the shirt pocket and also

PW.13 instructed PW.1 not to touch the said currency notes until the accused demands for money. PW.13 further instructed PW.1 to give a signal by wiping his face with his lungi (pancha), soon after the accused received the said money. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that on the same day i.e, on 2nd

January, 2016, at about 7.25 am, the accused made a call to his cell phone enquiring about his location and also about his intention to pay the said

Rs.5,000/-. He further stated in his evidence that the said constable when dipped his fingers into the sodium carbonate solution, this time the said solution turned into pink colour due to chemical reaction of the particles of phenolphthalein powder contained on each finger of the said constable. Then, according to PW.1, the significance of the said chemical test was explained to him by PW.13 and the pre-trap was completed by 5.45 pm on that day.

22. PW.1 has further stated in his evidence that at 6.00 pm, they all left to Venkatachalam in two vehicles and after few minutes, he once again received a call from the accused asking him to come to Ayyappa Swamy temple to meet him and also to give the said Rs.5,000/-. So, according to

PW.1, they changed their direction and straight away went to Ayyappa

Swamy temple, Vedayapalem, at 6.15 pm and waited for the accused. The accused, according to PW.1, came there at 6.30 in his white coloured car and found him (PW.1) there and asked him to come near to him and meanwhile, the accused stopped his vehicle near the said “Vandana Fast Foods”. Then,

PW.1 went near the accused and handed over the said Rs.5,000/- on the demand of the accused, who received the same with his right hand, counted the same with both hands and kept the said money in the back pocket of his pant. Then, PW.1 gave the said signal to the ACB party, who immediately came and caught hold of the accused and recovered the said Rs.5,000/- from his possession.

23. PW.2 namely K.Jyosthna, who was one of the mediators gave the same evidence as stated by PW.1 with regard to the manner of trap arranged and conducted on 2nd January, 2016 and the accused caught red handed by the ACB police and also about recovery of Rs.5,000/- from his possession. MO.1 and MO.2 are dthe samples of Sodium Carbonate solutions marked with this witness. PW.2 also stated about the test conducted, wherein the sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour soon after the accused rinsed the fingers of his right hand into it. MO.3 and MO.4 were also marked through this witness. She further stated in her evidence that on the enquiry made by PW.13, the accused admitted his accepting of money from

PW.1 and about his handing over the said money to PW.13. MO.5 is the said money marked through this witness. She further stated that she verified the numbers of the currency notes and noted down the same in Post-trap proceedings. It is also the evidence of PW.2 that the accused gave all the particulars about the instances took place before relaying the signal by PW.1 and till he was caught by the ACB party. According to PW.2, a rough sketch at the scene of offence i.e., Ex.P6 was also prepared at the instance of

PW.13. She has specifically stated that they left the scene of offence being the busy locality and they all went to MRO’s office, Venkatachalam, wherein

PW.13 enquired with the accused about the file of PW.1 and the accused told him that the said file was available with one Basheer, who was the computer operator in the office and later the said Basheer i.e, PW.5 handed over the file of PW.1 containing 74 pages and the same was seized by PW.13 under

Ex.P7 made-up of file. She further stated that on the enquiry made by

PW.13, the said PW.5 told him that the said file was handed over to him by the accused on that day i.e, on 31st December, 2015. She further stated that

PW.13 also seized EX.P8 and Ex.P9. The entire Post-trap Proceedings were prepared by her and another mediator under Ex.P10.

24. PW.3 namely, Srinivasa Prasad, who worked as Election Deputy

Tahsildar, Venkatachalam, Nellore at the relevant point of time gave his evidence that PW.4 worked as Village Revenue Officer for Iskapalem village at that time, which comes under Venkatachalam mandalam. This witness has stated about the procedure to apply for e-paddadar pass books by stating that the applications filed in Meeseva centre will be sent to the concerned

MRO’s Office to enquire the right and title of the person who sought for such books and the said application will be sent to the concerned Village Revenue

Officer(VRO) for report and after the VRO sends his report, the same will be forwarded to the concerned Revenue Inspector (RI), who after verification will send his report to the MRO, for final decision. According to this witness, one D.Venkata Sudhakar, i.e., PW.7 was the MRO for Venkatachalam at that time. This witness accepted that Ex.P1 made-up of file was processed in the

MRO office, Venkatachalam and he further stated that he was in MRO’s Office on 2nd January, 2016, that the ACB officials came there along with PW.13 and they remained in the office till 7.00pm.

25. PW.4 namely Sridevi, gave her evidence that she worked as

VRO for Iskapalem village, Venkatachalam Mandal from July, 2015 to July, 2017 and she also acknowledge her acquaintance with the accused as MRI, who also worked in MRO’s office, Venkatachalam. She further acknowledge the receipt of Ex.P1 application made by PW.1 for mutation of the lands on 21st September, 2015 and she further stated that she also sent a report in favour of PW.1 and the same was forwarded to the accused being the concerned MRI. According to this witness, the MRO sent back the application of PW.1 as there were some remarks which were to be corrected and she once again sent a report after clarification of such remarks by PW.1 and she also entered the particulars of the land of PW.6 in 1-B register. Later, on 27th

October, 2015, she has been transferred to Punjulurupadu village of

Venkatachalam mandal. This witness was treated as hostile at the instance of the Special Public Prosecutor and the Special Public Prosecutor also cross examined this witness, wherein this witness admitted in the cross examination that the Mandal Revenue Office will maintain the Inward

Register to enter the application son of PW.1 and she also acknowledged the said Register as Ex.P7. She further admitted in the said cross examination that in page No.19 of Ex.P7, which was mentioned as the application of PW.1 was received by her on 21st September, 2015. She further admitted the contents of Ex.P11 spoken by her before PW.13 in her statement.

26. PW.5 namely Shaik Basheer Ahammad, who worked as a

Computer Operator in MRO’s office, Venkatachalam, from April, 2014 to

February, 2016 has stated that he knew the accused as MRI for

Venkatachalam Mandal and he further stated that his duty in the said office was a computer operator to type the mutations and entries of e-pattadar passbooks and to upload the same in Web-land. It is his further evidence that on 31st December, 2015, Ex.P1 containing the application of PW.1 was handed over to him by the accused in the evening hour and the accused asked him to upload the entries of e-pattadar passbooks of the son of PW.1 in Web-land and according to him, Khata No.309 was also given to the lands of the son of PW.1. He further admitted that after uploading the said information, he kept Ex.P1 file in a rack available in the computer room. It is also his evidence that on 2nd January, 2016, the accused came to his computer room and asked him about Ex.P1 file and accordingly, he handed over the same to the accused. He too has stated about the ACB officials came to MRO’s office on that day and also enquired him about Ex.P1 file of

PW.1.

27. PW.6 namely P.Sadasiva Reddy, i.e, the son of PW.1 gave his evidence about his purchase of 2.91 acres of land in Iskapalem village of

Venkatachalam Mandal on two occasions, one was in the month of August, 2014 and another was in the month of January, 2015. It is his prime evidence that he requested his father i.e, PW.1 to apply for mutation and for e-pattadar passbooks and accordingly, PW.1 applying the same on 16th

September, 2015 in Meeseva Centre. It is his further evidence that PW.1 told him about the demand of bribe by the accused for mutation and for e- pattadar Passbooks.

28. PW.7, namely, Venkata Sudhakar, who worked as MRO for

Venkatachalam Mandal from June, 2014 to February, 2017 has stated in his evidence that he knew the accused as MRI of the said mandal and he knew

PW.4 as VRO for Iskapalem village and PW.5 as a computer operator in the said office. This witness also has stated about the procedure to apply for e- pattadar Pass books and mutation through Meeseva Centre and also about the roles to be played by the concerned VRO and the MRO to send their reports etc., This witness has admitted in his evidence that he received Ex.P1 application of PW.1 on 15th October, 2015 containing the reports of VRO and the Revenue Inspector. He further admitted that he approved Ex.P1 file and sent the same to the concerned office Section. He further stated that Ex.P1 application of PW.1 was returned, as some link document was missing towards of piece of land out of the said 2.91 acres and after verification,

Ex.P1 file came back to him on 20th October, 2015, on that day, he finally approved for mutation and sanction of e-pattadar passbooks of PW.6 and

Ex.P1 file was sent to the Deputy Tahasildar for further proceedings.

However, this witness has expressed his ignorance as to when the approved

Ex.P1 file was uploaded in Web-land. PW.2 has stated about the visit of

MRO’s office by the ACB officials on 2nd January, 2016 etc., This witness was also treated as hostile at the instance of Special Public Prosecutor and this witness admitted in such cross examination about his making of statement

before PW.13.

29. PW.8 namely K.Venkatesh who worked as Election Senior

Assistant in MRO’s Office, Venkatachalam from April, 2015 to May, 2017 has stated that he knew the accused as MRI of Venkatachalam mandal and also

PW.4 worked as VRO for Iskapalem village. This witness also acknowledged about Ex.P1/file of PW.1 and he too has stated about the procedure to be followed by the officials to mutate and to issue of e-pattadar passbooks. This witness also admitted that Ex.P1 file was sent to the MRO for final approval on 15th October, 2015, based on the reports given by the VRO and the MRI.

He further admitted that he received Ex.P1/file on 15th October, 2015 containing the approval of the MRO and he sent the said file to computer section for uploading on the same day. This witness was also treated as hostile at the instance of the special public prosecutor and he was also cross- examined and this witness has admitted in such cross examination that

Ex.P1/file was finally approved on 29th October, 2015 by the MRO and the same was uploaded in Web-land on the same day by the computer operator.

30. PW.9 namely, A.Ramesh gave his evidence that one Venkata

Suresh was his predecessor in Meeseva Centre and he has stated about

Ex.P1 application of PW.1 received at Meeseva on 16th September, 2015 and also about uploading the same in the system and about handing over of such application to MRO’s office, Venkatachalam on 20th September, 2015.

31. PW.10 namely, Viswanadham Suresh, who is working as Sub

Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Nellore, gave his evidence that on the requisition of Additional Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, dated 3rd February, 2016, the BSNL office sent a call-data pertaining to the Cell Phone Nos.

9490777493 and 9440232208 for the period from 16th September, 2015 to 2nd January, 2016 and as per the records, the Cell No.9440232208 stands in the name of Srinivasulu Reddy i.e., PW.1 and Ex.P14 of such particulars was marked through this witness.

32. PW.11 namely Venkata Rathnam, who was running a Tea-stall nearby Ayyappa temple and who allegedly witnessed the scene of offence, turned hostile and even the Special Public Prosecutor could not elicit any valid information from the cross examination of this witness, after he treated as hostile.

33. PW.12 namely, T.Jagadish, who is working as Section Officer,

Vigilance Section, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Vijayawada gave his evidence about Ex.P17, sanction order dated 5th December, 2016 to prosecute the accused in this case.

34. Finally, PW.13 namely, T.Prabhakar, who registered the First

Information Report and who investigated into the matter gave his evidence about the receipt of Ex.P2/complaint from PW.1 on 31st December, 2015, at 5.00pm and also about the roles played by PW.2 and LW.3 as mediators and also about his enquiry revealing the accused as corrupt officer. It is his further evidence that he also sent a requisition to the Project Director,

Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), to direct PW.2 and LW.3 to act as mediators and also about conducting pre-trap proceedings in the presence of PW.1 on 2nd January, 2016 and also about his explaining the significance of the chemical test to PW.1, PW.2 and LW.3. This witness also stated about the accused making a call to PW.1 asking him to come to near

Ayyappa Swamy temple, Vedayapalem and also about their going to the said place at 6.30 pm. He also stated about the acceptance of bribe money by the accused from PW.1 and also about recovery of the said money from the possession of the accused. This witness also has stated about post-trap proceedings i.e, Ex.P10 conducted at the scene of offence in MRO’s office,

Venkatachalam mandal. This witness also stated about the recording of the statements of the witnesses etc.,

35. On the other hand, the accused examined one Kommi

Sankaraiah as DW.1, who is said to be the proprietor of the said “Vandana

Fast Foods” and he has stated in his evidence that they opened the hotel everyday at 7.30 am and closed the same at 10.00 pm and they sell tiffin items as well as dinner items. So far as this case is concerned, this witness has stated about the acquaintance with the accused and according to him, the accused visits the said hotel every day. It is his further evidence that he came to know through the Inspector of Police about arresting of the accused on 2nd January, 2016. He would further state that the accused came to his hotel on 2nd January, 2016 at 5.30 pm and remained in the hotel for 15 minutes and after taking food, he went out and at 5.55 pm, he observed some commotion outside the hotel. He also stated that after 20 minutes, the

ACB officials took the accused in their vehicle and proceeded towards

Venkatachalam. He has emphatically stated that the ACB officials did not enter into his hotel on that day.

36. DW.2, namely, Surya Naraya, who worked as MRO for

Venkatachalam mandal from September, 2019 has stated in his evidence that the MRI office will have registers to show about the office orders passed by the MRO, with regard to the duties to be performed by each employee and so far as this case is concerned, he has stated that he could not bring the said register as it was misplaced.

37. To establish the offence under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)

(d) of P.C.Act, 1988, the prosecution inevitably to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from the complainant to do an official favour. Unless the above said ingredients are established, the court cannot draw presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused. Section 7 would prescribe that whoever being or expected to be public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or demands to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act………….shall be punishable with imprisonment, which will not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, to draw presumption against the accused, the prosecution inevitably to establish official favour pending on the part of the accused to help the complainant. Now, we have to see as to whether the prosecution could establish official favour pending on the part of the accused as on the date of trap or whether the accused could rebut such presumption showing about the absence of official favor on his part.

38. As already stated by this Court in the factual matrix and as spoken by the revenue witnesses in this case that the procedure to get one’s land mutated in the revenue records or to obtain pattadar passbooks is to file an application in Meeseva Centre nearby, which will send such application to the concerned MRO’s office for processing. After receipt of such application by the MRO’s office, the same will be forwarded to the concerned VRO for verification of such claim of the applicant and also to give report. After receipt of such report from the concerned VRO, the same will be forwarded to the MRI to cross check and to verify the claim of the applicant and also to send his report. Finally, the two reports of the VRO and the MRI will be sent to the MRO for final approval and such approval will be sent to the concerned person to upload the same in the web-land. In this case as already stated from the evidence of the concerned witnesses, the accused being the concerned MRI had already sent his report to the MRO, who approved the application of the complainant i.e, PW.1 20th October, 2015 itself. This court would like to quote the relevant admissions made by each witness in this case. PW.1’s cross-examination at 5th page that:

“I met the Tahsildar,

Venkatachalam for four times

after Ex.P1 i.e., on 16 th

September, 2015 and before

lodging Ex.P2, dated 31 st

December, 2015. I also met

Tahsildar after the accused

demanded for money. I also met

Tahsildar once after giving the

said Rs.3,000/- to the accused. I

did not report Tahasildar about

the accused receiving Rs.3,000/-

from him and demanding bribe of

Rs.7,000/- and also about

reducing the said money to

Rs.5,000/- ……………… I know

about the movement of Ex.P1

application of LW.7 from one table

to the other in MRO’s

office………..”

This part of the admission made by PW.1 in his cross examination would clearly indicate that he was well aware of the fact that his application i.e,

Ex.P1 has already been approved by the MRO and another fact would also come to light that he kept quiet without complaining against the accused to the MRO.

39. PW.2 has admitted in her cross-examination at 7th page that:

“Ex.P1 was seized from one Basheer,

the computer operator in MRO’s

office, Venkatachalam…………….”

The said admission would clearly indicate that Ex.P1 file was not with the accused, but with the said Basheer i.e, PW.5 at the time, the ACB officials went to MRO’s office and seized the said file.

40. PW.3, who worked as Election Deputy Tahsildar admitted in his cross examination at 2nd page that:

“It is true that the file like Ex.P1

once forwarded to the MRO by the

Revenue Inspector will not be sent

back to the Revenue Inspector. The

file which is approved shall be given

to the Compute Operator by the

Senior Assistant to upload the same

in Web-land”

The said admission of PW.3 would further indicate that once an application has been approved by the MRO, the same will not be sent to the Revenue

Inspector, which would further indicate that the accused in this case has already completed his part of work by sending his report favourably to PW.1 to the MRO.

41. PW.5 namely Shaik Basheer Ahammad, who worked as

Compute Operator gave his evidence in his chief examination that:

“……………the accused asked him to

upload the entries of the e-pattadar

Passbook of the son of PW.1 in Web-

land. A khata number was also

allotted to such e-pass books i.e,

309 for the lands of the son of PW.1.

After uploading the said information,

I kept Ex.P1 file in a rack available

in computer room”

The said part of his evidence is crystal clear that there was no official favour pending on the part of accused to help PW.1 as he has already uploaded the entries in the Web-land. However, this witness has admitted in the next part of his evidence that on 2nd January, 2016, the accused came to his computer room and took Ex.P1 file with him. But, such admission of PW.5 will not affect the defence of the accused in this case, as the proceedings of the applicant of PW.1 has already been uploaded by him in the Web-land.

42. PW.7 Venkata Sudhakar, who worked as Tahsildar gave his evidence stating that:

“…………I received Ex.P1 on 15 th

October, 2015 containing the reports of

VRO and the RI. I approved Ex.P1 file

at Page Nos.10 and 11. After my

approval, Ex.P1 file was sent to the

concerned office section. As one link

document was missing in the

application of the son of PW.1, the file

was returned to the Section Officer.

Later, Ex.P1 file came to me on 20 th

October, 2015 and I approved the same

on the same day. Ex.P1 file was sent to

the Deputy Tahsildar for further

proceedings. The computer operator

will upload the mutation and e-pass

books in Web-land…………”

This witness has clarified in his evidence that he being the concerned MRO, approved the application of PW.1 finally on 20th October, 2015. Therefore, it is clear that there was no “official favour” pending on the part of the accused on 20th October, 2015 itself on which day Ex.P1 application had been approved.

43. PW.8 namely K.Venkatesh, who worked as Election Senior

Assistant in MRO’s Office, has stated in his chief examination itself that:

“……………..in this case the file i.e.,

Ex.P1 was sent to the MRO on 15 th

October, 2015 with an endorsement

for approval based on the reports of

VRO and RI. I received Ex.P1 file on

15 th October, 2015 after the approval

of the MRO. Ex.P1 file was send to the

computer section for uploading in

Web-land on the same

day……………….”

He also admitted in the cross examination done by the Special Public

Prosecutor after treating him as hostile that:

“It is true that Ex.P1 file was finally

approved on 20 th October, 2015 by

the MRO. The computer operator

uploaded mutation and e-pass book in

Web-land after 20 th October,

2015……….”

Therefore, this witness has admitted for the suggestion put by the Special

Public Prosecutor, that Ex.P1 application was approved on 20th October, 2015 itself.

44. Finally, the Investigating Officer i.e, PW.13 has admitted in his chief examination itself at 4th page that:

“………The accuses secured Ex.P1 from

PW.5 and handed over the same to him

and I seized the same……..”

The said admission would clearly indicate that Ex.P1 application of PW.1 was not in the possession of the accused, but in the possession of computer operator i.e., PW.5. This witness has further admitted in his cross examination that:

“………..It is true that after uploading an

application, no authority can do anything

with the said application i.e.,

Ex.P1……….It is true that the procedure

is that a Senior Assistant is the

competent authority to handover the

approved file like Ex.P1 to the Computer

Operator………..I did not gather any

documentary evidence to show that the

accused handed over Ex.P1 and Ex.P7

files to PW.5 on 31 st December, 2015. I

did not verify as to whether PW.6 had

given any power of attorney to PW.1 to

look after his lands………I did not seize

any document from the possession of the

accused in this case”.

45. Therefore, the fact is crystal clear that the application of PW.1 i.e, Ex.P1 has been approved by the MRO long back i.e., on 20th October, 2015 and PW.1 did not verify about such approval of his application and continued to follow the accused in this case. Under these circumstances, this court cannot draw the presumption against the accused with regard to the “official favour” pending on his part to help PW.1 in this case. As already stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above quoted Judgments, mere recovery of tainted money from the accused without establishing “official favour” is not enough to draw presumption against him and the accused in this case has successfully rebut such presumption by preponderance of probabilities i.e., by way of the admissions made by the above witnesses.

When the prosecution failed to establish the “official favour” pending on the part of the accused to help PW.1 as on the date of the complaint or as on the date of trap, the points of demand and acceptance of bribe will become moot.

46. Point No. 5 : If so, to what relief?

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. from the date of the Judgment.

The case property marked under M.Os. 1 to Mo.4 and Mo.6 to

Mo-8, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.5 which was recovered from the accused shall be returned to PW-1 after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to stenographer transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of April, 2021

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution:

PW.1 : Pandillapalli Sinivasa Reddy (defacto-complainant)

P.W.2: Kum K.Jyosthsna

P.W.3: Immaneni Srinivasa Prasad

P.W.4: Ramabathina Sridevi

P.W.5: Shaik Basheer Ahammed

P.W.6: Pandillapalli Sadasiva Reddy

P.W.7: Dhoorjati Venkata Sudhakar

P.W.8: Kalavakuru Venkatesh

P.W.9: Aarumalla Ramesh

P.W.10: Viswanadham Sudesh

P.W.11: Gonugunta Venkata Rathnam

P.W.12: T.Jagadeesh, Section Officer, A.P.Secretariat

PW.13: T. Prabhakar, DSP (Investigating Officer)

For Defence:

DW.1: Kommi Sankaraiah DW.2: Rasaputra Suryanarayana Singh

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:

Ex.P1: Made-up file containing the application of PW.6/Pandillapalli Sadasiva Reddy

Ex.P2: Complaint given by PW.1 on 31.12.2015

Ex.P3: Proceedings dated: 2.1.2016 issued by the Project Officer, ITDA, Nellore.

Ex.P4: Copy of Ex.P2

Ex.P5: Pre-trap proceeding dated: 2.1.2016

Ex.P6: Rough sketch at the scene of offence

Ex.P7: Inward Register

Ex.P8: Attendance Register

Ex.P9: Attendance Register

Ex.P10: Post trap proceedings dated: 02.01.2016

Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P12: Service particulars of Accused Officer

Ex.P13: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement (marked portion) of PW.7.

Ex.P14: call data particulars along with the covering letter from the General Manager, BSNL, dated 18.3.2016

Ex.P15: Compact Disk relating to the call data

Ex.P16: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11

Ex.P17: Sanction Order Vide G.O.Ms.No.488, dated: 5.12.2016 issued by the Revenue (Vigilance-III.1) Department

Ex.P18: Notice dated 1.2.2016 issued to accused by the Dy.S.P., ACB, Nellore.

Ex.P19: Explanation of the accused, dated: 9.2.2016

Ex.P20: Memorandum, dated 1.2.2016, issued by the DG, ACB, AP, Hyderabad.

Ex.P21: FIR in Crime No.01/RCT-ACB-NLR/2016 of ACB, Nellore.

MATERIAL OBECTS MARKED

MO-1: Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in Pre-trap proceedings, dt: 2.1.2016

MO-2: Sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder used in pre trap proceedings, dt: 2.1.2016

MO-3: Sealed bottle containing pink coloured right hand fingers wash of the accused.

MO-4: Sealed bottle containing wash of left hand fingers of the accused (Colorless solution)

MO-5: Cash (tainted cash) of Rs.5,000/-

MO-6: Wash of inner linings of the back pocket of the pant of the accused

MO-7: Sealed cover containing Sodium Carbonate Powder seized at the time of post trap proceedings

MO-8: Pant of the accused.

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

SUBMISSION OF CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.30/2017

ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, NELLORE

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Sentence offence report of apprehen-release commenceclosure of or order complaint sion of on bail ment of trial accused trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 02.01.2016 31.12.2015 03.01.2016 27.01.2016 02.08.2019 06.03.2020 01.04.2021

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY AND REMARKS:

The above case was taken on file on 11.12.2017 and registered as C.C.No.30/2017. Copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused on 11.01.2018, as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Later charges were framed on 29.08.2018. Trial was commenced on 02.-08.2019 and the prosecution evidence was concluded on 06.03.2020.

The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.12.2019. Arguments were heard on 25.03.2021. On 01.04.2021, the judgment was

pronounced. Hence, submitted.

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES-CUM–

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: NELLORE

Thursday, the 1 st day of April, 2021

Present: A. Srinivasa Kumar,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore

CALENDAR CASE No.30 of 2017

1.Name of the : State represented by Deputy ComplainantSuperintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore.

2.Name of the Accused : Vaddiboyna Sivalinga Reddy S/o late Venkata Subba Reddy Age 48 years, Former Mandal Revenue Inspector-II Office of Tahsildar, Venkatachalam Mandal Venkatachalam, SPSR Nellore District R/o House No.25-1-557, 3rd Street Postal Colony, Nellore SPSR Nellore District.

3.Crime Number: 01/RCT-ACB-NLR/2016 of ACB, Nellore, Nellore Range.

4.Section of Law: Under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

6.Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty under sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988

7.Result (Sentence or : In the result, Accused is found not guilty order) for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

from the date of the Judgment.

The case property marked under

M.Os. 1 to Mo.4 and Mo.6 to Mo-8, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.5 which was recovered from the accused shall be returned to PW.1 after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up for final hearing on 25.03.2021 before me in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Subbaiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and that of Sri P. Vijaya Kumara Reddy and Sri Md. Fazil Ahamad,

Advocates for the accused, and upon hearing the arguments, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.S.P.), Anti Corruption Bureau(ACB), Nellore filed the charge sheet against the accused, who at the time of the alleged offence was working as

Mandal Revenue Inspector-I in the office of Venkatachalam Mandal, on the allegation that the accused accepted a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) from the complainant on 2nd January, 2016 to do an official favour to the complainant and the Provision of Law under which the accused has been charged is Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. This court has stated the facts and circumstances under which the accused has been charged for the above said offences.

2. On 31st December, 2015, at about 5.00 pm, one Pandillapalli

Srinivasulu Reddy, Son of late Venkata Krishna Reddy (herein after referred to as Complainant) approached the Dy.S.P., Nellore and lodged a complaint against the accused inter-alia alleging that his son namely, Sadasiva Reddy had purchased a land to an extent of Ac.2.91 cents in Survey Nos.2922, 2926, 1244 and 1245 from one Alapaka Krishaniah, Bellamkonda Ramanaiah and one Yedukondalu in the year 2014. As the reason for filing complaint by him, the complainant has stated that his son i.e., Sadasiva Reddy being a

Software Engineer, since residing in Bagalore, he filed the said complaint.

3. It is the prime allegation of the complainant that on 16th

September, 2015, he applied for pattadar passbook on behalf of his son in

Meeseva Centre at Venkatachalam along with the link documents and also title deeds and after 10 days, he approached the concerned Village Revenue

Officer (VRO) namely Sridevi and requested her to send her report with regard to the said land immediately and she accordingly sent a report to the accused being the Mandal Revenue Inspector. When the complainant approached the accused and requested him to send his report, the accused allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe to do such official favour.

But the complainant expressed his inability to give such large amount and however, he inclined to pay some amount and paid Rs.3,000/- to the accused on that day. But according to the complainant, the accused did not send the report in spite of several requests made by him, on the reason that he did not pay the balance amount of Rs.7,000/-. The complainant once again expressed his inability to pay the said Rs.7,000/- and persistently met the accused several times and also made several phone calls to his cell bearing

No.9490777493 and requested him to do his job. But, the accused sticked on to his demand of Rs.7,000/- and emphasized with the complainant, that he will not complete his job unless he pays such balance of Rs.7,000/-. The complainant has further alleged in the complaint that on 31st December, 2015 he met the accused at the Mandal Revenue Office, Venkatachalam and on that day, the accused after bargain, accepted to receive a sum of

Rs.5,000/- from him. The complainant having no such intention to pay the said Rs.5,000/- approached the Dy.S.P., and lodged the said complaint.

4. The Dy.S.P. immediately registered the said complaint as Crime

No.1/RCT-ACB-NLR/2016 against the accused for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as P.C.Act)

During the course of investigation, the Dy.S.P. secured the presence of two mediators namely, Kum K.Jyosthna and one Sangam Vasudeva Rao who were working as Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer and Junior Accounts Officer respectively (LW.2 and LW.3) on 2nd January, 2016 at 6.00 pm. Meanwhile, at 6.02 pm on that day, the accused made a call to the complainant to his cell phone through his cell phone and enquired with the complainant about his location and as a reply, the complainant told him that he was in

Vedayapalem on his way to Venkatachalam and then, the accused asked the complainant to wait for him at Ayyappa Swamy temple, Vedayapalem since he was on his way to Nellore from Venkatachalam. Then, the trap party i.e.,

Dy.S.P (LW-15), the mediators, the complainant and other staff members reached nearby the Ayyappa Swamy temple at 6.30pm and meanwhile, the accused also came there in his car and parked the same opposite to the hotel “Vandana Fast Foods and Café”. It is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant met the accused nearby the said hotel, wherein the accused demanded to pay the bribe amount and the complainant handed over the currency notes quoted with Phenolphthalein powder with his right hand, counting the same with both hands and kept the said money in his right side back pant pocket with his right hand. Immediately, the trap party caught hold of the accused, conducted a chemical test with the help of sodium carbonate solution, wherein the sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour soon after the accused rinsed the fingers of his both hands into the liquid. The tainted money of Rs.5000/- was recovered from the possession of the accused and also the Dy.S.P. seized the said amount along with relevant files from the office of MRO, Venkatachalam on that day i.e, on 2nd January, 2016, after explaining the grounds of arrest and after compliance of Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Finally, it is the conclusion of the prosecution that the accused demanded and accepted the said Rs.5,000/- from the complainant to do an official favour i.e., to send a favourable report to the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) for issuance of pattadar Passbooks.

5. On 29th August, 2018, the accused made his appearance and the predecessor of this court while following the procedure under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) examined the accused after explaining the acquisition and when the accused pleaded not guilty and denied the offence, the predecessor framed charges against him for the offence under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 (P.C.Act). In support of its case, the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW.1, the said K.Jyosthsna as PW.2, one Srinivasa Prasad as PW.3, the said Sridevi, Village Revenue Officer as PW.4, one Shaik

Basheer Ahammad as PW.5, the son of the complainant namely Pandillapalli

Sadasiva Reddy as PW.6, one Venkata Sudhakar as PW.8, one Venkatesh as

PW.8, one Ramesh as PW.9, one Viswanadham Sudesh as PW.10, one

Venkata Rathnam as PW.11, one Jagadish as PW.12 and the said Dy.S.P. as

PW.13. The accused also examined one Kommi Sankaraiah as DW.1 and

Satyanarayana Singh as DW.2.

6. Prosecution got marked Exs.P1 to P21 and whereas the accused did not mark any documents on his side. The prosecution also marked Mos.1 to Mo.8 and MO-5 is the said bribe amount of Rs.5000/- seized from the possession of the accused.

7. After completion of trial, the accused was examined as per the procedure contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) while explaining the incriminating evidence spoken by each witness against him and the accused as a reply denied the truth in the such allegations and pleaded before this court that he neither demanded the bribe from the complainant, nor the complainant paid such amount to him and according to him, the said crime has been foisted on some grudge by the complainant i.e, PW.1.

8. Heard the learned Advocate for the accused and the learned

Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and both of them have submitted their written arguments in support of their contentions.

9. Besides the oral arguments advanced by the advocate for the accused, this court also perused the written arguments filed by him. As one could observe from the contents of the written arguments submitted by the advocate, he primarily relied upon a crucial point with regard to the absence of “official favour” on the part of the accused to help the complainant in this case. The advocate also quoted the admissions made by PW.2, PW.3, PW.5,

PW.7, PW.8 and PW.13 in their depositions in his written arguments and contended that such admissions made by the witnesses itself is sufficient to conclude about the absence of an “official favour” on the part of the accused to help the complainant and therefore, the accused is entitled to clear acquittal. Except the said crucial point, the advocate did not concentrate much on other aspects contended by the Special Public Prosecutor. The advocate for the accused has relied upon the following Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, which are discussed narrated below.

(a) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao, reported in 2004 Crl.L.J, 1412

(b) State of Maharashtra Vs. Mallinath Rajaram Harsure, reported in 2021, Crl.L.J. 476

(c) “B.Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014(2) ALD(Crl) 73(SC)”

(d) “Selvaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, 2016(1) SCC (Crl) 19”

(e) “T.Ramesh Reddy Vs. State of A.P. 2010(1) ALD(Crl.) 342 (AP)

(f) State of Kerala Vs. C.P.Rao 2011(2) SCC (Crl) 1010

(g) K.Giri Vs. State, ACB, Hyderabad, 2008(2) ALD (Crl) 821 (AP)

(h) Som Parkash Vs. State of Punjab, 1992 Crl.L.J. 490 (SC)

(i) Kursheed Khan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 981 Crl.L.J. NOC 63 (AP)

10. This court has meticulously gone through the said judgment quoted by the advocate for the accused and noted that the prosecution to establish the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act should establish the “official favour” pending on the date of trap, to seek for punishment of the accused and the said Judgments would further indicate that mere recovery of amount from the accused is not sufficient and the prosecution should necessarily establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused etc.,

11. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has elaborately discussed all the points in his written arguments and contended that there is ample evidence to establish the demand, acceptance and official favour on the part of the accused and therefore, the accused is liable for the above said offence. The prosecution has relied upon the following Judgments in support of its contention.

(a) B.Hanumantha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1992 (SC) 1201

(b) T.Sankar Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh., 2004(3) SCC 753

(c) M.Narasinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 Crl.L.J., 515

(d) Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India, 2014 (9) SCC 1

(e) N.Hema Chandra Sashittal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013(4) SCC 642

(f) Subrhamanya Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh, 2012(3) SCC 64

12. This court also perused the above said judgments very carefully and noted the points with regard to the circumstances under which a presumption can be drawn against the accused about his acceptance of money to do an official favour etc.,

13. On perusal of the written arguments submitted by both the parties, this court formulated thefollowing points for consideration:

1) Whether the accused is a public servant as per Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, so that to proceed against him under this Act?

2) Whether there was no “official favour” pending on the part of the accused to do any favour to the complainant

i.e., PW.1 as on the date of the offence?

(3) Whether there was any demand and acceptance of bribe

by the accused from P.W.1 in this case?

(4) Whether the prosecution could establish the charged

offences against the accused under Sections 7, 13(2) Read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(5) If so, to what relief?

14. Point No.1:-

(1) Whether the accused is a Public Servant, as per Section

2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so that to proceed against him under this Act?

15. Admittedly, the accused worked as Mandal Revenue Inspector in

Mandal Revenue Office, Venkatachalam, which is a government post and therefore, the accused is a “Public Servant” as per Section 2(c) of P.C. Act, 1988.

16. Point Nos.2 to 4:-

2) Whether there was no “official favour” pending on the part of the accused to do any favour to the complainant

i.e., PW.1 as on the date of the offence?

(3) Whether there was any demand and acceptance of bribe

by the accused from P.W.1 in this case?

(4) Whether the prosecution could establish the charged

offences against the accused under Sections 7, 13(2) Read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

17. As already discussed by this Court, in the factual matrix, it is the case of the prosecution in brief that the complainant i.e, PW.1 applied for mutation of the land of his son i.e., PW.6 and also for pattadar pass books in

Meeseva Centre on 16th September, 2015 and he also approached the concerned Village Revenue Officer(VRO), i.e., PW.4, who after enquiry gave her report recommending for mutation and also to issue pattadar Pass Books in favour of PW.6. Later, Pw.1 approached the accused being the concerned

Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI) and requested him to send his report recommending for issuance of pattadar pass book and also for mutation, but the accused is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and PW.1 gave him a sum of Rs.3,000/- as initial payment and PW.1 continuously requested the accused to send his report. But, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused was persistent for the remaining Rs.7,000/- and finally he reduced the said amount to Rs.5,000/- and demanded PW.1 to pay the said amount. As PW.1 did not intend to pay the said money approached the

Dy.S.P. i.e, PW.13 and lodged Ex.P2 complaint, which was registered as

Ex.P21 against the accused for the said offence.

18. As one could understand from the Provisions of Section 7 and

Section 13(1)(2) of P.C. Act, that an act of employee would come under the said definitions, particularly, the definition regarding misconduct, when such employee accepts illegal gratification from a person to do an official favour.

Now, the question would arise as to whether the prosecution could establish the prime ingredients of demand, acceptance and official favour on the part of the accused so that to attract the Penal Provision of Section 7and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988?

19. To answer the said question, it is necessary on the part of this

Court to have a glance at the evidence spoken by each witness in this case.

20. The complainant namely Srinivasulu Reddy as PW.1 gave his evidence reiterating the facts as alleged by him in Ex.P2 complaint and finally stating that the accused on 2nd January, 2016 gave Rs.5,000/- in “thousand” rupee denomination as a part of the trap arranged by PW.13 on that day.

PW,.1 has specifically stated in his evidence that he lodged Ex.P2 complaint with PW.13 on 31st December, 2015 and on 1st January, 2016 at about 2.00pm, one constable made a call to his Cell Phone asking him to attend the

ACB Office, Nellore at 4.00 pm on the next day i.e, on 2nd January, 2016 along with Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, PW.1 went to the ACB office at 3.45 pm and met PW.13, who introduced him to the mediators i.e., PW.2 and LW.3 and then PW.13 gave copy of Ex.P2 complaint to PW.2 and LW.3 requesting them to verify the correctness of the contents and after verification, the mediators endorsed in the said copy as the contents are true and correct.

Even according to PW.1, mediators inquired with him about the correctness of the contents of Ex.P2 complaint and he replied positively about the correctness with them. According to PW.1, he handed over the currency notes of Rs.5,000/- to the mediators, who counted the said money and also noted down the numbers of the currency notes in pre-trap proceedings.

21. PW.1 has further stated in his evidence that on the directions of

PW.13, one constable brought two tumblers filled with water and he prepared solutions with the help of Sodium Carbonate powder and the said constable when dipped his fingers into the said liquid, there was no change in colour of the liquid. Then, according to PW.1, the said constable applied the

Phenolphthalein powder and put those notes in the shirt pocket and also

PW.13 instructed PW.1 not to touch the said currency notes until the accused demands for money. PW.13 further instructed PW.1 to give a signal by wiping his face with his lungi (pancha), soon after the accused received the said money. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that on the same day i.e, on 2nd

January, 2016, at about 7.25 am, the accused made a call to his cell phone enquiring about his location and also about his intention to pay the said

Rs.5,000/-. He further stated in his evidence that the said constable when dipped his fingers into the sodium carbonate solution, this time the said solution turned into pink colour due to chemical reaction of the particles of phenolphthalein powder contained on each finger of the said constable. Then, according to PW.1, the significance of the said chemical test was explained to him by PW.13 and the pre-trap was completed by 5.45 pm on that day.

22. PW.1 has further stated in his evidence that at 6.00 pm, they all left to Venkatachalam in two vehicles and after few minutes, he once again received a call from the accused asking him to come to Ayyappa Swamy temple to meet him and also to give the said Rs.5,000/-. So, according to

PW.1, they changed their direction and straight away went to Ayyappa

Swamy temple, Vedayapalem, at 6.15 pm and waited for the accused. The accused, according to PW.1, came there at 6.30 in his white coloured car and found him (PW.1) there and asked him to come near to him and meanwhile, the accused stopped his vehicle near the said “Vandana Fast Foods”. Then,

PW.1 went near the accused and handed over the said Rs.5,000/- on the demand of the accused, who received the same with his right hand, counted the same with both hands and kept the said money in the back pocket of his pant. Then, PW.1 gave the said signal to the ACB party, who immediately came and caught hold of the accused and recovered the said Rs.5,000/- from his possession.

23. PW.2 namely K.Jyosthna, who was one of the mediators gave the same evidence as stated by PW.1 with regard to the manner of trap arranged and conducted on 2nd January, 2016 and the accused caught red handed by the ACB police and also about recovery of Rs.5,000/- from his possession. MO.1 and MO.2 are dthe samples of Sodium Carbonate solutions marked with this witness. PW.2 also stated about the test conducted, wherein the sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour soon after the accused rinsed the fingers of his right hand into it. MO.3 and MO.4 were also marked through this witness. She further stated in her evidence that on the enquiry made by PW.13, the accused admitted his accepting of money from

PW.1 and about his handing over the said money to PW.13. MO.5 is the said money marked through this witness. She further stated that she verified the numbers of the currency notes and noted down the same in Post-trap proceedings. It is also the evidence of PW.2 that the accused gave all the particulars about the instances took place before relaying the signal by PW.1 and till he was caught by the ACB party. According to PW.2, a rough sketch at the scene of offence i.e., Ex.P6 was also prepared at the instance of

PW.13. She has specifically stated that they left the scene of offence being the busy locality and they all went to MRO’s office, Venkatachalam, wherein

PW.13 enquired with the accused about the file of PW.1 and the accused told him that the said file was available with one Basheer, who was the computer operator in the office and later the said Basheer i.e, PW.5 handed over the file of PW.1 containing 74 pages and the same was seized by PW.13 under

Ex.P7 made-up of file. She further stated that on the enquiry made by

PW.13, the said PW.5 told him that the said file was handed over to him by the accused on that day i.e, on 31st December, 2015. She further stated that

PW.13 also seized EX.P8 and Ex.P9. The entire Post-trap Proceedings were prepared by her and another mediator under Ex.P10.

24. PW.3 namely, Srinivasa Prasad, who worked as Election Deputy

Tahsildar, Venkatachalam, Nellore at the relevant point of time gave his evidence that PW.4 worked as Village Revenue Officer for Iskapalem village at that time, which comes under Venkatachalam mandalam. This witness has stated about the procedure to apply for e-paddadar pass books by stating that the applications filed in Meeseva centre will be sent to the concerned

MRO’s Office to enquire the right and title of the person who sought for such books and the said application will be sent to the concerned Village Revenue

Officer(VRO) for report and after the VRO sends his report, the same will be forwarded to the concerned Revenue Inspector (RI), who after verification will send his report to the MRO, for final decision. According to this witness, one D.Venkata Sudhakar, i.e., PW.7 was the MRO for Venkatachalam at that time. This witness accepted that Ex.P1 made-up of file was processed in the

MRO office, Venkatachalam and he further stated that he was in MRO’s Office on 2nd January, 2016, that the ACB officials came there along with PW.13 and they remained in the office till 7.00pm.

25. PW.4 namely Sridevi, gave her evidence that she worked as

VRO for Iskapalem village, Venkatachalam Mandal from July, 2015 to July, 2017 and she also acknowledge her acquaintance with the accused as MRI, who also worked in MRO’s office, Venkatachalam. She further acknowledge the receipt of Ex.P1 application made by PW.1 for mutation of the lands on 21st September, 2015 and she further stated that she also sent a report in favour of PW.1 and the same was forwarded to the accused being the concerned MRI. According to this witness, the MRO sent back the application of PW.1 as there were some remarks which were to be corrected and she once again sent a report after clarification of such remarks by PW.1 and she also entered the particulars of the land of PW.6 in 1-B register. Later, on 27th

October, 2015, she has been transferred to Punjulurupadu village of

Venkatachalam mandal. This witness was treated as hostile at the instance of the Special Public Prosecutor and the Special Public Prosecutor also cross examined this witness, wherein this witness admitted in the cross examination that the Mandal Revenue Office will maintain the Inward

Register to enter the application son of PW.1 and she also acknowledged the said Register as Ex.P7. She further admitted in the said cross examination that in page No.19 of Ex.P7, which was mentioned as the application of PW.1 was received by her on 21st September, 2015. She further admitted the contents of Ex.P11 spoken by her before PW.13 in her statement.

26. PW.5 namely Shaik Basheer Ahammad, who worked as a

Computer Operator in MRO’s office, Venkatachalam, from April, 2014 to

February, 2016 has stated that he knew the accused as MRI for

Venkatachalam Mandal and he further stated that his duty in the said office was a computer operator to type the mutations and entries of e-pattadar passbooks and to upload the same in Web-land. It is his further evidence that on 31st December, 2015, Ex.P1 containing the application of PW.1 was handed over to him by the accused in the evening hour and the accused asked him to upload the entries of e-pattadar passbooks of the son of PW.1 in Web-land and according to him, Khata No.309 was also given to the lands of the son of PW.1. He further admitted that after uploading the said information, he kept Ex.P1 file in a rack available in the computer room. It is also his evidence that on 2nd January, 2016, the accused came to his computer room and asked him about Ex.P1 file and accordingly, he handed over the same to the accused. He too has stated about the ACB officials came to MRO’s office on that day and also enquired him about Ex.P1 file of

PW.1.

27. PW.6 namely P.Sadasiva Reddy, i.e, the son of PW.1 gave his evidence about his purchase of 2.91 acres of land in Iskapalem village of

Venkatachalam Mandal on two occasions, one was in the month of August, 2014 and another was in the month of January, 2015. It is his prime evidence that he requested his father i.e, PW.1 to apply for mutation and for e-pattadar passbooks and accordingly, PW.1 applying the same on 16th

September, 2015 in Meeseva Centre. It is his further evidence that PW.1 told him about the demand of bribe by the accused for mutation and for e- pattadar Passbooks.

28. PW.7, namely, Venkata Sudhakar, who worked as MRO for

Venkatachalam Mandal from June, 2014 to February, 2017 has stated in his evidence that he knew the accused as MRI of the said mandal and he knew

PW.4 as VRO for Iskapalem village and PW.5 as a computer operator in the said office. This witness also has stated about the procedure to apply for e- pattadar Pass books and mutation through Meeseva Centre and also about the roles to be played by the concerned VRO and the MRO to send their reports etc., This witness has admitted in his evidence that he received Ex.P1 application of PW.1 on 15th October, 2015 containing the reports of VRO and the Revenue Inspector. He further admitted that he approved Ex.P1 file and sent the same to the concerned office Section. He further stated that Ex.P1 application of PW.1 was returned, as some link document was missing towards of piece of land out of the said 2.91 acres and after verification,

Ex.P1 file came back to him on 20th October, 2015, on that day, he finally approved for mutation and sanction of e-pattadar passbooks of PW.6 and

Ex.P1 file was sent to the Deputy Tahasildar for further proceedings.

However, this witness has expressed his ignorance as to when the approved

Ex.P1 file was uploaded in Web-land. PW.2 has stated about the visit of

MRO’s office by the ACB officials on 2nd January, 2016 etc., This witness was also treated as hostile at the instance of Special Public Prosecutor and this witness admitted in such cross examination about his making of statement

before PW.13.

29. PW.8 namely K.Venkatesh who worked as Election Senior

Assistant in MRO’s Office, Venkatachalam from April, 2015 to May, 2017 has stated that he knew the accused as MRI of Venkatachalam mandal and also

PW.4 worked as VRO for Iskapalem village. This witness also acknowledged about Ex.P1/file of PW.1 and he too has stated about the procedure to be followed by the officials to mutate and to issue of e-pattadar passbooks. This witness also admitted that Ex.P1 file was sent to the MRO for final approval on 15th October, 2015, based on the reports given by the VRO and the MRI.

He further admitted that he received Ex.P1/file on 15th October, 2015 containing the approval of the MRO and he sent the said file to computer section for uploading on the same day. This witness was also treated as hostile at the instance of the special public prosecutor and he was also cross- examined and this witness has admitted in such cross examination that

Ex.P1/file was finally approved on 29th October, 2015 by the MRO and the same was uploaded in Web-land on the same day by the computer operator.

30. PW.9 namely, A.Ramesh gave his evidence that one Venkata

Suresh was his predecessor in Meeseva Centre and he has stated about

Ex.P1 application of PW.1 received at Meeseva on 16th September, 2015 and also about uploading the same in the system and about handing over of such application to MRO’s office, Venkatachalam on 20th September, 2015.

31. PW.10 namely, Viswanadham Suresh, who is working as Sub

Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Nellore, gave his evidence that on the requisition of Additional Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, dated 3rd February, 2016, the BSNL office sent a call-data pertaining to the Cell Phone Nos.

9490777493 and 9440232208 for the period from 16th September, 2015 to 2nd January, 2016 and as per the records, the Cell No.9440232208 stands in the name of Srinivasulu Reddy i.e., PW.1 and Ex.P14 of such particulars was marked through this witness.

32. PW.11 namely Venkata Rathnam, who was running a Tea-stall nearby Ayyappa temple and who allegedly witnessed the scene of offence, turned hostile and even the Special Public Prosecutor could not elicit any valid information from the cross examination of this witness, after he treated as hostile.

33. PW.12 namely, T.Jagadish, who is working as Section Officer,

Vigilance Section, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Vijayawada gave his evidence about Ex.P17, sanction order dated 5th December, 2016 to prosecute the accused in this case.

34. Finally, PW.13 namely, T.Prabhakar, who registered the First

Information Report and who investigated into the matter gave his evidence about the receipt of Ex.P2/complaint from PW.1 on 31st December, 2015, at 5.00pm and also about the roles played by PW.2 and LW.3 as mediators and also about his enquiry revealing the accused as corrupt officer. It is his further evidence that he also sent a requisition to the Project Director,

Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), to direct PW.2 and LW.3 to act as mediators and also about conducting pre-trap proceedings in the presence of PW.1 on 2nd January, 2016 and also about his explaining the significance of the chemical test to PW.1, PW.2 and LW.3. This witness also stated about the accused making a call to PW.1 asking him to come to near

Ayyappa Swamy temple, Vedayapalem and also about their going to the said place at 6.30 pm. He also stated about the acceptance of bribe money by the accused from PW.1 and also about recovery of the said money from the possession of the accused. This witness also has stated about post-trap proceedings i.e, Ex.P10 conducted at the scene of offence in MRO’s office,

Venkatachalam mandal. This witness also stated about the recording of the statements of the witnesses etc.,

35. On the other hand, the accused examined one Kommi

Sankaraiah as DW.1, who is said to be the proprietor of the said “Vandana

Fast Foods” and he has stated in his evidence that they opened the hotel everyday at 7.30 am and closed the same at 10.00 pm and they sell tiffin items as well as dinner items. So far as this case is concerned, this witness has stated about the acquaintance with the accused and according to him, the accused visits the said hotel every day. It is his further evidence that he came to know through the Inspector of Police about arresting of the accused on 2nd January, 2016. He would further state that the accused came to his hotel on 2nd January, 2016 at 5.30 pm and remained in the hotel for 15 minutes and after taking food, he went out and at 5.55 pm, he observed some commotion outside the hotel. He also stated that after 20 minutes, the

ACB officials took the accused in their vehicle and proceeded towards

Venkatachalam. He has emphatically stated that the ACB officials did not enter into his hotel on that day.

36. DW.2, namely, Surya Naraya, who worked as MRO for

Venkatachalam mandal from September, 2019 has stated in his evidence that the MRI office will have registers to show about the office orders passed by the MRO, with regard to the duties to be performed by each employee and so far as this case is concerned, he has stated that he could not bring the said register as it was misplaced.

37. To establish the offence under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)

(d) of P.C.Act, 1988, the prosecution inevitably to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from the complainant to do an official favour. Unless the above said ingredients are established, the court cannot draw presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused. Section 7 would prescribe that whoever being or expected to be public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or demands to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act………….shall be punishable with imprisonment, which will not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Therefore, to draw presumption against the accused, the prosecution inevitably to establish official favour pending on the part of the accused to help the complainant. Now, we have to see as to whether the prosecution could establish official favour pending on the part of the accused as on the date of trap or whether the accused could rebut such presumption showing about the absence of official favor on his part.

38. As already stated by this Court in the factual matrix and as spoken by the revenue witnesses in this case that the procedure to get one’s land mutated in the revenue records or to obtain pattadar passbooks is to file an application in Meeseva Centre nearby, which will send such application to the concerned MRO’s office for processing. After receipt of such application by the MRO’s office, the same will be forwarded to the concerned VRO for verification of such claim of the applicant and also to give report. After receipt of such report from the concerned VRO, the same will be forwarded to the MRI to cross check and to verify the claim of the applicant and also to send his report. Finally, the two reports of the VRO and the MRI will be sent to the MRO for final approval and such approval will be sent to the concerned person to upload the same in the web-land. In this case as already stated from the evidence of the concerned witnesses, the accused being the concerned MRI had already sent his report to the MRO, who approved the application of the complainant i.e, PW.1 20th October, 2015 itself. This court would like to quote the relevant admissions made by each witness in this case. PW.1’s cross-examination at 5th page that:

“I met the Tahsildar,

Venkatachalam for four times

after Ex.P1 i.e., on 16 th

September, 2015 and before

lodging Ex.P2, dated 31 st

December, 2015. I also met

Tahsildar after the accused

demanded for money. I also met

Tahsildar once after giving the

said Rs.3,000/- to the accused. I

did not report Tahasildar about

the accused receiving Rs.3,000/-

from him and demanding bribe of

Rs.7,000/- and also about

reducing the said money to

Rs.5,000/- ……………… I know

about the movement of Ex.P1

application of LW.7 from one table

to the other in MRO’s

office………..”

This part of the admission made by PW.1 in his cross examination would clearly indicate that he was well aware of the fact that his application i.e,

Ex.P1 has already been approved by the MRO and another fact would also come to light that he kept quiet without complaining against the accused to the MRO.

39. PW.2 has admitted in her cross-examination at 7th page that:

“Ex.P1 was seized from one Basheer,

the computer operator in MRO’s

office, Venkatachalam…………….”

The said admission would clearly indicate that Ex.P1 file was not with the accused, but with the said Basheer i.e, PW.5 at the time, the ACB officials went to MRO’s office and seized the said file.

40. PW.3, who worked as Election Deputy Tahsildar admitted in his cross examination at 2nd page that:

“It is true that the file like Ex.P1

once forwarded to the MRO by the

Revenue Inspector will not be sent

back to the Revenue Inspector. The

file which is approved shall be given

to the Compute Operator by the

Senior Assistant to upload the same

in Web-land”

The said admission of PW.3 would further indicate that once an application has been approved by the MRO, the same will not be sent to the Revenue

Inspector, which would further indicate that the accused in this case has already completed his part of work by sending his report favourably to PW.1 to the MRO.

41. PW.5 namely Shaik Basheer Ahammad, who worked as

Compute Operator gave his evidence in his chief examination that:

“……………the accused asked him to

upload the entries of the e-pattadar

Passbook of the son of PW.1 in Web-

land. A khata number was also

allotted to such e-pass books i.e,

309 for the lands of the son of PW.1.

After uploading the said information,

I kept Ex.P1 file in a rack available

in computer room”

The said part of his evidence is crystal clear that there was no official favour pending on the part of accused to help PW.1 as he has already uploaded the entries in the Web-land. However, this witness has admitted in the next part of his evidence that on 2nd January, 2016, the accused came to his computer room and took Ex.P1 file with him. But, such admission of PW.5 will not affect the defence of the accused in this case, as the proceedings of the applicant of PW.1 has already been uploaded by him in the Web-land.

42. PW.7 Venkata Sudhakar, who worked as Tahsildar gave his evidence stating that:

“…………I received Ex.P1 on 15 th

October, 2015 containing the reports of

VRO and the RI. I approved Ex.P1 file

at Page Nos.10 and 11. After my

approval, Ex.P1 file was sent to the

concerned office section. As one link

document was missing in the

application of the son of PW.1, the file

was returned to the Section Officer.

Later, Ex.P1 file came to me on 20 th

October, 2015 and I approved the same

on the same day. Ex.P1 file was sent to

the Deputy Tahsildar for further

proceedings. The computer operator

will upload the mutation and e-pass

books in Web-land…………”

This witness has clarified in his evidence that he being the concerned MRO, approved the application of PW.1 finally on 20th October, 2015. Therefore, it is clear that there was no “official favour” pending on the part of the accused on 20th October, 2015 itself on which day Ex.P1 application had been approved.

43. PW.8 namely K.Venkatesh, who worked as Election Senior

Assistant in MRO’s Office, has stated in his chief examination itself that:

“……………..in this case the file i.e.,

Ex.P1 was sent to the MRO on 15 th

October, 2015 with an endorsement

for approval based on the reports of

VRO and RI. I received Ex.P1 file on

15 th October, 2015 after the approval

of the MRO. Ex.P1 file was send to the

computer section for uploading in

Web-land on the same

day……………….”

He also admitted in the cross examination done by the Special Public

Prosecutor after treating him as hostile that:

“It is true that Ex.P1 file was finally

approved on 20 th October, 2015 by

the MRO. The computer operator

uploaded mutation and e-pass book in

Web-land after 20 th October,

2015……….”

Therefore, this witness has admitted for the suggestion put by the Special

Public Prosecutor, that Ex.P1 application was approved on 20th October, 2015 itself.

44. Finally, the Investigating Officer i.e, PW.13 has admitted in his chief examination itself at 4th page that:

“………The accuses secured Ex.P1 from

PW.5 and handed over the same to him

and I seized the same……..”

The said admission would clearly indicate that Ex.P1 application of PW.1 was not in the possession of the accused, but in the possession of computer operator i.e., PW.5. This witness has further admitted in his cross examination that:

“………..It is true that after uploading an

application, no authority can do anything

with the said application i.e.,

Ex.P1……….It is true that the procedure

is that a Senior Assistant is the

competent authority to handover the

approved file like Ex.P1 to the Computer

Operator………..I did not gather any

documentary evidence to show that the

accused handed over Ex.P1 and Ex.P7

files to PW.5 on 31 st December, 2015. I

did not verify as to whether PW.6 had

given any power of attorney to PW.1 to

look after his lands………I did not seize

any document from the possession of the

accused in this case”.

45. Therefore, the fact is crystal clear that the application of PW.1 i.e, Ex.P1 has been approved by the MRO long back i.e., on 20th October, 2015 and PW.1 did not verify about such approval of his application and continued to follow the accused in this case. Under these circumstances, this court cannot draw the presumption against the accused with regard to the “official favour” pending on his part to help PW.1 in this case. As already stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above quoted Judgments, mere recovery of tainted money from the accused without establishing “official favour” is not enough to draw presumption against him and the accused in this case has successfully rebut such presumption by preponderance of probabilities i.e., by way of the admissions made by the above witnesses.

When the prosecution failed to establish the “official favour” pending on the part of the accused to help PW.1 as on the date of the complaint or as on the date of trap, the points of demand and acceptance of bribe will become moot.

46. Point No. 5 : If so, to what relief?

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. from the date of the Judgment.

The case property marked under M.Os. 1 to Mo.4 and Mo.6 to

Mo-8, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.5,000/- under Mo.5 which was recovered from the accused shall be returned to PW-1 after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to stenographer transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of April, 2021

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution:

PW.1 : Pandillapalli Sinivasa Reddy (defacto-complainant)

P.W.2: Kum K.Jyosthsna

P.W.3: Immaneni Srinivasa Prasad

P.W.4: Ramabathina Sridevi

P.W.5: Shaik Basheer Ahammed

P.W.6: Pandillapalli Sadasiva Reddy

P.W.7: Dhoorjati Venkata Sudhakar

P.W.8: Kalavakuru Venkatesh

P.W.9: Aarumalla Ramesh

P.W.10: Viswanadham Sudesh

P.W.11: Gonugunta Venkata Rathnam

P.W.12: T.Jagadeesh, Section Officer, A.P.Secretariat

PW.13: T. Prabhakar, DSP (Investigating Officer)

For Defence:

DW.1: Kommi Sankaraiah DW.2: Rasaputra Suryanarayana Singh

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:

Ex.P1: Made-up file containing the application of PW.6/Pandillapalli Sadasiva Reddy

Ex.P2: Complaint given by PW.1 on 31.12.2015

Ex.P3: Proceedings dated: 2.1.2016 issued by the Project Officer, ITDA, Nellore.

Ex.P4: Copy of Ex.P2

Ex.P5: Pre-trap proceeding dated: 2.1.2016

Ex.P6: Rough sketch at the scene of offence

Ex.P7: Inward Register

Ex.P8: Attendance Register

Ex.P9: Attendance Register

Ex.P10: Post trap proceedings dated: 02.01.2016

Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P12: Service particulars of Accused Officer

Ex.P13: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement (marked portion) of PW.7.

Ex.P14: call data particulars along with the covering letter from the General Manager, BSNL, dated 18.3.2016

Ex.P15: Compact Disk relating to the call data

Ex.P16: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11

Ex.P17: Sanction Order Vide G.O.Ms.No.488, dated: 5.12.2016 issued by the Revenue (Vigilance-III.1) Department

Ex.P18: Notice dated 1.2.2016 issued to accused by the Dy.S.P., ACB, Nellore.

Ex.P19: Explanation of the accused, dated: 9.2.2016

Ex.P20: Memorandum, dated 1.2.2016, issued by the DG, ACB, AP, Hyderabad.

Ex.P21: FIR in Crime No.01/RCT-ACB-NLR/2016 of ACB, Nellore.

MATERIAL OBECTS MARKED

MO-1: Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in Pre-trap proceedings, dt: 2.1.2016

MO-2: Sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder used in pre trap proceedings, dt: 2.1.2016

MO-3: Sealed bottle containing pink coloured right hand fingers wash of the accused.

MO-4: Sealed bottle containing wash of left hand fingers of the accused (Colorless solution)

MO-5: Cash (tainted cash) of Rs.5,000/-

MO-6: Wash of inner linings of the back pocket of the pant of the accused

MO-7: Sealed cover containing Sodium Carbonate Powder seized at the time of post trap proceedings

MO-8: Pant of the accused.

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

SUBMISSION OF CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.30/2017

ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, NELLORE

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Sentence offence report of apprehen-release commenceclosure of or order complaint sion of on bail ment of trial accused trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 02.01.2016 31.12.2015 03.01.2016 27.01.2016 02.08.2019 06.03.2020 01.04.2021

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY AND REMARKS:

The above case was taken on file on 11.12.2017 and registered as C.C.No.30/2017. Copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused on 11.01.2018, as required under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Later charges were framed on 29.08.2018. Trial was commenced on 02.-08.2019 and the prosecution evidence was concluded on 06.03.2020.

The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.12.2019. Arguments were heard on 25.03.2021. On 01.04.2021, the judgment was

pronounced. Hence, submitted.

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES-CUM–

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: NELLORE

Friday, the 20 th day of March, 2020

Present: A. Srinivasa Kumar,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore

CALENDAR CASE No.12 of 2018

1.Name of the : State represented by the Inspector of ComplainantPolice, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore.

2.Name of the Accused : Nadakuduru Rama Rao, Son of Ankaraju, Aged 46 years, Inspector of Police, North Traffic Police Station, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Crime Number: 05/RCT-NLR/2016 of ACB, Nellore, Nellore Range.

4.Section of Law: Under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

6.Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty under sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988

7.Result (Sentence or : In the result, Accused is found not guilty order) for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

from the date of the Judgment.

The case property marked under

M.O. 1 to Mo.8 and Mo.11, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of

Rs.10,000/- under Mo.9 shall be confiscated to the State and Rs.4,700 under Mo.10, which was recovered from the accused shall be returned to him after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up for final hearing on 16.03.2020 before me in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Subbaiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and that of Sri P. Vijaya Kumara Reddy and Sri Md. Fazil Ahamad,

Advocates for the accused, and upon hearing the arguments, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The sole accused in this case who worked as Inspector of Police,

North Traffic Police Station, Nellore and who has been charged and charge- sheeted by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (in short ACB),

Nellore, for the offence under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein referred to as PC Act) based on a written complaint dated 7th April, 2016 made by one Nainar Mohammad

Yusaf @ Basha.

2. The case of the prosecution, as one could peruse from the contents of the said complaint and also from the contents of the charge-sheet, that the complainant, who was the resident of Nellore was running a Chappal Shop on the Platform situated nearby Atmakur

Bus stand, Nellore, since 20 years prior to the said complaint, but the accused being the Traffic Inspector of Police, started demanding the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as bribe otherwise, he would not allow him to do the said business and the accused did not heed these supplications made by him and sticked on to his demand of bribe. However, the accused came to an agreement with the complainant that the complainant should pay at least Rs.15,000/- per six months and demanded him to pay Rs.15,000/- as first payment.

3. The complainant has further alleged in the said complaint that the accused continued to make such demands over his phone to his cell phone and threatened him, that he would see his business is spoiled in case he fails to pay the said money. According to the complainant, the accused made such calls from his cell phone bearing

No.9290719075 to his cell phone bearing No.8099336571. On 6th

April, 2016, during morning hours, the accused made a call to the complainant and once again demanded him to pay the said

Rs.15,000/- and he expressed his inability to pay the said money and finally, the amount was reduced to Rs.10,000/- and the accused asked the complainant to pay the said money on the next day i.e. 7th April, 2016 during evening hours at a place where he would inform him later. As the complainant did not intend to pay the said money approached the DSP(LW.15), ACB, and lodged the said complaint which was registered as Crime No.05/RCT-NLR/2016 for the offence under Section 7 of P.C.Act, 1988 and he took up investigation, thereby laying a trap against the accused on 7th April, 2016 in the presence of two mediators namely Vema Raja Rathanam (LW.3) and Pothula

Ramakrishna Rao (LW.4).

4. According to the case of the prosecution, the pre-trap proceedings were conducted in ACB Office, Nellore in between 06.00

PM to 07,00 PM and a chemical test was also demonstrated and its significance was also explained by LW.15 to the mediators and the complainant and after completion of pre-trap proceedings, the raiding party left the office at 07.15 PM and reached nearby the Town Traffic

Police Station, Nellore, at 07.45 PM and took vantage positions and at 08.10 PM, the complainant who had gone into the said police station came out and informed LW.15 that the accused was not in the police station as he was engaged on his duty in the town and therefore, the raiding party proceeded to Atmakur Bus Stand Centre, in their vehicles and found the accused was absent there also and then, they moved to

Gandhi Statue Centre, Nellore. At about 08.40 PM, the accused came in his traffic vehicle and stopped the vehicle near Gandhi Statue and the complainant approached him and had some discussion with him and later, the accused proceeded towards Kanakamahal side, then the complainant informed LW.15 and later the accused made a call to the complainant and asked him to wait at his cheppal shop and at 09.40

PM, the complainant received a call from the accused asking him to come to Srinivasa Hotel situated nearby Atmakur Bus Stand and the raiding party proceeded to the said place and found the accused was absent and the complainant once again made a call to the accused at 10.05 PM and he was informed by the accused to come to Pappula

Veedhi Centre near Vinayaka temple and accordingly, the raiding party went there and took vantage positions and meanwhile, the complainant met the accused who was sitting in his vehicle and the accused received the bribe amount from the complainant and handed over the same to his driver namely Goturu Obulesu(LW.2) and the raiding party immediately reached the scene of offence and caught hold of LW.2 and the accused and also conducted chemical test with the help of the sodium carbonate solution, which turned into pink colur soon after the accused and LW.2 rinsed their hands into the solutions.

Later, the accused was arrested and the statements of the complainant and LW.2 and other persons were recorded. The version of the accused and the version of the complainant were also recorded and the tainted money was recovered from the possession of LW.2 by

LW.15 and he seized the said amount and post-trap proceedings were also drafted there. Subsequently, the statements of the complainant and LW.2 got recorded on 16th April, 2016 and on 23rd April, 2016 respectively by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile

Court, Nellore and after obtaining necessary sanction order from the concerned, the charge-sheet was laid against the accused.

5. In pursuance of the summons issued by this court, the accused made his appearance on 14th May, 2019 and on that day, the charges were framed against him under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the accused pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried. To establish the said charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-25 and also Mos.1 to Mo.11. After completion of the trial, this court examined the accused as per the procedure contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein referred to as Cr.P.C.) on 10th March, 2020, while explaining the incriminating part of the evidence spoken by the witnesses against him and as a reply, the accused has stated that whatever the evidence spoken by the witnesses against him was a falsehood and according to him, he never committed any such crime. The accused did not prefer to lead any evidence.

6. Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and also the learned Advocate for the Accused. The learned Special Public

Prosecutor also filed his written arguments and the advocate for the accused did not prefer to file any written arguments and however, he filed the list of citations to support the defence of the accused. This court has discussed about such points raised by the Special Public

Prosecutor and the advocate for the accused at the relevant portion of the Judgment.

7. This court has perused the entire case record meticulously and also took into consideration of the contentions raised by the

Special Public Prosecutor and also the advocate for the accused, and formulated the following point for consideration:

1) Whether the accused is a public servant as per Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,

so that to proceed against him under this Act?

2) Whether there was no “official favour” pending on the part of the accused to do any favour to the complainant i.e., PW.1 as on the date of the offence?

(3) Whether there was any demand and acceptance of

bribe by the accused from P.W.1 in this case?

(4) Whether the prosecution could establish the charged offences against the accused under Sections 7, 13(2) Read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(5) If so, to what relief?

8. Point No.1:- (1) Whether the accused is a Public Servant, as per Section 2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so

that to proceed against him under this Act?

Admittedly, the accused worked as Inspector of Police,

North Traffic Police Station, Nellore, at the relevant point of time and therefore, he is a “Public Servant” as per Section 2(c) of the PC Act, 1988 and therefore, this point is decided accordingly.

9. Point Nos.2 to 4:

(2) Whether the prosecution could establish the official

favour pending with the accused Nos.1 to 6 to help the complainant i.e. PW.1 as on the date of the trap?

(3) Whether the prosecution could establish the demand

and acceptance of bribe by the accused from P.W.1 in this case?

(4) Whether the prosecution could establish the charged offences against the accused under Sections 7, 13(2) Read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

Before going into the crux of these points, this court would

like to state about the statements made by PW.1 and PW.2 before the

Magistrate. As one could peruse from the statement of PW.1 made

before the Magistrate, he has stated the facts which are alleged by him

in Ex.P18/Complaint and also about the facts which have occurred during the pre and post-trap proceedings, particularly, the facts that the accused accepted Rs.10,000/- and from him. PW.1 also has stated about the Chemical Test conducted at the scene of offence, which proved positive results, thereby the sodium carbonate solutions in which PW.1 and PW.1 rinsed their fingers, turned into pink colour.

PW.1 has specifically stated in his 164 Cr.P.C. statement that he gave money to the accused only on his demand. On the other hand, PW.2 has stated before the Magistrate that he was engaged as driver to the accused on 6th and 7th April, 2016 at about 8.40 PM, he drove the vehicle for the accused and they made rounds in Nellore Town, particularly to the places such as Gandhi Bomma Centre, Narthaki

Theater centre, Ranganayakulapeta, Raiwlay Station and finally to

Vinayaka temple, situated in Pappula Veedhi of Stonehousepet. It is his further statement that one person came to the accused and talked with him at Gandhi Bomma Centre and gave some money to him and then, the accused took the said money with his right hand and handed over the same to him (PW.2). He further stated that immediately the

ACB officials came there and caught hold of him and also the accused and the chemical test was conducted which yielded positive results, thereby changing into pink colour soon after himself and accused rinsed their fingers into the said solutions. He further stated that his statement was also recorded by the ACB officials etc.,

10. Now, the question would arise as to how far the prosecution could establish the guilt against the accused in this case.

It is the settled principle of Law by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in several Judgments, particularly in the following Judgments:

(a) B. Jayaraj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; 1

(b) P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police; 2

(c) Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi; 3

(d) N. Sunkanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; 4

(e) K. Giri Vs. State, ACB, Hyderabad; 5

(f) Som Prakash Vs. State of Punjab; 6

11. That mere recovery of tainted money from the accused without proof of demand will not come under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and further held that to establish the said charged offences, the prosecution inevitably to establish the official favour pending on the part of the accused to help the complainant in one way or the other. Therefore, the Law is very clear that the prosecution inevitably to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe 1 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC) 2 2015 Crl.L.J. 4670 (SC) 3 2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 434 (SC) 4 2016(1) ALD (Crl.) 230 (SC) 5 2008(2) ALD (Crl) 821 (AP) 6 1992 Crl.L.J. 490 (Supreme Court) by the accused to do an official favour to the complainant. Now we have to see as to whether the prosecution has established the said ingredients. To answer the said question, it is inevitable on the part of this Court to have a glance at the evidence spoken by each witness in this case.

12. The complainant i.e. PW.1 has stated in his evidence that he is doing Footwear business on a footpath in front of the C.C.S.

Police Station and he knew the accused as Inspector of Police, North

Traffic Police. It is his further evidence that the North Traffic Police made him to pay fine in a court for violating the rules i.e. for doing the business on the footpath. PW.1 has further stated that the accused used to made calls to him to enquire about one Uday, who was working as a home-guard and who used to create mischief in his business. He further stated that he had also made a complaint against the said Uday about one week prior to the trap and the reason for him to go to the ACB Office, Nellore was that one Pattabhi, who was also doing the similar business and who was also facing the same problem asked him to come to ACB Office to complain against the Inspector of

Police, Traffic, i.e, against the accused and so he went to ACB Office,

Nellore one day prior to the trap accompanying the said Pattabhi.

However, PW.1 has categorically stated in his evidence that he never gave any complaint against the accused in this case and he does not know whether the said Pattabhi gave any complaint against the accused. He further stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) i.e, PW.14 asked him to come into the office and also inquired with him as to whether the accused was demanding money from him and as a reply he stated that he was not aware of the said fact. He further stated that even PW.14 asked him to cooperate to give complaint against accused stating that he was demanding money from him, but he refused such advice and later, PW.14 gave him

Rs.10,000/- and asked him to give the same to the accused on his demand.

13. PW.1 has further stated in his evidence that at about 07.00 pm himself and the said Pattabhi started from ACB office in their motor cycle followed by two vehicles and they reached Traffic Police Station at 07-30 pm and the said Pattabhi went into the Traffic Police Station and came back stating that the accused was not available in the station and later he along with Pattabhi went to Gandhi Bomma Centre in search of the accused and the accused was sitting in his jeep and himself and Pattabhi tried to speak with him, but the accused did not allow them to speak. Then, himself and the said Pattabhi went to the

ACB police and informed the same to them and they took them to the said platform on which he was doing business and they waited there till 09-00 pm and the said Pattabhi made a call to one person through his cell phone and they waited there till 09-30 pm. It is his further evidence that the ACB police took them to one Srinivasa Hotel,

Atmakur bus stand stating that the accused was there, but the accused was not available and later, the ACB police took them to

Stonehousepet near one Vigneswara Sweet Shop. He further stated the said Pattabhi spoke with the driver (PW.2) of the accused and came back and asked him to give the said money to the driver (PW.2) and so he (PW.2) gave the said money to PW.2 and ACB officials immediately came and caught hold of PW.2.

14. PW.1 has further stated in his evidence that himself and

Pattabhi followed by ACB police went to Nawabpet Police Station i.e.,

II Town Police Station and the ACB police asked him to come on the next day and so he went to ACB office on the next day, wherein the

ACB police took his signatures in ten papers and asked him to go away. This witness was treated as hostile and this court permitted the

Special Public Prosecutor to cross examine him. But, the Special Public

Prosecutor in spite of his best efforts failed to gather any information from him, particularly about the demand of bribe made by the accused etc.,

15. PW.1 has further stated in such cross examination that

PW.2 was the driver for the vehicle of the accused on the day of trap.

PW.1 admitted in such cross examination that the accused asked him twice or thrice to remove his shop on the footpath and he did not remove and continued his business. PW.1 denied the suggestions put to him in such cross examination about the demand of Rs.15,000/- made by the accused and also about his filing of complaint against the accused on 07th April, 2016. PW.1 denied all the material suggestions put to him in the cross examination and it is the conclusion of this court that the Special Public Prosecutor failed to elicit from PW.1 about such demand of Rs.15,000/- made by the accused. Even, P.W.1 denied the contents of his statements allegedly recorded as per the procedure under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. PW.1 was also cross examined by the advocate

for the accused and in such cross examination he has stated that

whatever his statement made before the Magistrate under Sec.164 of

Cr.P.C. was on the force made by the ACB police. So far as handing over of money is concerned, P.W.1 has stated in such cross examination that he kept the money into the hands of P.W.2 and went away from there.

16. PW.2 namely, Goturu Obulesu gave his evidence that he was working as a home guard, North Traffic Police Station, Nellore, at the relevant point of time and he worked as driver for the accused in the month of April, 2016 and he was on such duty on the day of trap also. PW.2 has specifically stated that on 07th April, 2016 at 07.00 am, he drove the vehicle

for the accused and they made rounds and visited various places like Gandhi

Bomma Centre, Stonehousepeta etc., It is his further evidence that while he was coming from a provisional store with some articles, PW.1 came and gave some money and went away and then, he got a phone call from his house and to answer the said call, he kept the said money in his left side pant pocket and the ACB officials immediately came there and caught hold of him and according to P.W.2, the accused was clearing the traffic by the time the

ACB officials caught hold of him. It is his further evidence that the ACB police took him and the accused to II Town Police Station, and according to him, no chemical test was conducted by the ACB officials in his presence etc., This witness was also treated as hostile and this court permitted the Special Public

Prosecutor to cross examine him. Here also the learned Special Public

Prosecutor failed to elicit any valid information from such cross examination in support of the prosecution case.

17. PW.2 has specifically denied the suggestions put to him in such cross examination about the chemical test conducted by the ACB police and also about the contents of the statement made before the Magistrate. PW.2 has denied the suggestion about PW.1 giving the tainted money directly to the accused. However, PW.2 has admitted in such cross examination about recording of his statement by PW.14 on 8th April, 2016. But, strangely PW.2 had denied such contents of his statement recorded Under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. by PW.14. PW.2 has specifically denied about his giving of statement

before the Magistrate as per Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and however, he

admitted his signatures contained in such statement on 23rd April, 2016 in

ACB Office, Nellore.

18. PW.3, namely Vema Raja Rathnam, who worked as Deputy

Executive Engineer, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Nellore gave his evidence that on 7th April, 2016 at 5.35 pm himself and another mediator

Pothula Ramakrishna Rao (LW.4) went to ACB Office, Nellore as per the directions of Project Director and met PW.14 at 6.00 PM in the office and introduced themselves with him and vise versa. Later, according to this witness, PW.1 was called into the office and he verified the contents of the complaint made by PW.1 with him with regard to the genuineness of the contents and after PW.1 giving positive reply, he noted the same as “seen and verified” in the copy of the complaint i.e, in Ex.P4. Later, according to him, on the directions of PW.14, one constable namely Subba Rao demonstrated the chemical test with the help of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powders. Later, PW.1 handed over Rs.10,000/- contained in “Rupees five hundred” denomination and he counted the same and also noted down the currency note numbers in pre-trap proceedings and later, the constable applied the Phenolphthalein powder to each of the currency notes.

Meanwhile, himself and LW.4 rinsed their fingers into the sodium carbonate solution prepared by the said constable which did not change into any colour, but the said solution changed into pink colour when the said constable rinsed the fingers of his hands containing phenolphthalein powder particles. Then, the said constable, according to PW.3, kept the currency notes in the left side shirt pocket of PW.1 and PW.14 gave instruction to handover the said money only on the demand made by the accused.

19. It is the further evidence of PW.3 that they proceeded to the

Traffic Police Station, Nellore in a Tata Sumo vehicle along with PW.14 and one constable and LW.4 and other staff of ACB proceeded in another vehicle and whereas PW.1 followed in his motorcycle along with one constable and at 07.45 PM, they reached traffic Police station and PW.1 went into the said police station and came back and informed them that the accused was not in the Police Station and later, they proceeded to Gandhi Bomma Centre and searched there till 08.45 PM. It is his further evidence that at 8.40 PM, the accused came there in his vehicle and stopped near a petrol bunk and PW.1 went and met the accused and came back and informed them that the accused asked him to wait near his shop and so they proceeded to Atmakur

Bus stand and waited nearby the shop of PW.1 till 09.40PM and PW.1 made a call to the accused, who informed him to come to Pappula Veedhi,

Stonehousepet, and so they went to Pappulaveedhi and waited there. It is his further evidence that he was behind the Vigneswara temple and at 10.15PM, the accused came there in his vehicle driven by PW.2 and then PW.1 went to the accused and gave the said money to him and the accused took the same and handed over the same to PW.2 and the raiding party after receiving signal from PW.1 who wiped his face with his dhoti, immediately went there and caught hold of the accused. He further stated that the said chemical test was conducted, where one constable brought four glass tumblers and the sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the said solution became pink colour when the accused rinsed his right hand fingers and when PW.2 rinsed his left hand fingers. It is his further evidence that that PW.14 seized the said solutions i.e., MO.3 to MO.6. Even the inner linings of the left pant pocket of

PW.2 was also chemically tested which also yielded positive results, wherein the sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour. Mo.7 and Mo.8 samples were also seized. Later, according to this witness, he verified the currency note numbers with the numbers noted by him in the pre-trap proceedings and found them as tallied and MO-9 money is marked through this witness. He further stated in his evidence that as the public gathered there, they went to II Town Police station and the post trap proceedings were prepared by him with the help of one constable namely Phani Prasad, who typed the same in a laptop computer on this dictation. He further stated that

PW.14 recorded the statements of PW.1 and also the accused. According to this witness, the accused was silent and quiet and he did not make any statement before PW.14. According to this witness, PW.14 also seized the cell phone of the accused and also arrested the accused. This witness was also treated as hostile at the request of the Special Public Prosecutor and it could be elicited from such cross examination that the said Phani Prasad was the person, who prepared the pre-trap proceedings in ACB office on his dictation i.e, Ex.P7 and the said constable was the person who rinsed his fingers into sodium carbonate solution before applying the Phenolphthalein powder on each of the currency notes and the said solution did not change any colour.

He further admitted in the same cross examination about Ex.P7 containing the information regarding the demand of bribe made by the accused with the complainant.

20. PW.4 namely Donaparthi Narasimha Rao, who is running a medical shop at Stonehousepeta, has stated in his evidence that he does not know anything and the Investigation Officer never recorded any statement from him.

21. PW.5 namely Madhuranthakam Balasubrahmanyam, who is running the Sweets shop at Stonehousepeta, Nellore also stated in his evidence that he does not know anything about the case and the

Investigating Officer never recorded his statement.

22. PW.6 namely Damarapu Murali, who is doing the fruit business on a footpath in Nellore town gave his evidence that he was doing such business in Atmakur Busstand, Nellroe and the traffic police never registered any crimes against him and so far as the accused is concerned, he has stated that he does not know the accused as Inspector of Police, traffic and the

Investigating officer never recorded his statement.

23. PW.7 namely Pantrangi Ramanamma, who is also doing fruit business on a footpath in Nellore gave the same evidence has stated by PW.6 and she too has stated that the accused never demanded anything from her and the Investigating Officer never recorded any statement from her.

24. PW.8 namely Pothula Ramakrishna Rao, who accompanied PW.3 as another mediator on the date of trap gave the same evidence as stated by

PW.3 with regard to the pre-trap proceedings and he did not state any new information in his evidence and therefore, repetition of his evidence is not at all required at this stage.

25. PW.9 namely Kothuru Srinivasulu, who worked as a clerk in

CITU, Nellore, gave his evidence that he does not know the accused and he does not know anything about the case and the Investigating Officer never recorded his statement.

26. PW.10 namely, Gonapalli Ravi Kumar, who is doing fruit business on a push-cart gave his evidence that he does not know the accused and the Investigating Officer never recorded his statement.

27. PW.11 namely Aadala Siva Kumar Reddy, who is doing local transport business in Pappulaveedhi, Nellore, gave his evidence that he has four lorries under the name of “Annapoorna Daily Transport Service” and they will be parked at Stonehousepet for loading and unloading everyday and so far as this case is concerned, it is his evidence that he too does not know the accused and also about this case and he too has stated that the

Investigating Officer never recorded his statement.

28. PW.12 namely G.Nagababu, who worked as Section Officer,

Principal Secretary to the Government Home Department, Secretariat,

Velagapudi, gave his evidence about Ex.P16/sanction orders passed against the accused to prosecution him.

29. PW.13 namely Shaik Shafi, who worked as Junior Telecom

Officer, BSNL, Nellore gave his evidence that one Bal Singh who worked as

Nodal Officer in BSNL, prepared the call-data of the calls between the accused and PW.1 under Ex.P17.

30. PW.14 i.e, the said T. Prabhakar, who worked as D.S.P., ACB,

Nellore, at the relevant point of time, gave his evidence that on 7th April, 2016, at about 10.00 AM, PW.1 came to ACB Office and lodged

Ex.P18/complaint against the accused and he registered the same as Crime

No.05/RCT-ACB-Nellore/2016 for the offence under Section of 7 of PC Act.

Subsequently, he secured the presence of PWs.3 and PW.8 to act as mediators and PW.3 and PW.8 verified the contents of Ex.P18 with PW.1, with regard to the genuineness and after PW.1 giving a positive result, they endorsed the same on the copy of Ex.P18 i.e, Ex.P4. It is his further evidence that PW.1 produced Rs.10,000/- containing “Rupees five hundred” denomination and PW.3 verified the numbers and noted down the same in

Pre-trap proceedings that is in Ex.P7. It is his further evidence that the said constable namely, Subba Rao conducted chemical test as stated by PW.3 and

PW.8 and the significance of the said test was also explained to PW.1, PW.3 and PW.8 by this witness and the samples of sodium carbonate powders and the Phenolphthalein powders were also seized i.e., MO.1 and MO.2. Later, the raiding party proceeded to Traffic Police Station in Two vehicles followed by PW.1 in his motorcycle and reached there at 07.45PM and PW.1 went into the traffic police station and came at 08.10PM and informed him about the absence of the accused in the station and so they proceeded to Gandhi

Bomma Statute centre and waited there till 08.40PM and the accused came there in his traffic vehicle and PW.1 went and spoke with the accused for some time and came back and informed him (PW.14) that the accused enquired with him about the bribe amount and also asked him to pay the said money at the place which will be informed by him later and also informed PW.1 to wait at his shop till he gets a call.

31. PW.14 has further stated that they all proceeded to the shop of

PW.1 and waited there till 09.45 PM and PW.1 received the call from the accused asking him to come to Srinivasa Hotel, situated at Atmakur Bus

Stand and so they all proceeded to the said hotel, but found the accused was not there and when PW.1 made a call to the accused at 10.05 PM, the accused informed him to come to nearby Vinayaka Temple, Pappulaveedhi,

Stonehousepet, Nellore. Accordingly, they all went to the said place at 10.15

PM and found the vehicle of the accused nearby the said Vigneswara Sweets and they further found that the accused and his driver (PW.2) were sitting in the said vehicle at the time when PW.1 approached them. PW.14 has specifically stated that PW.1 paid the said money to the accused, who received the same and handed over the same to PW.2. After receiving the signal from PW.1, according to this witness, they surrounded the accused and disclosed his identity and the said chemical test was conducted, wherein the test yielded positive results, thereby the colour of the sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour soon after the accused rinsed his fingers of both hands and when PW.2 rinsed his fingers of both hands into the said solutions. According to this witness, the accused gave his explanation by admitting his demand and receipt of bribe amount from PW.1 and also PW.2 produced bribe money from his left pant pocket. PW.14 has further stated that even the inner linings of the left pocket of the pant of PW.2 was also chemically tested which yielded positive result, wherein, the sodium carbonate solution turned into pink colour. He also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence, seized the tainted money, arrested the accused etc.

32. PW.15, namely N.Siva Kumar Reddy, who worked as Inspector of Police ACB, Nellore at the relevant point of time gave his evidence that as per the memo dated 25th April, 2016, issued by Director General, ACB,

Hyderabad, he took up investigation in the matter and on 23rd June, 2016, he issued a show-cause notice against the accused calling upon his explanation and the accused submitted his explanation on 30th June, 2016. It is his further evidence that he also received call-data particulars exchanged between the cell phones of the accused and PW.1 and he also recorded the statements of the witnesses on 26th October, 2016 and also on First

February, 2017. Later, he filed the charge-sheet in this case.

33. Now the question would arise as to whether the evidence of

PW.1 to PW.15 is useful to the case of the prosecution, particularly to establish the charged offences against the accused. The answer affirmatively is “NO”. Because, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused in this case. Therefore, the

Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “B.Jayaraj’s case 2014(2)

ALD(Crl) 73(SC)” would squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. In B.Jayaraj’s case also the complainant as PW.2 completely turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in clear terms that mere recovery of tainted money from the accused itself shall not be a ground to convict him for the charged offences. As already stated by this court, the prosecution could not elicit any valid information from the cross examination of PW.1, particularly with regard to the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from PW.1. PW.1 has repeatedly stated in his examination in chief and also in his cross examination that the accused never demanded him for Rs.15,000/- as bribe to permit him to continue his business on the platform. Even the prosecution failed to elicit any valid information from the evidence of PW.3 or PW.8, who were the mediators acted in pre and post trap proceedings. As one could observe from the chief examination of PW.3 in the last paragraph of 3rd page of his deposition that the accused was silent and did not give any statement before PWl.14 i.e. the D.S.P., but PW.14 has stated in his chief examination that the accused gave his explanation as to why he accepted such money from PW.1. The said contradictory statement between PW.3 and PW.14 would create a strong doubt in the mind of this court with regard to the truth in this case. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, i.e., PW.4 to PW.7 and PW.9 to PW.13, they bluntly not accepted their alleged statements made before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code and they all have stated in one voice that they do not know anything about the case. Under these circumstances, this court has no other option except to acquit the accused in this case.

34. The learned Special Public Prosecution has tried his best to convince this court about the guilty of the accused, but the facts and circumstances of this would lead to a conclusion that the accused is found not guilty for the charged offences. The Special Public Prosecution has banked upon the said Rs.10,000/- allegedly given by PW.1 to PW.3 at pre- trap proceedings and would contend that such fact is sufficient to conclude about the participation of PW.1 in Pre and Post Trap proceedings, including his giving of the said money to the accused. But, such contention of the

Special Public Prosecutor is not sustainable in this case, as PW.1 categorically stated that he never gave the said money to the accused. The Special Public

Prosecutor also relied upon Ex.P17/Call-data marked through the BSNL official and stated that it one of the grounds to believe the case of the prosecution. But, the accused has denied his conversation allegedly made with PW.1 and therefore, the burden is on the prosecution to establish the voice of the accused in this case. But, the prosecution failed to take any steps to establish the voice of the accused in this case. Under these circumstances, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish the charged offences against the accused in this case.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the accused is found not guilty and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offences.

35. Point No. 5 : If so, to what relief?

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after appeal time and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. from the date of the Judgment.

36. The case property marked under M.Os. 1 to Mo.8 and Mo.11, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property of cash of Rs.10,000/- under Mo.9 shall be confiscated to the

State and Rs.4,700 under Mo.10, which was recovered from the accused shall be returned to him after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For prosecution:

PW.1 : Nainar Mohammad Yusaf @ Basha (defacto-complainant)

P.W.2: Goturu Obulesu

P.W.3: Vema Raja Ratham, Mediator

P.W.4: Doniparthi Narasimha Rao

P.W.5: Madhurantakam Balasubrahmanyam

P.W.6: Damarapu Murali

P.W.7: Pantrangi Ramanamma

P.W.8: Pothula Ramakrishna Rao, Mediator

P.W.9: Kothuru Srinivasulu

P.W.10: Gonapalli Ravikumar

P.W.11: Aadala Siva Kumar Reddy

P.W.12: G. Naga Babu, Section Officer, AP Secretariat

PW.13: Shaik Shafi, Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL, Nellore

PW.14: T. Prabhakar, DSP

PW.15: N. Siva Kumar Reddy, Inspector of Police

For Defence:

None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1 None

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2

Ex.P3: Letter dated 7.4.2016 issued by Project director, AP State Housing Corporation, Nellore

Ex.P4: Copy of complaint in Crime No.05/RCT/ACB-NLR/2016

Ex.P5: Made Up file with documents seized from the possession of the accused in II Town Police Station.

Ex.P6: Post-trap proceedings dated: 07.04.2016 (Mediators’ Report No.II)

Ex.P7: Pre-trap proceedings dated: 07-04-2016 (Mediators’ Report No.I)

Ex.P8: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4

Ex.P10: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.5

Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.6

Ex.P12: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.7

Ex.P13: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.9

Ex.P14: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.10

Ex.P15: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.11

Ex.P16: Prosecution Sanction Orders in GOMs.No.96, dt:13.7.2018 issued by HOME (SC.A.) Department.

Ex.P17: Call Data file for the period from 1.2.2016 to 7.4.2016 issued by BSNL Office, in connection with Mobile Nos.9491039182 and 8099336571.

Ex.P18: Original report of PW.1.

Ex.P19: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2/Goturu Obulesu

Ex.P20: Memo dated 22.04.2016, issued by the D.G., ACB, AP, Hyderabad.

Ex.P21: Service particulars and job chart of the accused.

Ex.P22: Original FIR in Crime No.05/RCT-ACB/Nlr-2016.

Ex.P23: Memo dated 25.000444.2016

Ex.P24: Show-cause notice issued to Accused Officer, dt: 23.06.2016

Ex.P25: Explanation of Accused Officer dated 30.06.2016.

MATERIAL OBECTS MARKED

MO-1: Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in Pre-trap proceedings.

MO-2: Sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder used in pre trap proceedings.

MO-3: Sealed bottle containing pink colour right hand wash of Accused

MO-4: Sealed bottle containing wash of left hand fingers of the accused (Colorless solution)

MO-5: Sealed bottled containing wash of left hand fingers of PW.2

MO-6: Sealed bottle containing wash of Right hand fingers of PW.2 (colorless solution)

MO-7: Pant of PW.1

MO-8: Sealed bottle containing Wash of inner linings of the pant of PW.2

MO-9: Cash of Rs.10,000/- seized from PW.2

MO-10: Cash of Rs.4,700/- seized from the accused

MO-11: sample of sodium carbonate powder seized by PW.14

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore

SUBMISSION OF CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN C.C.NO.12/2018

ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT, NELLORE

Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Sentence offence report of apprehen-release commenceclosure of or order complaint sion of on bail ment of trial accused trial 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 07.04.2016 07.04.2016 08.04.2016 06.05.2016 19.11.2019 10.03.2020 20.03.2020

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY AND REMARKS:

The above case was taken on file on 19.09.2018 and registered as C.C.No.12/2018. Copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused on 23.10.2018, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Later charges were framed on 14.05.2019. Trial was commenced on 19.11.2019 and the prosecution evidence was concluded on 10.03.2020. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 11.03.2020.

Arguments were heard on 16.03.2020. On 20.03.2020, the judgment was

pronounced. Hence, submitted.

Sd/- A.Srinivasa Kumar

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-

II Additional District & Sessions Judge

Nellore.

1

O.S.No.242/2013Money

BEFORE THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NELLORE,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Friday, this the 08th day of March, 2019

Present: -

A. SRINIVASA KUMAR,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases-cum- II Addl. District Judge, Nellore (FAC), Judge, Family Court-cum- VI Addl. District Judge, Nellore.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 242 of 2013

M/S LIC Housing Finance Limited, 17/130, Second Floor, Sri Rajeswari Towers, Trunk Road, Nellore – 524 001, represented by its Area Manager Mr. P. Hari Sankar… Plaintif

Vs.

1. Smt. Pathapalem Sulochanamma, W/o. P. Subramanyam, aged major Occupation: Business, R/o. H.No.16-4-471, 2nd street, Harinathapuram, Nellore- 524003

2. P. Subramanyam, S/o. Not known, aged major Occupation: Business, R/o. H.No.16-4-471, 2nd street, Harinathapuram, Nellore- 524003

3. I. Srinivasulu, S/o. Not known, occupation: Goldsmith, R/o. Buchireddipalem, Nellore District – 524 305

4. N. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o. Not known, R/o. H.No.16/229, Navalakula Gardens, Nellore District – 524 004

5. Devarapu Venkateswarlu, S/o. Venkataiah, aged about 57 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o. Balajinagar, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District…. Defendants

This suit coming on this day before me for final disposal, Sri S. Siva Sankar, advocate filed vakalat on behalf of the plaintiff and of Sri A. Venkateswarlu, advocate filed vakalat on behalf of the the defendants and since P.W.1 is called absent for cross-examination and no representation, this Court made the following: contd...2 2

O.S.No.242/2013Money

J U D G M E N T

P.W.1 called absent and no representation. Hence, suit is

dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open court, on this the 08th day of MARCH, 2019

(Sd) A. Srinivasa Kumar

II Additional District Judge,

(FAC) VI Additional District Judge,

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif:

P.W.1 : P. Hari Sankar, Area Manager of LIC Housing Finance Limited, Nellore.

For Defendants: NIL

Documents marked

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Notary attested copy of Authority letter dated 22.11.2016

Ex.A2: Original application form of housing loan vide application Doc.No.17553 dated 10-05-2001

Ex.A3: Original loan offer letter along with terms and conditions dated 12.05.2001

Ex.A4: Original sale Deed in favour of Pathapalem Sulochanamma dated 22-02-1983

Ex.A5: Original Registered Partition Deed dated 14-02-1956

Ex.A6: Original Registered mortgage certificate dated 02-05-2001

Ex.A7: Original Building Permission copy from Nellore municipality dated 29-03-2001 3

O.S.No.242/2013Money

Ex.A8: Approval of house construction permission along with plan Doc.No.14/336 dated 31-08-2001

Ex.A9: Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 23-05-2001

Ex.A10: Original Affidavit dated 15-05-2001

Ex.A11: Original Deed of Guarantee dated 12-05-2001

Ex.A12: Original Deed of Guarantee dated 15-05-2001

Ex.A13 : Original Promissory Note along with Receipt dated 23-05-2001

Ex.A14: Original Promissory Note along with Receipt dated 04-10-2001

Ex.A15: Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 23-05-2001 : Office copy of Legal Notice issued to plaintiff by Defendant No.1 & Ex.A16No.2 dated 03-09-2011

Ex.A17: Office copy of Notice issued to plaintiff by Defendant No.1 & No.2

dated 13-08-2010

Ex.A18: Office copy of the Notice issued by Defendants No.1 Daughter Along With E.C. and Cover dated 20-10-2011

Ex.A19: Office copy of the Notice issued by Defendant No.1 to Plaintiff and Cover dated 21-10-2011

Ex.A20: Office copy of the Legal Notice issued by Defendant No.1 to Plaintiff and Cover dated 07-12-2011

Ex.A21: Office copy of the Notice issued by Defendants No.1's daughter to plaintiff and Cover dated 08-12-2011

Ex.A22: Office copy of the Notice issued by Defendant No.1's to Plaintiff and Cover dated 23-12-2011

Ex.A23: Office copy of the Notice issued by Defendant No.1's daughter to Plaintiff dated 07-01-2012

Ex.A24: Office copy of the Notice issued by Defendant No.1 to Plaintiff and Cover dated 06-02-2012

Ex.A25: Office copy of the Notice issued by Defendants No.1's daughter to Plaintiff dated 07-02-2012

Ex.A26: Office copy of the Notice issued by Defendants No.1's daughter to Plaintiff dated 14-02-2012

Ex.A27: Office copy of the letter issued by Defendants No.1 to Plaintiff

dated 05-12-2012

Ex.A28: Office copy of the Notice issued by Defendant No.1 to Plaintiff

dated 10-02-2013

4

O.S.No.242/2013Money

Ex.A29: Certified copy of the counter in E.A.243/07 in E.P.406/2005 in T.OS.NO.1981 of 2004 on the file of Prl. Junior civil Judge, Nellore

Ex.A30: Certified copy of the petition and docket proceedings in E.A.190/07 in E.P.406/2005 in T.OS.NO.1981 of 2004 on the file of Prl. Junior civil

Judge, Nellore

Ex.A31: Certified copy of the affidavit, E.P.406 of 2005 in T.OS.NO.1981 of 2004 and docket proceedings on the file of Prl. Junior civil Judge, Nellore

Ex.A32: Certified copy of the Decree in T.OS.NO.1981 of 2004 From Tirupathi to the of Prl. Junior civil Judge, Nellore

Ex.A33: Certified copy of the E.A. NO.192 of 2012 filed by Auction purchaser. And Movables List and Attached List

Ex.A34: Certified copy of the Sale Certificate and schedule of property Issued by Prl. Junior civil Judge At Nellore(E.P.406/2005 in T.OS.NO.1981 of 2004)

Ex.A35: Copy of the W.P.7285 of 2013 order and Affidavit, Petition on the file of High Court of A.P. Hyderabad

Ex.A36: Copy of Legal notice issued by D1 through Mr. K.Gurvi Reddy- Advocate to the Plaintiff Company dated 16-5-2013

Ex.A37: Office Copy of the Reply Legal Notice issued by Plaintiff to K.Gurvi Reddy Defendants Counsel dated 18-06-2013

Ex.A38: Office Copy of the Legal Notice issued by Plaintiff to D1 to D4 dated 18-06-2013

Ex.A39: Original Postal Receipt D1 dated 18-06-2013

Ex.A40: Original Postal Receipt D2 dated 18-06-2013

Ex.A41: Original Postal Receipt D3 dated 18-06-2013

Ex.A42: Original Postal Receipt D4 dated 18-06-2013

Ex.A43: Original Postal Receipt of K.Gurivi Redy dated 18.06.2013

Ex.A44: Postal Acknowledgments received rrom D1 dated 21.06.2013

Ex.A45: Postal Acknowledgments received from D2 dated 21.06.2013

Ex.A46: Postal Acknowledgments received from Gurivi Reddy, Advocate

dated 21.06.2013

Ex.A47: Reply Legal Notice issued by D1 through Mr.K.Gurivi Reddy-Advocate Along With his Enclosures dated 21.06.2013

Ex.A48: Postal Return Cover from D3 dated 26-06-2013 5

O.S.No.242/2013Money

Ex.A49: Postal Return Cover from D4 dated 26-06-2013

Ex.A50: Office Copy of the show cause Notice issued to Mr. S. Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate dated 07-04-2013

Ex.A51: Office Copy of the Reply notice From S. Srinivasa Murthy Advocate along with enclosures dated 16-04-2013

Ex.A52: Office copy of the Rejoinder Notice issued to Mr. S.Srinivasa Murthy,Advocate dated 15-5-2013

Ex.A53: Office Copy of the legal Notice Issued to D5 By Plaintiff dated 20.05.2013

ExA54: Office Copy of the Reply notice From D5 dated 22-05-2013

Ex.A55: Original Letter written by Mr.S.Srinivasa Murthy-Advocate dated 21.4.2011

Ex.A56: Original Letter of Ch.Ramesh-DRA OF LIC HOUSING dated 29.8.2012

Sd/- A. Srinivasa Kumar

II Additional District Judge,

(FAC) VI Additional District Judge,

Nellore.

//True copy//