1(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE & ACB CASES
KARIMNAGAR
C.C.No. 141 OF 2015
1Serial Number of the Case:Calendar Case No. 141 of 2015 2Name of the Police Station : and Crime No. and The Inspector of Police, ACB, Nizamabad nature of offence.Range, Nizamabad. - Crime No.25/ACB/ Nizamabad/2009 - Offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3Description of the Accused : OfficerSri Althi Shankar Rao S/o. Appala Naidu,Age: 32 years, Occ: Assistant Project Director, Office of the Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management Project, District Project Unit, Nizamabad district, R/o. H.No. 21- 2/A, Dandigama Road, Saloor village and mandal, Vijayanagaram district.
4Date of : i. Occurrence : 06.10.2009 ii. Report/Complaint:25.09.2009 iii. Arrest: 06.10.2009 iv. Release on Bail: 22.10.2009 v. Committal of case: --- vi. Commencement of trial:17.07.2013 vii. Closure of trial:21.10.2019 viii. Sentence/Order:03.12.2021
5. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :
The case was taken on file against the Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On 04.12.2013 charges were framed against the
Accused Officer for the said offences for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and hence the case was posted for trial. During trial on behalf of prosecution PWs. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 and MOs 1 to 8 were marked. On 12.04.2018 Accused Officer was examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the evidence of Prosecution
Witnesses and examined himself as DW1 and Ex.D1 to D6 were marked on his behalf and the case was posted for arguments. Subsequently due 2(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) to lock down, the case was adjourned from time to time. Later, arguments of both sides were heard. On 03.12.2021 Judgment
pronounced vide separate typed one by holding the Accused Officer guilty
of the charges levelled against him and convicted U/Sec. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
After hearing the Accused Officer regarding quantum of sentence, he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and he is also further sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed against the Accused
Officer is Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only i.e., Rs.2,000/- +
Rs.2,000/- under two counts)
Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against the
Accused Officer shall run concurrently.
The remand period already undergone by the Accused Officer i.e., from 7-10-2009 to 22-10-2009 shall be set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
M.O.1 (tainted amount of Rs.1,500/-) is ordered to be returned to
P.W.1 if not reimbursed earlier by the Department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects i.e., M.Os. 2 to 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Sd/-
Special Judge for trial of
SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.
3(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND ACB CASES,
KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: SRI A. VEERAIAH,
Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB cases,
KARIMNAGAR.
Friday, the 3 rd day of December, 2021
CALENDAR CASE NO. 141 OF 2015
Between:
The Inspector of Police, ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad.
….Complainant.
and
Sri Althi Shankar Rao, S/o. Appala Naidu, Age: 32 years, Occ: Assistant Project Director, Office of the Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management Project, District Project Unit, Nizamabad district, R/o. H.No. 21-2/A, Dandigama Road, Saloor village and mandal, Vijayanagaram district.
….Accused.
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13 (1) (d) READ WITH 13 (2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
This Calendar Case coming before me on 22-11-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri T.V.V. Reddy and Sri C. Raghunandan Raju, Advocates for the Accused Officer, upon perusal of material on record, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Inspector of Police, ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad has filed the Charge Sheet in Crime No.25/ACB/Nizamabad/2009 against the
Accused Officer to prosecute him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.The case of the Prosecution in brief is that the Accused Officer worked as Assistant Project Director in the Office of the Andhra Pradesh
Community Based Tank Management Project, District Project Unit, Nizamabad district from 29-12-2008 to 6-10-2009 and by virtue of post held by him, he 4(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) was a Public Servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
3.It is further case of the Prosecution that P.W.1 (Sri Sompally
Suresh) is driver-cum-owner of INDICA car (Cab) bearing No. AP 25 TV 0826 and he has engaged his car on hire basis with the Office of Andhra Pradesh
Community Based Tank Management Project, District Project Unit, Nizamabad district from 1-6-2009 to 31-3-2010 with an agreement between himself and
Executive Engineer of the Project.
4.It is further case of the Prosecution that the said vehicle was being used by the Assistant Project Director of District Project Unit and the hire charges for July and August, 2009 i.e., for two months totalling to
Rs.34,000/- was due to be paid to him by the Executive Engineer and that the
Assistant Project Director (Sri A. Shankar Rao) (here-in-after referred as
Accused Officer) has to submit Log Book Abstract and Tour Programme Diary to the Executive Engineer for sanction of hire charges, but the same was not forwarded and when P.W.1 met the Accused Officer and requested him to attend his work, he (Accused Officer) demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- as bribe. On 25-9-2009, P.W.1 again met the Accused Officer and requested to reduce the demanded amount, on that the Accused Officer has reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,500/- and as there was no other go, P.W.1 accepted to pay the said bribe amount then the Accused Officer has instructed him (P.W.1) to meet him on 6-10-2009 along with the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- and then only he will forward the Log Book Abstract.
5.Unwilling to pay the bribe amount, P.W.1 has lodged the complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nizamabad
Range, Nizamabad to take action against the Accused Officer. On receiving the said report from P.W.1 and after due verification, the Deputy 5(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nizamabad has registered a case in Crime No.
25/ACB/Nizamabad/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 6-10-2009, at 7:00 a.m., and took-up investigation and proposed to lay a Trap.
6.During the course of investigation, Sri N.S. Karunanidhi, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad (L.W.9) has secured the presence of two Government Servants as mediators namely,
P.W.2 (Sri K. Gangadhar) and L.W.3 (Sri M. Satyanarayana) and after observing the necessary legal formalities, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
ACB, Nizamabad with the assistance of P. Mallikarjun, the then Inspector of
Police and P.W.7 (Saidulu) and others trapped Accused Officer on 6-10-2009 at 9:45 a.m., at his Office when Accused Officer has demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1. The phenolphthalein test was conducted on both hand fingers of Accused Officer, then both hand fingers of
Accused Officer turned into pink colour and tainted amount of Rs.1,500/- was recovered from the wearing right side pant back pocket of the Accused
Officer in the presence of mediators and thereafter they conducted Sodium
Carbonate solution test on the inner cloth of right side pant back pocket of
Accused Officer which gave positive result.
7.It is further case of the Prosecution that the Accused Officer was arrested and produced before the Hon’ble Principal Special Judge for SPE and
ACB cases, Hyderabad for remand and subsequently, the Accused Officer was enlarged on bail. During the course of investigation, Sri N.S. Karunanidhi,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nizamabad has recorded the statement of P.W.1 and seized the Log Book of vehicle bearing No. AP TV 0826 from the possession of Accused Officer which was found placed on his table and original Log Book Book was handed-over to the complainant in order to avoid inconvenience to the complainant after taking photostat copies 6(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) for record purpose duly attested by the mediators and Deputy
Superintendent of Police.
8.Subsequently, further investigation was taken-up by
Sri P. Mallikarjun, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad (L.W.11) and he has examined and recorded the statements of P.W.4 (M. Arun
Singh), P.W.3 (Chakmi Kiran), L.W.6 (Badana Govinda Rajulu) and P.W.5 (Laxmi
Narsimhulu).
9.The Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor has recorded the 164 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1.
10.Later, further investigation was taken-up by P.W.7 (Saidulu,
Inspector of Police, ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad).
11.During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the Accused
Officer is not the permanent employee of Government of Andhra Pradesh and he is an out-sourcing employee working on Contract basis and he was dismissed from the service and as such no sanction is necessary for prosecuting him under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The material gathered during the course of investigation revealed that the
Accused Officer has demanded and accepted Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1 on 6-10- 2009 at 9:45 a.m., at his Office for showing official favour i.e., to prepare and forward the Log Book Abstract and to send the same to the Executive
Engineer, I.B., Nizamabad for sanction of hire charges for the hired vehicle of
P.W.1 bearing No. AP 25 TV 0826. After completion of investigation, P.W.7 has filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 on 23-6-2010.
7(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
12.This case was taken cognizance against the Accused Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 11-2-2011 by the Hon’ble Principal
Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Hyderabad and assigned C.C.No. 51
of 2011 to the crime.
13.On appearance of the Accused Officer, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
14.The learned Predecessor of this Court has examined the Accused
Officer under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., on 4-2-2013 and as the accused denied the offences, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed, read over and explained to him, for which the Accused Officer denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
15.Subsequently, Calendar Case No. 51 of 2011 was transferred to the Court of Hon’ble I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at
Hyderabad vide G.O. Ms. No. 2066, dated 3-11-2012 and the Hon’ble
I Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar has re-numbered the case as 78 of 2014 and subsequently, said case was transferred to this Court and later this Court re-numbered the case as
Calendar Case No. 141 of 2015.
16.In order to prove the guilt of the Accused Officer, the Prosecution has cited in all (12) witnesses, but examined only (7) witnesses as P.Ws.1 to
7. P.W.1 (Sompally Suresh) is the defacto-complainant, P.W.2 (K. Gangadhar) is the mediator, P.W.3 (Chakmi Kiran) and P.W.4 (Malvath Arun Singh) are the then Assistant Project Directors in the Office of the Andhra Pradesh
Community Based Tank Management Project, District Project Unit,
Nizamabad, P.W.5 (Laxmi Narsimhulu) is the then In-charge of Andhra 8(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Pradesh Community Based Tank Management Project, District Project Unit,
Nizamabad district, P.W.6 (K. Seetharamulu) is the Inspector of Police, ACB,
Nizamabad who assisted the Trap Laying Officer and P.W.7 (Saidulu) is the
Inspector of Police, ACB, Nizamabad Range who has filed the Charge Sheet.
On behalf of the Prosecution, Ex.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 to 8 are marked.
17.After closure of the Prosecution evidence, Accused Officer was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the answers given by him to the questions put to him are recorded separately.
18.Accused Officer has filed his Written Statement contending that he has been falsely implicated in this case and pleaded that the Log Book has to be signed by all four Assistant Project Directors against the dates on which they have used the car and unless all the four Officers including himself did not sign, the Log Book in respect of the dates and their usage, it can not be forwarded to the Executive Engineer for payment of hire charges. He further stated that P.W.1 was irregular in attending to his legitimate duties as per the terms and agreement and as such, as the Controlling Officer he has repreminded him several times to be regular in attending the duties and without adhering to it, on 27-7-2009, P.W.1 has submitted an application to the District Collector, Nizamabad in Praja Vaani vide Complaint No. 15933,
dated 27-7-2009 that hire charges are not being paid to him. On the said
complaint, the District Collector, Nizamabad sought for clarification from the
District Project Director (P.W.5) and on the instructions of P.W.5, they all four
Assistant Project Directors submitted detailed remarks and the same was forwarded to the District Collector, Nizamabad and on that P.W.1 developed grudge against him. It is further stated by the Accused Officer that P.W.1 is in the habit of taking hand-loan from him for maintenance of his car and prior to the Trap, P.W.1 has taken an amount of Rs.1,500/- from him as hand-loan promising to pay later and P.W.1 has defaulted in re-paying the hand-loan, 9(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) then he has pressurised P.W.1 for re-payment of hand-loan and taking advantage of the same, P.W.1 developed grudge against him and foisted a false case against him. It is further defence of the accused that on the date of Trap when he was at his Office, P.W.1 came to his Office and handed-over alleged tainted amount stating that it is towards re-payment of hand-loan and without suspecting the malafide intention of P.W.1, he has accepted the same and within no time the Trap Party headed by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police entered into his Office and caught hold and when he was questioned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, he has spontaneously informed him all the above happenings and that he has received the M.O.1 towards re-payment of hand-loan by P.W.1, but the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, ACB has got prepared the second Mediators’ Report under Ex.P.5 with all false recitals. It is further defence of the Accused Officer that no official work of P.W.1 was pending with him at any point of time and
P.W.1 has strong motive to falsely implicate him in this case.
19.On behalf of the Accused Officer, he himself examined as D.W.1.
In the cross-examination of P.W.1, Ex.D.1 to D.3 are marked. Through P.W.5,
Ex.D.4 is marked and through D.W.1 Ex.D.5 and D.6 are marked.
20.Heard the arguments of the Special Public Prosecutor for the
State/ACB and the learned counsel for the Accused Officer. Learned Special
Public Prosecutor has filed Written Arguments under Section 314 of Cr.P.C., and also relied on several citations. Learned counsel for the Accused Officer has filed memo of citations.
21.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that the
Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and all the Prosecution Witnesses have supported the case of the Prosecution. He further argued that since
Sri N.S. Karunanidhi, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, 10(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad and Sri Mallikarjun, the then Inspector of
Police died, the Prosecution could not examine them. He further argued that
P.W.1 hired his car to the Department and accused, P.Ws.3 and 4 and another
Assistant Project Director used the said car and Accused Officer is authorised person to prepare the Log Book and he has to send the same to the
Executive Engineer for sanction of the bill. He further argued that hire charges are not paid for the months of July and August, 2009 and P.W.1 met the Accused Officer and requested for the hired charges, then the accused demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe to forward the Log Book and on 25-9-2009
P.W.1 met the Accused Officer, then the Accused Officer reduced the bribe amount to Rs.1,500/- and on the same day P.W.1 lodged complaint and on 6- 10-2009 a Trap was laid and the Accused Officer was caught hold red-handed and the tainted amount of Rs.1,500/- was seized from the possession of the accused and chemical test was also conducted on both hand fingers of the accused, which yielded positive result.
22.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has further argued that
Ex.P.4 Log Book was seized from the possession of the Accused Officer as official favour was pending with the Accused Officer and the Accused Officer has demanded and accepted bribe amount from P.W.1 and the Prosecution has proved the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the
Accused Officer. He further argued that the defence of the Accused Officer that he gave hand-loan of Rs.1,500/- to P.W.1 is not correct and the accused has not given his explanation spontaneously at the time of second Mediator’s
Report proceedings. He further argued that the contention of the Accused
Officer that he gave hand-loan of Rs.1,500/- to P.W.1 is not suggested to
P.Ws.3 to 5 and in Ex.D.5 there is no mention of giving hand-loan by the
Accused Officer to P.W.1 and Ex.D.5 was not signed by all the Assistant 11(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Project Directors and the same was not confronted to P.Ws.3 to 5. He further argued that the evidence of D.W.1 is in-consistent and the loan theory advanced by the Accused Officer is false and created for the purpose of this case and Prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the Accused Officer and as such presumption can be drawn under
Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, argued to convict the Accused Officer.
23.On the other hand, learned counsel for the Accused Officer has argued that the burden lies on the Prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the charges and the Prosecution has to prove that Accused
Officer is a Public Servant and official work of P.W.1 was pending with the
Accused Officer at the relevant point of time and the Prosecution has to prove that there was demand of bribe and the demand and acceptance of the bribe on the date of Trap has to be established. He further argued that the
Government has formed organisation as Andhra Pradesh Community Based
Tank Management Project, District Project Unit in Nizamabad district and the accused, P.Ws.3 and 4 and another Assistant Project Director were using the car of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is the Executive Engineer is superior of Accused Officer.
24.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has further argued that there is no verification about the antecedents of Accused Officer. He further argued that the Trap Laying Officer died and the Inspector, P.
Mallikarjun also died and, therefore, they were not examined and as such the
Accused Officer has lost opportunity to cross-examine them on the point of verification of complaint. He further argued that the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police has not obtained permission to register the crime from the Joint Director and P.W.6 admitted that record does not disclose that
Deputy Superintendent of Police took prior permission. He further argued 12(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) that the ACB officials did not follow the mandatory provisions to register the
First Information Report and to lay Trap not followed.
25.The counsel for the Accused Officer further argued that P.W.1 did not approach the ACB officials with clean hands and the Log Book has to be signed by all the Assistant Project Directors who used the car then only it can be forwarded to higher officers for sanction of bills. He further argued that
P.W.1 made complaint to the District Collector and the District Collector has forwarded the application to P.W.5 and P.W.5 sought explanation from the
Assistant Project Directors and they submitted their respective explanations and thereafter an agreement was executed between them. He further argued that P.W.1 bore grudge against the Accused Officer and lodged a false complaint. He further argued that the background of the case has to be considered.
26.The counsel for the Accused Officer further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is like accomplice and his evidence cannot be believed without independent corroboration. He further argued that the evidence of defence witness has to be treated equally on par with the Prosecution
Witnesses. He further argued that P.W.1 used to obtain hand-loans from the
Accused Officer and that the Accused Officer has received back the amount of hand-loan from P.W.1 without suspecting the malafides of P.W.1. He further argued that P.Ws.3 to 5 deposed that Accused Officer has to prepare the tour programme bill and the Assistant Project Directors have to sign on the Log
Book and then only Accused Officer has to prepare the Log Book. He further argued that there was no official favour pending with the Accused Officer and as such the Prosecution has failed to prove the same. He further argued that the second Mediators Report is not a gospel truth. He further argued that the explanation offered by the accused in the 313 Cr.P.C., examination cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it was not given at the time of seizure of 13(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) money. He further argued that the Accused Officer has received his money which was advanced to P.W.1 and P.W.1 has filed the case by keeping grudge against the Accused Officer and, therefore, argued to acquit the Accused
Officer.
27.Now the points for determination are:
Whether the Accused Officer has demanded and accepted 1. an amount of Rs.1,500/- as bribe from P.W.1 (S. Suresh) as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward to forward the Log Book Abstract to P.W.5 for sanction of hired charges for the hired vehicle bearing No. AP 25 TV0826 for the months of July and August, 2009 ?
Whether there was any official work of P.W.1 pending with 2. the Accused Officer as on the date of the Trap ?
Whether the Accused Officer by corrupt of illegal means 3. accepted Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1 as gratification by abusing his position as Public Servant ?
Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the 4. Accused Officer beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ?
28.POINT NO.1
Before appreciating the evidence, it is relevant to extract
Sections 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, which is as under:
Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under:
Public Servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act – Whoever, being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts 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 or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State of with any local authority, Corporation or Government company referred to in Clause (c) of Section 2 or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be not less than six months but which may extent to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
14(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act reads as follows:
Criminal misconduct by a public servant- (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct:
a.…………… b.…………… c.……………
(d) if he; (I) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii)by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (2)Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
29.There is no dispute that the Accused Officer worked as Assistant
Project Director in the Office of the Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank
Management Project, District Project Unit, Nizamabad district from 29-12-2008 to 6-10-2009 and by virtue of post held by him, he was a Public
Servant in the meaning of Section 2 (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
30.The case of the Prosecution is that Accused Officer while working as Assistant Project Director in the Office of the Andhra Pradesh Community
Based Tank Management Project, District Project Unit, Nizamabad district demanded bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from P.W.1 to prepare the Log Book
Abstract to forward the same to P.W.5 for sanction of hire charges. On 25-9-2009, when P.W.1 again met the Accused Officer and requested him to reduce the bribe amount, then he reduced the amount to Rs.1,500/- and on 6-10-2009, during the Trap, the Accused Officer has demanded and accepted
Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1 as bribe for showing official favour i.e., to prepare the
Log Book Abstract to forward the same to P.W.5 for sanction of hire charges for the vehicle bearing No. AP 25 TV 0826.
15(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
31.P.W.1 (S. Suresh) is the defacto-complainant in this case and in his chief-examination, he deposed that he had Car bearing No. AP 25 TV 0826 and he entered into an agreement with the Executive Engineer, Irrigation
Department from June, 2009 to March, 2010 and the Department has not paid hire charges for the months of July and August, 2009 for Rs.34,000/- and as such he met the Accused Officer for payment of due amount, then the
Accused Officer has demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe to attend the said work i.e., for preparing the Log Book Abstract and Tour Programme Diary to the
Executive Engineer for sanction of his hire charges. He deposed that on 25-9-2009 when he met the Accused Officer to reduce the bribe amount, then the Accused Officer demanded him to pay Rs.1,500/- and asked him to meet him on 6-10-2009 and unwilling to pay the bribe amount, on the same day, he (P.W.1) approached the ACB officials, Nizamabad and gave complaint under Ex.P.1 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nizamabad verified his complaint and asked him to attend before the ACB Office on 6-10-2009 at 7:00 a.m., along with the proposed bribe amount.
32.P.W.1 further deposed that on 6-10-2009, at 7:00 a.m., he went to the ACB Office along with the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- and met the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad, then the Deputy Superintendent of
Police introduced the mediators to him and vice-versa the Deputy
Superintendent of Police has handed-over his complaint to the mediators and the mediators have gone through the same and enquired him about the genuineness of contents of the complaint and he stated that the contents are true and later he has handed-over Rs.1,500/- to the Deputy Superintendent of Police who in-turn handed-over the same to the mediators, who counted and noted down the currency note numbers and then the Deputy
Superintendent of Police has handed-over the same to one of the Constable who applied some chemical powder on the currency notes and kept the same 16(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) in his left side shirt pocket and the Deputy Superintendent of Police demonstrated the chemical test and the Deputy Superintendent of Police instructed him to give the proposed bribe amount to the Accused Officer only on his demand and not other-wise and also instructed him not to shake his hands with the Accused Officer either before or after giving the amount and asked him to give signal by wiping his face with kerchief, if Accused Officer accepts the bribe amount.
33.P.W.1 further deposed that they started at 9:10 a.m., from the
Office of ACB and proceeded to the Office of the Accused Officer and reached the Office of the Accused Officer at 9:15 a.m., and he (P.W.1) entered into the
Office of the Accused Officer, then the Accused Officer asked him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount or not and he stated yes, then the
Accused Officer asked him to give the amount, then he picked-up the amount from his shirt pocket and handed-over the said amount with his right hand to the Accused Officer who collected the same with his right hand and kept in his right side pant pocket and assured him that he will complete his work within thirty minutes and then he came out and gave pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with kerchief, then the Trap Party rushed to the Office of the
Accused Officer and asked him to wait out-side and after one hour, he was called to in-side and asked him as to what was happened and he has narrated the episode then the Deputy Superintendent of Police recorded his statement and he further deposed that his 164 Cr.P.C., statement was recorded by the Magistrate.
34.P.W.2 (K. Gangadhar) is the mediator and in his chief-examination he deposed that he knows L.W.3 (M. Satyanarayana) and that on 5-10-2009, the Excise Superintendent, Nizamabad instructed him to attend the ACB
Office, Nizamabad on 6-10-2009 and accordingly both of them attended the
Office of ACB, Nizamabad and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, 17(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Nizamabad introduced P.W.1 to them vice-versa and gave copy of the complaint to them and they have gone through the same and verified with
P.W.1 who affirmed the contents of the complaint are true and then they attested on the copy of the complaint. He further deposed that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police asked whether P.W.1 brought the bribe amount and on the instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police, they have verified the currency notes numbers and noted down the numbers on a paper and later the Deputy Superintendent of Police directed one of the Constables to apply phenolphthalein powder on the said currency notes and accordingly the
Constable has applied phenolphthalein powder and kept the said amount in the empty left side shirt pocket of P.W.1 and the Deputy Superintendent of
Police gave instructions to P.W.1 to give the tainted amount to the Accused
Officer only on his demand and not other-wise and not to shake his hands with the Accused Officer either before or after his meeting and further instructed P.W.1 to give a signal by wiping his face with a kerchief.
35.P.W.2 further deposed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has prepared the sodium carbonate solution and demonstrated the phenolphthalein test before them and explained about the significance of the test and thereafter panchanama was drafted by Satyanarayana (L.W.3) attested by him and Ex.P.3 is the Mediators’ Report and it contains his signature.
36.P.W.2 further deposed that they started at 9:10 a.m., to the Office of the Office of the Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management
Project, District Project Unit, Nizamabad in a TATA Sumo along with P.W.1 and
Trap Party and reached at 9:15 a.m., and the Deputy Superintendent of Police stopped their vehicle at NTR statue at a distance of 100 yards and the
Deputy Superintendent of Police directed them to get down from the vehicle and reiterated the earlier instructions to P.W.1. He further deposed that the 18(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Deputy Superintendent of Police allowed P.W.1 to go to the Office of the
Accused Officer and after five minutes P.W.1 came out and gave pre-arranged signal and on observing the said signal they along with the Trap Party members rushed to the Office of the Accused Officer and observed the
Accused Officer in his seat, then the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked
P.W.1 to go out and wait there for some time and the Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced himself to the Accused Officer and explained the purpose of his visit and on that the Accused Officer shocked, then the Deputy
Superintendent of Police questioned the Accused Officer whether he has demanded and accepted bribe amount from P.W.1 and the version given by the Accused Officer was recorded. He further deposed that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police has prepared the sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and asked the Accused Officer to dip his left and right hand fingers in the said two glass tumblers separately and on doing so, both hand fingers wash turned into pink colour, then the Deputy
Superintendent of Police questioned the Accused Officer about the tainted amount, then the Accused Officer informed that tainted amount was in his right side pant back pocket and produced the same before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police.
37.P.W.2 further deposed that on the instructions of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, he has verified the denomination and currency notes numbers of tainted amount with the denomination which were tallied and the Deputy Superintendent of Police has seized the tainted amount of
Rs.1,500/- from the Accused Officer and the Deputy Superintendent of Police has also conducted phenolphthalein test on the inner flap of pant pocket which yielded positive result and the Deputy Superintendent of Police called
P.W.1 and questioned him as to what was happened from the time he left the
Trap Party and came out of the Office of Accused Officer and the version 19(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) given by P.W.1 was recorded. He further deposed that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police has seized connected records from the Office of
Accused Officer. Ex.P.4 is the photostat copy of the Log Book and the original was returned. Ex.P.5 is the Mediators Report-II drafted by him which contains his signature and attested by Satyanarayana (L.W.3) and later the Deputy
Superintendent of Police has seized M.Os.1 to 8. He further deposed that thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police has prepared the Rough
Sketch of the scene. Ex.P.6 is the Rough Sketch attested by him and Ex.P.7 is the Search List prepared at the house of the Accused Officer which contains his signature.
38.P.W.3 (C. Kiran) is the then Assistant Project Director in the Office of the Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management Project, District
Project Unit, Nizamabad and in his chief-examination, he deposed that he knows P.W.1 who is the driver-cum-owner of the Car bearing No. AP 25 TV 0826 and also know M. Arjun Singh (L.W.4), B. Govinda Rajulu (L.W.6) and
Laxmi Narsimhulu (L.W.7) who worked with him. He further deposed that said vehicle was being used by all the four Assistant Project Directors as a pool vehicle and they used to prepare Log Book Abstract for the movement of the vehicle and used to hand-over the vehicle to the Accused Officer and he used to prepare the bill and later it was used to be sent to the Executive
Engineer every month. He further deposed that he used to keep the Log
Book sheet with the Accused Officer and as per the orders of their superior
Officer by name, Laxmi Narsimhulu, pool vehicle was allotted to them i.e., himself, Accused Officer, L/Ws.4 and 6. He further deposed that later he came to know that Accused Officer was trapped by the ACB officials on the complaint of P.W.1.
39.P.W.4 (M. Arun Singh) is the then Assistant Project Director in
Office of the Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management Project, 20(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
District Project Unit, Nizamabad and in his chief-examination he also deposed on the same lines as that of P.W.3. He further deposed that everyday movement of individual will be recorded in the Log Book and the Book will be given to the Accused Officer who has to finalise the Log Book and has to send the same to the District Project Director/Executive Engineer.
40.P.W.5 (Laxmi Narsimhulu) who worked as Executive Engineer in
Irrigation Branch, Nizamabad and who was placed as Full Additional Charge of
District Project Director, Office of the Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank
Management Project, District Project Unit, Nizamabad in his chief-examination deposed that he knows P.Ws.1 to 4, Govindarajulu and the Accused Officer.
He further deposed that in the month of March, 2009 their Department has engaged one hired TATA Indica car and P.W.1 was the driver-cum-owner of the said vehicle and they entered into an agreement with P.W.1 for nine months i.e., from 1-6-2009 to 31-3-2010 and that the said vehicle was handed-over to the Accused Officer to look-after the maintenance of the said vehicle, Log
Book and has to send monthly abstracts and to that effect, Proceedings were also issued on 6-6-2009. He further deposed that first payment was made to
P.W.1 for Rs.17,000/- and Accused Officer has submitted Log Book along with abstract for the month of June, 2009 and the amount was sanctioned and accordingly paid to P.W.1. He further deposed that for the months of July and
August, 2009 and the Accused Officer has not submitted the Log Book and
Abstract of the said vehicle and as such they have not paid the bill to P.W.1.
He further deposed that on 6-10-2009, Accused Officer was trapped by the
ACB on the complaint of P.W.1 on the allegation so demand of bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- for clearing the Log Book Abstract. Ex.P.4 is the photostat copies of the Log Book of the said vehicle.
41.P.W.6 (K. Seetharamulu) the then Inspector of Police, ACB,
Nizamabad in his chief-examination deposed that Karunanidhi, Deputy 21(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Superintendent of Police (L.W.9) is no more who registered the First
Information Report and laid Trap in this case and that he accompanied the
Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Trap Proceedings. He deposed that on 25-9-2009, Karunanidhi, Deputy Superintendent of Police has received written complaint from P.W.1 and gave the complaint to Mallikarjun, Inspector of Police (L.W.11) to conduct preliminary enquiry and after conducting preliminary enquiries, he (Mallikarjun, Inspector) reported his enquiries to the
Deputy Superintendent of Police and after obtaining permission from the competent authority, Karunanidhi, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has registered a case in Crime No. 25/ACB/Nizamabad/2009 on 6-10-2009, at 7:00 a.m., and that he can identify the signatures of Karunanidhi, Deputy
Superintendent of Police. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and the Deputy
Superintendent of Police has issued First Information Report. Ex.P.8 is the
First Information Report.
42.P.W.6 further deposed that on 6-10-2009, at 8:00 a.m., the
Deputy Superintendent of Police secured the presence of mediators in the
Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad and along with him,
Mallikarjun and Saidulu gathered in the said Office and P.W.1 came to the
Office and the Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced him to the mediators vice-versa and the mediators verified the contents of the complaint with P.W.1 who admitted the contents of complaint as true and correct. He further deposed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police enquired about the proposed bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- and on his affirmative reply, the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked him to hand- over the same to the mediators who counted and noted down the denomination of the currency note numbers and on the instructions of
Deputy Superintendent of Police, one Prem Singh, Police Constable No. 614 applied phenolphthalein powder to the said currency notes and kept the 22(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) same in the left side shirt pocket of P.W.1 after ensuring that there were no other articles in his pocket. He further deposed that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police gave instructions to P.W.1 to pay the amount to the
Accused Officer only on his demand and not other-wise and not to shake his hands with the Accused Officer before or after his meeting and in case if the
Accused Officer demands the bribe amount, P.W.1 was asked to give signal by wiping his face with hand-kerchief and the Deputy Superintendent of Police also ascertained from P.W.1 whether there were any financial transaction to him with the Accused Officer or enmity with the Accused Officer and P.W.1 stated no. He further deposed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police demonstrated the phenolphthalein test and explained the significance of the said test. He further deposed that Ex.P.3 is the Mediators’ Report contains his signature.
43.P.W.6 further deposed that thereafter they boarded in a TATA
Sumo to the Office of Municipal Corporation near NTR chowrasta, Nizamabad and reached at 9:15 a.m., and stopped their vehicle by the side of the road and the Deputy Superintendent of Police reiterated the earlier instructions and asked P.W.1 to go to the Office of Accused Officer and meet him and they took positions around the Office of the Accused Officer, then P.W.1 entered into the Office of the Accused Officer at 9:30 a.m., and came out and gave pre-arranged signal by wiping his face with hand-kerchief and on observing the signal, they all rushed into the Office of the Accused Officer and the
Deputy Superintendent of Police introduced himself to the said person and ascertained his identity as that of Accused Officer and later informed the purpose of his visit and on that the Accused Officer became shivered and speechless for some time.
44.P.W.6 further deposed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police questioned the Accused Officer whether he has demanded and accepted 23(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) bribe amount from P.W.1 and the version given by him was recorded, then the
Deputy Superintendent of Police prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked the Accused Officer to rinse his both hands in the said sodium carbonate solution and on doing so, the colourless solution in two glass tumblers turned into pink colour, then the Deputy Superintendent of Police questioned about the tainted amount, then the Accused Officer took- out the tainted amount from his right side wearing pant pocket and on the instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Accused Officer has handed-over the same to one of the mediators and who verified the currency notes numbers with the numbers mentioned in Mediators Report-II and on doing so, both were tallied then the Deputy Superintendent of Police seized the amount of Rs.1,500/- and the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted test on the inner side of wearing pant which yielded positive result and the
Deputy Superintendent of Police has seized the wearing pant of the Accused
Officer. He further deposed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has called P.W.1 and enquired him as to what was happened after he left the Trap
Party till he gave signal and the version given by P.W.1 was recorded and then the Deputy Superintendent of Police confronted the versions of Accused
Officer to P.W.1 and the version given by P.W.1 was recorded.
45.P.W.6 further deposed that the Deputy Superintendent of Police has seized Ex.P.4 (Log Book) and prepared Rough Sketch under Ex.P.6 and later the Deputy Superintendent of Police effected the arrest of the Accused
Officer. He further deposed that Mediators Report-II was concluded by 12:35 p.m. and it contains his signature and later the Deputy Superintendent of
Police has handed-over the remaining investigation to Mallikarjun, Inspector of Police who is also no more and further deposed that as per the record, he has examined P.Ws.3 to 5 and L.W.6 (Govinda Rajulu).
24(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
46.P.W.7 (K.Saidulu, the then Inspector of Police) deposed that on 25-9-2009, at 2:00 p.m., Karunanidhi, the then Deputy Superintendent of
Police received complaint from P.W.1 and instructed Mallikarjun, Inspector of
Police to conduct discreet enquiries and accordingly, Mallikarjun, Inspector of
Police conducted discreet enquiries by making endorsement on the back side of the complaint and Ex.P.9 is the endorsement made by Mallikarjun,
Inspector of Police who died after filing of the Charge Sheet and that he can identify the signature of Mallikarjun, Inspector of Police. He further deposed that after conducting enquiries, Mallikarjun, Inspector of Police submitted his enquiries to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and later the Deputy
Superintendent of Police registered the First Information Report in Crime No.
25/ACB/Nizamabad/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act on 6-10-2009, at 7:00 a.m., and later the Deputy
Superintendent of Police laid Trap in this case and he has also accompanied the Deputy Superintendent of Police and assisted him. He further deposed that after the Trap, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has handed-over the investigation to Mallikarjun, the then Inspector of Police who has examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.3 to 5 and L.W.6 (Govinda Rajulu) and he has prepared the translated statements of witnesses. He further deposed that Mallikarjun only has submitted the Draft Final Report to Director General,
ACB and after approval of the Charge Sheet by the Director General, ACB, he has filed Charge Sheet in this case against the Accused Officer on 23-6-2010.
Ex.P.10 is the Job Chart of the Accused Officer and Ex.P.11 is the Termination
Orders, dated 8-10-2009.
47.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has cross-examined all the witnesses. P.W.1 in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that prior to the alleged Trap he has taken Rs.1,500/- from the Accused Officer towards hand-loan and that the Accused Officer has pressurised him to re-pay 25(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) the hand-loan and on that he has lodged a false complaint against the
Accused Officer and passed on the alleged currency notes to the Accused
Officer. He denied the suggestion that Accused Officer has never demanded any bribe and did not demand any bribe amount on the date of Trap.
48.P.W.2 in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that they signed on Ex.P.2 as per the directions of the ACB officials without actually verifying the contents with P.W.1.
49.P.W.6 in his cross-examination deposed that he did not conduct investigation at any stage of the case, but only assisted the Deputy
Superintendent of Police and accompanied him on the date of the Trap. He denied the suggestion that during the course of Mediators Report-II, the mediators did not verify the contents of the copy of the complaint with P.W.1 and he did not admit anything before them. He denied the suggestion that
Ex.P.3 was also drafted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to his dictation.
50.P.W.7 denied the suggestion that Mallikarjun, Inspector of Police did not conduct any investigation in this case and did not examine any witness and prepared the statements.
51.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has argued that there was no demand by the Accused Officer and the Prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe amount by the Accused Officer. In this regard, he has relied upon a judgment reported in between G.V. Nanjundaiah Vs.
State of Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1987, Supreme Court
2402, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “The very foundation of the Prosecution case is shaken to a great extent, the question as to the handing-over of any bribe and recovery of the same from the accused should be considered along with other material circumstances, one of which is the question whether any 26(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) demand was at all made by the accused and the Prosecution has given a false story in that regard, the Court will view the allegation of payment of the bribe to and recovery of the same from the accused with suspicion.”
52.In the said reported judgment, it is held that it is very much doubtful whether the Contractors had even met the Appellant at his Office on
October, 20, 1973 when the Appellant was alleged to have asked for bribe of
Rs.5,000/-. The above judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case, since in the instant case, P.W.1 has categorically deposed about the demand of bribe amount by the Accused Officer and P.W.1 has deposed that
Accused Officer has received the bribe amount on 6-10-2009.
53.The Accused Officer has not denied the receipt of M.O.1, tainted cash of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1 at the relevant time of the Trap, but it is his defence that the same was the amount re-paid by P.W.1 towards the hand- loan given by him to P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed in his evidence that the Accused
Officer has demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- on the date of Trap. P.W.2 who is the mediator corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 about the facts spoken by P.W.1 regarding the arrangements made in the
Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nizamabad and drafting of
Pre-Trap Proceedings. P.W.6 who has accompanied the Deputy
Superintendent of Police in the Trap Proceedings deposed about the Pre-Trap
Proceedings. P.Ws.2 and 6 deposed about the recovery of tainted amount of
Rs.1,500/- from the possession of the Accused Officer and they deposed about the Post-Trap Proceedings. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 is consistent and reliable. Thus, the Prosecution is able to prove that the
Accused Officer has demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- from
P.W.1. Accordingly, this point is answered.
27(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
54.P O I N T NO.2
P.W.1 deposed that the Accused Officer has demanded him to pay
Rs.2,000/- as bribe to attend the work of preparing the Log Book Abstract and
Tour Programme Diary to send the same to the Executive Engineer for sanction of hire charges for his vehicle. P.W.3 deposed that Accused Officer used to prepare the bill and later used to send the same to the Executive
Engineer every month. P.W.4 also deposed that every movement of individual Assistant Project Director will be recorded in the Log Book and the book will be given to the Accused Officer who has to finalize the Log Book and he has to send the same to the District Project Director/Executive
Engineer. P.W.5 has also deposed that the vehicle was handed-over to the
Accused Officer to look-after the maintenance of the vehicle and Log Book and he has to send monthly abstracts. He further deposed that in the month of June, 2009, Accused Officer has submitted the Log Book along with the abstract and amount was sanctioned and paid to P.W.1 and for the months of
July and August, 2009, Accused Officer has not submitted the Log Book
Abstract for the said vehicle and as such they have not paid the bill amount.
55.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has argued that unless and until all the Assistant Project Directors sign on the Log Book, it cannot be forwarded to the Executive Engineer. He further argued that
P.Ws.3 and 4 in their cross-examination admitted that unless the person who used the car on that particular day signs at Column No.13 Ex.P.4 bill cannot be forwarded to the Executive Engineer for the purpose of payment of the bill. He further argued that P.W.5 also admitted that if the person who used the car does not sign in Ex.P.4, the Accused Officer cannot send Ex.P.4 to him.
56.I have perused Ex.P.4 (Log Book). In the month of June, 2009, at
Column No.11, the signature of the Officer who used the Car and remarks, if 28(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) any are kept blank but in Column No.13, the In-charge of the vehicle signed.
Whereas for the months of July and August, 2009, there were some signatures at Column No.13 and Column No.11 was kept blank. As per the evidence of P.W.5, the vehicle was handed-over to the Accused Officer to look-after the maintenance of the vehicle and Log Book and he has to send the abstracts and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
Accused Officer is not tenable as the Accused Officer was In-charge of the vehicle. Moreover, the bill for the month of June, 2009 was passed without the signatures of all the Assistant Project Directors. To substantiate said contention, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied-upon the judgment reported in between Trilok Chandra Mourya Vs. State, reported in 2011 (2) ALD Criminal 672 (A.P.), wherein the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh held that “Allegation that accused is joint Controller of Factory demanding Rs.5,000/- and the said demand is neither agreed to nor complied with by P.W.3, as by the date of alleged demand application was disposed-of by General Manager favourably, the allegation of accused reiterating the demand of bribe in respect of second contract and accepting the illegal gratification cannot be believed as there was no official favour pending with the accused on the alleged date of demand for bribe or on the date of Trap.”
57.In the reported judgment, the Hon’ble High Court held that “There was no official favour pending with the Accused Officer by the date of Trap.”
58.The above judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case as in the instant case there was official favour pending with the Accused
Officer i.e., to prepare the Log Book Abstract and to send the same to the
Executive Engineer for sanction of hire charges for the vehicle of P.W.1.”
Therefore, there was official favour pending with the Accused Officer as on the date of Trap. Accordingly, the point is answered.
29(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
59.POINTS NO.3 AND 4
As discussed above, the Prosecution has proved the recovery of tainted amount of Rs.1,500/- from the Accused Officer. The defence of the
Accused Officer is that prior to the Trap P.W.1 has obtained hand-loan from him and on the date of Trap P.W.1 has re-paid the same and the version of
Accused Officer is not correctly incorporated in the Post Trap Proceedings. To prove his contention, the Accused Officer himself examined as D.W.1.
60.D.W.1 is the Accused Officer (A. Shankar Rao) and in his chief- examination, he deposed that he knows P.Ws.3 and 4 who worked as
Assistant Project Officers along with and P.W.5 was the Project Director. He deposed that at that time, P.W.1 kept his TATA Indica car bearing No. AP 25 TV 0826 with their Office on hire basis. He further deposed that P.W.1 was irregular to his duties and they repreminded him several times and on 27-07-2009 P.W.1 gave representation to the District Collector, Nizamabad in
Praja Vaani and said representation was forwarded to P.W.5 and in-turn P.W.5 sought remarks then himself and other Assistant Project Directors have submitted their detailed remarks under Ex.D.5 and after submission of the remarks, P.W.1 entered into internal agreement with them under Ex.D.3.
61.D.W.1 further deposed that P.W.1 used to take hand-loans from him for the purpose of hire and diesel and whenever he was having money, he used to re-pay the hand-loans. He further deposed that twenty or thirty days prior to 6-10-2009, P.W.1 took hand-loan of Rs.2,000/- from him and by 6-10-2009 P.W.1 was due to pay Rs.1,500/-. He further deposed that since he has sent adverse remarks against him, P.W.1 bore-grudge against him and foisted a false case. He further deposed that on the date of Trap, he was in his Office and P.W.1 came to him and paid (M.O.1) tainted amount under the guise of re-payment of hand-loan and he has taken the said amount without 30(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) suspecting the malafide intention of P.W.1. He further deposed that he has accepted M.O.1 tainted amount and when asked by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, he has spontaneously represented to him all the facts, but the Deputy Superintendent of Police got prepared the Mediators
Report-II with false recitals.
62.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has cross-examined D.W.1.
In the cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted that their Department engaged the
Car of P.W.1 and it was allotted for the use of four Assistant Project Directors and they were using the said car from June, 2009 and as per the Log Book, on 1-6-2009, they started at 6:00 a.m., driven by P.W.1 and the same was entered by him in the Log Book and signed under Ex.P.4. He admitted that on 2-6-2009, the vehicle was engaged between 7:00 a.m., to 7:00 p.m. He admitted that P.W.1 used to attend his duties as per the entries made in the
Log Book under Ex.P.4. He admitted that for the month of June, 2009, hire charges were paid to P.W.1 and he admitted his signature on Mediators
Report-II marked as Ex.P.5. He denied the suggestion that during the course of Ex.P.5, he admitted to have demanded and accepted the bribe amount of
Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1. He admitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted test on his both hands and wearing pant and they yielded positive result.
63.D.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that P.W.1 has taken hand-loan of Rs.500/- in the month of July, 2009 and also borrowed Rs.600/- in the same month and lastly he has borrowed Rs.1,500/- in the month of July itself. He deposed that he cannot say the specific dates of each transaction and no receipt was obtained from P.W.1. He deposed that he has not obtained any document from P.W.1 either to show the payment or to show the re-payment in respect of Rs.500/- and Rs.600/-. He deposed that no document was executed between him and P.W.1 in respect of hand loan of 31(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Rs.1,500/-. He denied the suggestion that he demanded bribe amount of
Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1 for preparation of Log Book Abstract for the months of
July and August, 2009.
64.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has argued that P.W.1 lodged petition with the District Collector, Nizamabad and the District
Collector, Nizamabad forwarded the same to P.W.5 and P.W.1 called remarks from him and other Assistant Project Directors and they submitted their report under Ex.D.5 and the District Project Director addressed a letter to the
District Collector, Nizamabad on 4-8-2009 under Ex.D.4 and thereafter an internal agreement was entered and as such P.W.1 bore grudge against the
Accused Officer and foisted a false case against him.
65.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon a reported judgment between Gulam Mahamood A.Malek Vs. State of
Gujarat reported in AIR 1980, SC 1558, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that “While appreciating the evidence, the background of the case should not last sight-of.”
66.In the said judgment, the complainant was accused in four cases and the case of Prosecution was on 7-7-1972, one Natwarlal paid a sum of
Rs.2/- to the accused for getting the case adjourned to 18-7-1972, but the case was adjourned to 18-7-1972 on 4-7-1972 and, therefore, in the said context the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “background of the case should not be last sight-of.” Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
67.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon a judgment between P. Appala Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 32(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) reported in 2012 (2) ALD Criminal 1 (A.P.), wherein the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh held that “When two views are possible from the evidence, one favourable to the Prosecution and the other to the accused, view favourable to the accused shall be taken into consideration.” 68.However, the above citation is not applicable to the present facts of the case since in that case, P.W.1 himself admitted in his cross-examination that amount was paid to the accused towards cost of extra telephone instrument.
69.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied-upon a judgment between M. Jagadeeshwar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010 (2) ALT, Criminal 232 (A.P.), wherein the Hon’ble High
Court held that “Possibility of P.W.1 requesting the accused to arrange the meter and offering Rs.700/- towards cost of the meter was not ruled out – Probably P.W.1 might have developed grudge against the accused and possibility of P.W.1 implicating the accused falsely in the case not ruled out.”
70.In the above case, P.W.1 himself admitted that he requested the accused to fix the meter, the accused stated that the meters are not available and P.W.4 evidence shows that the customers are permitted to purchase the meters from out-side and in that context the evidence of D.W.1 was accepted and benefit of doubt was given to the accused. Hence, the above judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
71.It is the contention of the Accused Officer that he has received the amount of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1 towards repayment of hand-loan. The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has argued that the Accused Officer need not prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt, but the defence can be preponderance of probability and Ex.D.5 shows the probability of his 33(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) defence. The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has further relied upon a judgment reported in Punjab Rao Vs. State of Maharastra reported in
AIR 2002, SC, Page 486 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Explanation offered by the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., cannot be rejected merely on the ground that it was not given at the time of seizure of money. Explanation given by the accused for receipt of money need not be proved by him beyond reasonable doubt and he can establish his defence by preponderance of probability.”
72.In the above judgment, the contention of the accused is that during the relevant period Patwaris were collecting the loans in Collection
Campaign and it not disputed that from 24th to 26th the Patwaris were collecting the loans in a Collection Campaign and in that context the Hon’ble
Court acquitted the Accused Officer.
73.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has argued that Ex.D.5 was not signed by all the Assistant Project Directors and not confronted to P.Ws.3 to 5. In Ex.D.5, at Page No.4, it is mentioned that “to go to Camp, the Driver asked loan stating that he has no amount for Oil.” P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he obtained loan from the Accused Officer. There is no mention in Ex.D.5 that on so and so date, Accused Officer gave hand-loan to
P.W.1. Therefore, the facts of this case and the facts of the above judgment are different and, therefore, the above judgment is not applicable.
74.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon a judgment between S.V.S., Kodanda Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 (1) ALD (Criminal) 933 (A.P.), wherein the Hon’ble
High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that “the plea taken in Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that the amount was received towards re-payment of loan taken by the complainant from him and said plea should be established by preponderance of probability.” 34(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
75.The facts of the reported case are that the accused was not present on 18-3-1990 to 23-3-1990 in the Office and according to him, the said amount of Rs.200/- was received by him on 23-3-1990 towards repayment of the loan taken by P.W.1 on an earlier occasion. Though the accused has not given spontaneous explanation, the accused wrote a letter to the Director General, ACB informing that the said amount was received by him towards the repayment of loan and in that context the Hon’ble High
Court accepted the plea of the accused, but the present facts of the case are different and as such the above judgment is not applicable.
76.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon a judgment between Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1981, Supreme Court, 911, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the Prosecution and all Courts ought to over-come their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses quite often they tell lies but so do the Prosecution Witnesses.” 77.There is no dispute about the above principle laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, but in the instant case, the evidence of D.W.1 is
inconsistent. D.W.1 did not give spontaneous explanation at the time of Post
Trap Proceedings. D.W.1 in his chief-examination deposed that twenty or thirty days prior to the Trap, he gave hand-loan to P.W.1 whereas in his cross- examination, he deposed that in the month of July, 2009 he gave hand-loan of Rs.1,500/- to P.W.1, but D.W.1 could not say the exact date. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.1 is inconsistent. Hence the above citation is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
35(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
78.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon a judgment between Mahamood Khan Mahaboob Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1998, Supreme Court, 2360 wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that
“Meaning of money paid not proved to be for personal satisfaction or pleasure of recipient. The Court cannot raise presumption under Section 4 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act.”
79.In the above said judgment, the facts are that “the appellant asked to submit the application and bring Rs.20/- for each copy and kept the said amount by him in his pocket and not in a drawer is not decisive to conclude that it was not entitled for himself.” In the above citation, the Sub
Registrar told the applicant that he had to pay Rs.20/- for each copy and in that context, the Hon’ble Apex Court acquitted the accused. However, the above said judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
80.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon another judgment in between Ravindra Mahadeo Kothamkar Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2016 (2) AICLR 87 (Bombay), wherein the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that
“When the complainant himself was a Law Breaker and prior verification of the complaint not done,” the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay acquitted the accused.
81.In the above referred judgment, the Trap was laid as soon as the complain was made and rather hurriedly. Whereas in the instant case, P.W.1 lodged complaint on 25-9-2009 and Trap was laid on 6-10-2009 and the
Deputy Superintendent of Police laid Trap and the Deputy Superintendent of
Police endorsed that he registered the case after due verification. Therefore, the above citation is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
36(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
82.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon a judgment between T. Subramaniam Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2006 (1) ALT (Criminal) Page 262 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Explanation by the accused immediately after the incident clearly explaining all the circumstances and belies story of acceptance of illegal gratification.”
83.In the above judgment, the appellant had given a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for receiving Rs.200/- from P.W.1 in the presence of
P.W.2 by stating that the amount had been tendered by P.W.1 as having been sent by P.W.6 towards his lease rent arrears. In that case, the Accused Officer gave spontaneous explanation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, but in this case, the Accused Officer did not give any spontaneous explanation.
Therefore, the above judgment is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
84.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has relied upon a judgment between N. Mallaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2013 (2) ALD (Criminal) Page 1 (A.P.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held that “The Court cannot draw a presumption against the accused under Section 20 unless prosecution is able to establish entire case by positive evidence or from circumstances brought on record, thus accused voluntarily accepted the bribe amount – mere facts that chemical test proved and tainted amount was recovered at the instance of the accused do not automatically enable the Court to draw presumption.”
85.In the above judgment, the Hon’ble High Court held that the
Court has to be extremely careful before recording the finding of acceptance of bribe basing on the testimony of solitary evidence – Accused able to positively establish that complainant/P.W.1 was in the habit of trapping the 37(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Public Servants and was blackmailing them and evidence disclosing that
P.W.1 got trapped as many as six Public Servants and in that context the
Hon’ble High Court held that the Court has to extremely careful before
recording a finding of acceptance of bribe basing on the solitary witness.
However, the above citation is not applicable to the present facts of the case.
86.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has contended that the Prosecution has not examined the Deputy Superintendent of Police and P.
Mallikarjun, the then Inspector of Police and therefore, the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be relied upon. Admittedly, Sri Karunanidhi, the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police who registered the First Information Report and laid
Trap died and it is also an admitted fact Sri P. Mallikarjun, the then Inspector of Police also died and as such both the witnesses could not be examined by the Prosecution. In support of his contentions, the learned Special Public
Prosecutor has relied upon a judgment in Ajith Kumar Vasanth Lal Zavery
Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1992 SC, 2064, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“Though the main Investigating Officer has not been examined, the evidence given by other Officers who accompanied the main Investigating Officer can be relied on by the Prosecution to prove the Trap incident.”
87.In the instant case, P.W.6 (K. Seetharamulu) and P.W.7 (Saidulu) participated in the Mediator Reports I and II conducted by the then Deputy
Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the said contention of the Accused
Officer has no force.
88.Another contention raised by the counsel for the Accused Officer is that the evidence of P.W.1 is like accomplice and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. In this regard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon a judgment between D. Velayutham Vs. State represented by the 38(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Inspector of Police, Selam town, Chennai reported in 2016 (1), SCC
Criminal 105, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Trap witness is on a higher pedestal, corroboration is not mandatory in case of Trap witness.”
89.The learned counsel for the Accused Officer has argued that P.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that he gave complaint on 27-7-2009 for bill and he admitted Ex.D.1. On perusal of Ex.D.1, it shows that P.W.1 has filed a petition in respect of agreement for ten months, but not in respect of bill. P.W.1 also admitted about the agreement, dated 5-8-2009 under Ex.D.3.
Therefore, the above minor discrepancy is not fatal to the case of the
Prosecution.
90.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon a judgment between Abdul Kaffar Vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2004, SCC (9) 333, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “When the stand taken by the Accused Officer during trials not taken during Post Trap Proceedings, first available opportunity of the defence was not genuine.”
91.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon a judgment between M.S. Varaprasad Vs. Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad reported in 2014 (1) ALT (Criminal) 429 (A.P.), wherein the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that “No spontaneous explanation given by the Accused Officer before the Trap Party members to that effect, theory put-forth by the Accused Officer, an after thought – defence plea rightly rejected by the trial Court – conviction upheld.”
92.On perusal of Ex.P.5 (Mediators Report-II), it is mentioned that the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, has questioned the Sri Althi Shankar Rao,
Assistant Project Director in the Office of the Andhra Pradesh Community 39(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Based Tank Management Project, District Project Unit, Nizamabad district whether he has just demanded and accepted any bribe from any person, for which he replied that has just demanded and accepted bribe amount of
Rs.1,500/- from one S. Suresh who is driver of his Office hired car i.e., driver- cum-owner of TATA Indica Car bearing No. AP 25 TV 0826 for doing official favour i.e., to prepare the Log Book Abstract and to send the same to the
Executive Engineer, Inspection Branch, District Unit, Nizamabad. Ex.P.5 further reveals that the Accused Officer did not give explanation that he gave
Rs.1,500/- to P.W.1 as hand-loan and that P.W.1 has re-paid the said hand- loan. Therefore, the theory of hand-loan put-forth by the Accused Officer is an after thought.
93.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied upon a reported judgment between Chaitanya Prakash Audichya Vs. C.B.I., reported in 2016 (1) SCC (Crriminal) 186, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “When the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification fully established and tainted currency notes recovered from the Accused person and phenolphthalein test proved positive, a presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act can be drawn.”
94.The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6 and also the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, I hold that the Prosecution has succeeded in proving the essential ingredients to prove the charges levelled against the Accused Officer i.e., demand and acceptance of Rs.1,500/- by the
Accused Officer from P.W.1 for doing official favour i.e., to prepare the Log
Book Abstract to forward the same to P.W.5 for sanction of hire charges for the vehicle bearing No. AP 25 TV 0826 and recovery of tainted amount of
Rs.1,500/- from the Accused Officer. The Prosecution has further proved that official favour was pending with the Accused Officer by examining P.Ws.3 to 5 and phenolphthalein test conducted on both hand fingers of the Accused 40(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Officer and contacted portion of wearing pant of the Accused Officer yielded positive result. Therefore, the Prosecution is entitled to claim mandatory presumption under Section 20 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly, the presumption is drawn against the Accused Officer whereas the Accused Officer failed to rebut the said presumption. The evidence of
D.W.1 is inconsistent and, therefore, not acceptable as the Accused Officer did not give spontaneous explanation and the defence plea that he paid hand-loan of Rs.1,500/- to P.W.1 is not proved by him and, therefore, I hold that the Prosecution in this case is able to prove the guilt of the Accused
Officer for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and accordingly he is liable for conviction. Accordingly, Points No.3 and 4 are answered.
95.In the result, Accused Officer is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of December, 2021.
Sd/-
Special Judge for trial of
SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.
QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
The Accused Officer is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence that is to be imposed against him for the offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accused Officer stated that he has been coming from
Vijayanagaram by travelling 1000 kilometers to attend the case and he has 41(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015) lost his Contract job. He further submitted that he has wife and two minor daughters who are going to school and his wife is a patient and unable to do her works and he has to look-after their welfare and if he goes to the work only, he can maintain them. He further stated that he is suffering from Blood
Pressure and Sugar and he has undergone surgery to his right ear and pleaded to impose less punishment.
The Accused Officer is involved in offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act which is serious in nature and as such the Accused Officer is not entitled for benefit under Section 360 of Cr.P.C., and provisions under Probation of
Offenders Act.
Considering the nature of offences proved against the Accused
Officer, his plea for taking lenient view, age and health of the Accused Officer and his wife and as the Accused Officer has lost his job and considering the minimum sentences prescribed for the said offences, this Court feels it proper and just to take a lenient view in sentencing the Accused Officer.
Accordingly, the Accused Officer is sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer
Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accused Officer is also further sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple
Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under
Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
42(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Total fine amount imposed against the Accused Officer is Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only i.e., Rs.2,000/- + Rs.2,000/- under two counts)
Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed against the Accused Officer shall run concurrently.
The remand period already undergone by the Accused Officer i.e., from 7-10-2009 to 22-10-2009 shall be set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
M.O.1 (tainted amount of Rs.1,500/-) is ordered to be returned to
P.W.1 if not reimbursed earlier by the Department and if returned, the same shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and rest of the material objects i.e., M.Os. 2 to 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of December, 2021.
Sd/-
Special Judge for trial of
SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTIONFOR THE DEFENCE
P.W.1Sompally SureshD.W.1Althi Shankar Rao P.W.2K. Gangadhar P.W.3C. Kiran P.W.4M. Arun Singh P.W.5Laxmi Narsimhulu P.W.6K. Seetharamulu P.W.7K. Saidulu
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION
Ex.P.1Original complaint given by P.W.1 Ex.P.2Photostat copy of complaint Ex.P.3Mediator Report-I Ex.P.4Attested photostat copy of Log Book (10) sheets 43(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)
Ex.P.5Mediators Report-II Ex.P.6Rough Sketch Ex.P.7Search List Ex.P.8First Information Report Ex.P.9Endorsement on the complaint by Inspector Sri Mallikarjun Ex.P.10Job Chart Ex.P.11Termination Order of the Accused Officer
FOR THE DEFENCE
Ex.D.1Photo copy of Application given by P.W.1 to the District Collector, Nizamabad, dated 27-7-2009 Ex.D.2Computerised forwarding letter of District Collector, Nizamabad Ex.D.3Internal agreement by PW1 with Accused Officer and three other Assistant Project Directors Ex.D.4Letter submitted to District Collector, Nizamabad by P.W.5 Ex.D.5Remarks submitted by the Accused Officer and three others to the District Collector, Nizamabad Ex.D.6Covering Letter
MATERIAL OBJECTS
M.O.1Tainted amount of Rs.1,500/-
M.O.2Sealed cover containing sample phenolphthalein powder
M.O.3Sealed cover containing Sodium Carbonate powder used in the Pre-Trap Proceedings
M.O.4Sealed cover containing Sodium Carbonate powder used during Post Trap Proceedings
M.O.5Sealed bottle containing right hand wash of Accused Officer
M.O.6One sealed bottle containing left hand wash of Accused Officer
M.O.7One sealed bottle containing result solutions of contacted portions of pant packet
M.O.8Coffee colour pant seized from the Accused Officer
Sd/-
Special Judge for trial of
SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.
44(Fair Judgment in C.C. No. 141 of 2015)