Smt C. Satya Vani

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

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: NELLORE

Monday, the 18 th day of March, 2024.

Present: Smt. C. SATYA VANI,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE No.37 of 2015

(Cr.No.04/RCA-TCT/2007 of Tirupati Range, Tirupati)

Between:

State represented by The Inspector of Police-III, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Tirupati. …Complainant

And

Sri Yerasi Venkata Subba Reddy, Divisional Panchayat Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. …Accused Officer

This case is coming for final hearing on 05.03.2024 in the presence of Sri K.V.Sreenivasa Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri K.S.Sudarsan Reddy, Advocate for Accused Officer, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till today, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police-III, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Tirupati Range,

Tirupati filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer in Cr.No.04/RCA-

TCT/2007 for the offences punishable under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, while he was working as Divisional Panchayat Officer,

Madanapalle, Chittoor District, since he falls under the category of Public Servant as defined under Sec.2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further as he acquired disproportionate assets to his known sources of income.

2. Brief case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that, Accused

Officer entered into Government Service as Attender on 16.11.1971 in the office of Gram Panchayat, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District and later he got promotion as

Record Assistant, worked in the capacities of 3rd Clerk, Junior Assistant,

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Executive Officer (Grade-II), Executive Officer (Grade-I), Extension Officer (PTS),

MPDO and finally he was promoted as Divisional Panchayat Officer and worked at Koilkuntla, Chagalamarri, Dhone, Atmakur, Vayalpadu, Puttur, Chandragiri,

S.R.Puram and Madanapalle from 16.11.1971 to 07.06.2007 and by virtue of the post held by him he falls under the category of public servant as defined under section 2(c ) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988).

On credible information that Accused Officer as Divisional Panchayat

Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor District indulged in corrupt practices by dubious means and acquired movable/immovable properties in his name and in the names of his family members, a case in Cr.No.04/RCA-TCT/2007 under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act, 1988 of ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati was registered on 30.10.2009 and investigated into as per the proceedings issued by the Joint Director (R), Anti Corruption Bureau, AP, Hyderabad vide proceedings in Rc.No.02/RCA-TCT/2007, dt.31.05.2007. During the course of investigation and in pursuance of search warrants obtained from the Special Judge for SPE &

ACB Cases, Nellore, searches were conducted at places as shown below as per the provision of Section 165 Cr.P.C. in the presence of mediators:

1. Residential house of Accused Officer situated at D.No.16- 621/B1-1, Seshappa Thota Street, Madanapalle.

2. The residential premises of Mother of the Accused Officer at Koilkuntla, Kurnool District.

3. Office premises of Accused Officer at Madanapalle.

4. The Bank locker at Koilkuntla Co-operative Town Bank Limited, Koilkuntla in the joint name of the Accused Officer and his wife.

For the purpose of investigation, check period was taken from 16.11.1971 to 07.06.2007. Investigation revealed that Accused Officer while functioning as

Public Servant in various capacities in Panchayat Raj Department during the check period, indulged in corrupt and illegal practices and acquired huge assets.

He was found in possession of assets worth Rs.63,58,492/- as on the terminal date of check period in his name, and in the names of his family members and

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 dependants that are shown in detail in Annexure-A attached to the charge sheet.

During check period, the income of Accused Officer from all known sources was

Rs.30,35,321/- as shown in Annexure-B attached to the charge sheet. Total expenditure incurred during the entire check period by Accused Officer including household expenditure is calculated as Rs.79,18,283/- as shown in Annexure-C attached to the charge sheet. The likely savings and having excess expenditure of the Accused Officer during the check period is Rs.48,82,962/-. As against the excess expenditure of Rs.48,82,962/-, the Accused Officer is found in possession of assets to a tune of Rs.63,58,492/-.

Therefore, the Accused Officer was found in possession of disproportionate assets to a tune of Rs.1,12,41,454/- in his name and in the names of his wife and children as on 07.06.2007 amounting to Rs.63,58,492/-.

Apart from this, he incurred excess expenditure during check period, amounting to Rs.48,82,962/- which is more than his likely savings. Hence, Accused

Officer’s total disproportionate assets are found to be Rs.1,12,41,454/- (i.e.,

Assets worth Rs.63,58,492/- (+) excess expenditure of Rs.48,82,962/-). Thus, the Accused Officer has acquired disproportionate assets worth Rs.1,12,41,454/- by corrupt and dubious means, for which he could not satisfactorily account for, though he was given opportunity to explain the same. Accused Officer neither obtained prior permission for acquisition of said properties, nor did he inform to his Department about the acquisition of properties and submitted APRs during the check period. Therefore, Accused Officer has committed an offence punishable under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of P.C.Act, 1988.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the Competent Authority to remove Accused Officer from service accorded sanction as per G.O.Ms. No.273,

dated 08.09.2009 of Panchayatraj and Rural Development (Vig.III) Department,

A.P. Hyderabad to prosecute Accused Officer in a Court of Law for aforesaid offences and for taking cognizance of said offences by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed against Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

3. My Predecessor of this court, has taken cognizance of the offence against the accused under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 on 11-11-2009.

4. Originally, this case was numbered before this Court as C.C.9/2009 and subsequently in view of letter of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad in

R.O.C.No.3902/E1/1998, dated 17.01.2013 and letter in Dis.No.1/2013, dated 07.02.2013 of the Special Judge for ACB cases in Rayalaseema Region (FAC) at

Kurnool, this case was withdrawn from the file of this Court and transferred to

Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under ACB in Rayalaseema Region at

Kurnool and numbered as C.C.74/2013. Again as per the letter of Hon’ble High

Court of Judicature, Hyderabad in ROC No.3092/E1/1998, dt.15.07.2015, this case was withdrawn from the file of Special Judge for trial of ACB Cases,

Kurnool and transferred to the Court of Special Judge for trial of ACB Cases,

Nellore, for disposal according to law and the case was renumbered as

C.C.37/2015.

5. On appearance of accused officer, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/S.207 Cr.P.C.

6. On 08.08.2014, this Court examined the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and he denied the allegations made against him by prosecution.

Hence, charge U/sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was framed against the accused officer. The charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove case of prosecution, 47witnesses are examined and

Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-93 are marked. Whereas, on behalf of the accused, Dw1 to Dw7 are examined and Exs.D1 to D43 are marked.

8. Now the points for determination are;

i) Whether Accused Officer being a public servant is found to be in possession of disproportionate Assets worth of Rs.1,12,41,454/- as shown in Annexure-A in the names of himself and his family members?

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 ii) Whether Accused Officer is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt?

iii) If so, what properties are the properties liable to be confiscated to the State?

iv) To what finding?

9. Heard both sides. Both sides filed written arguments along with some judgments for reference and consideration.

10. To the instant case, the Accused Officer Y.V.Subba Reddy admittedly joined into service as an Attender on 16.11.1971 in the Office of Gram

Panchayat, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District and promoted as Record Assistant, 3rd

Clerk, Junior Assistant, Executive Officer (Grade II), Executive Officer (Grade I),

Extension Officer (PTC), MPDO, Divisional Panchayat Officer and worked at several places from 16.11.1971 to 07.06.2007 which is not in dispute. Thereby, the Accused Officer is to be called as a Public Servant and would come under section 2( c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

11. It is the case of prosecution and also not in dispute that the

Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati, PW46 herein M.Giridhar Rao in the light of the proceedings of Joint Director, ACB, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide

Rc.No.02/RCA-TCT/2007, dated 31.05.2007 u/s 17 of P.C. Act, 1988 registered

a case and to investigate against Accused Officer. Accordingly, on 6.6.2007 at 5.30 A.M., PW46 registered a case under Crime No.04/RCA-TCT/2007 u/s 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act, 1988 of Tirupati Range, Tirupati and issued FIR under

Ex.P75. He obtained search warrants from the Court on 7.6.2007 and conducted search at several places like (1) Residential premises of the Accused at

Madanapalle (2) Office of the Accused Officer at Madanapalle (3) Residential house of the mother of the Accused at Koilkuntla, Kurnool District. On searches, the Investigating Officer found disproportionate of assets and PW47 obtained sanction order under Ex.P61.

12. PW30/Section Officer, Panchayat Raj Department in this regard deposed that their Office received Radio message from Director General, Anti-

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and also the final report along with abstract of assets, income and expenditure of the accused. The said documents were forwarded to the vigilance Commissioner and after approval of Vigilance

Commissioner, the file was forwarded to the Principal Secretary to the

Government, Panchayatraj and Rural Development, Vigilance-III Department along with the note file and after going through the material placed before him and on his satisfaction, the Principal Secretary to the Government issued a G.O.

vide G.O.Ms.No.273 of Panchayatraj and Rural Development permitting to prosecute the Accused Officer. It is further deposed that Sri M.V.P.C.Sastry was the then Principal Secretary to the Government. Ex.P61 is the Sanction Order. It is also stated by PW30 that Ex.P61 bears the signature of said Sri M.V.P.C.

Sastry.

13. It is denied by PW30 that the Sanctioning Authority has not applied its mind and without verification of any document, the same was issued mechanically. At the same time, it is to observe that PW30 also stated that the abstract of assets, income and expenditure were appended to Ex.P61 by the

Director General, ACB, Hyderabad. At the same time, admittedly, Ex.P61 does not disclose the same. On perusal of Ex.P61-Sanction Order in G.O.Ms.No.273 of

Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vigilance-III) Department, dated 08.09.2009, only for the reason that the draft sanction order was also received along with final report, it does not mean that no application of mind is made while issuing

Ex.P61. The draft sanction order generally will be appended in order to verify the same as a proforma and it does not infer that the case file is not verified by

Sanctioning Authority, the said arguments are acceptable. When there is a clear mention in Ex.P61- Sanction Order. Further, in the light of a decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in between Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh which is also relied by learned counsel for Accused Officer. In Mohd. Iqbal

Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1979 (4) SCC 172, it is also held in the said Judgment that:

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 “an order of valid sanction can be proved by the

Sanctioning Authority in two ways: either (1) by

producing the original sanction which itself

contains the facts constituting the offence and the

grounds of satisfaction; or (2) by adducing

evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed

before the Sanctioning Authority and the

satisfaction arrived at by it.”

Therefore, in the instant case, the prosecution examined PW30 who was acquainted with the signature to Sanctioning Authority to prove valid sanction.

Apparently, the Sanction Order shows the application of mind. The original

Sanction Order is placed before this Court. Therefore, it is to observe that prosecution established that there is a valid sanction obtained under Ex.P61 for prosecution against Accused Officer Y.V.Subba Reddy in the instant case.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is determined.

POINT Nos.2 and 3:

14. In the instant case, it is alleged that Accused Officer amassed wealth more than the income he legally acquired and also that the properties are acquired in the name of his wife and children. Thereby, there is disproportionate of assets acquired by Accused Officer and his family members. On perusal of the record, it is evident that Accused Officer, his wife and his children are shown as one unit. The income of Accused Officer alone is shown as income to the family. The contention of Accused Officer is that his wife also had income of her own and also that after their children went abroad, they sent money to the

Account of wife of Accused Officer DW5 and also to the Joint Account of

Accused Officer/DW2 and his wife. DW1 is the son of Accused Officer. DW3 is the daughter of Accused Officer. In order to assess whether there is disproportionate of assets, the income and expenditure alleged by the prosecution is to be scrutinized and also the additional income claimed by

Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

15. In the light of above contentions, it is acceptable and binding upon this Court, the observations made by several Courts relied upon by the learned counsel for the Accused Officer in the Judgments referred below:

1. In between Vasant Rao Guhe v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 733 (SC) rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court wherein it is held that:

“the primary burden to bring home the charge of criminal misconduct and holding of disproportionate assets to his known sources of income is upon the prosecution.”

It is also held that the prosecution to succeed in a criminal trial has to pitch its case beyond all reasonable doubt and lodge it in the realm of “must be true” category and not rest contended by leaving it in the domain of “may be true”.

Similarly, in a case in between Subhas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000 (1) Crimes 361 rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Madhya

Pradesh wherein it is held that:

“the initial burden always lay upon prosecution to prove the alleged transactions as Benami and funds provided by the Accused Officer.”

Only for the reason that the witness turned hostile, such statement cannot be thrown out in limine only on the ground that witness was declared hostile.

Further also held and referred to a Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Kaliram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein requirements of standard of proof in rebuttal were held:

“There are certain cases in which statutory presumption arise regarding the guilt of the accused, but the burden even in those cases is upon the prosecution to prove the existence of facts which have to be present before the presumption can be drawn. Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the Court can raise the statutory presumption and it would in such an event be for the accused to rebut the presumption. The onus even in such cases upon the accused is not as heavy as in normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. If some material is brought on the record consistent with the innocence of the accused which may reasonably be true even though it is not positively proved to be true. The Accused would be entitled to acquittal.”

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

16. It is also well settled that only because the informant himself is the investigator, the investigation does not vitiate. It is also to scrutiny whether there is any bias or prejudice to the facts and circumstances which is held by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch

of Delhi). The above Judgment is for scrutiny to the instant facts and circumstances. It is evident that PW46 has taken initiative for the raids as a person who received information and investigated into.

17. Further, the learned counsel for Accused Officer relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in between

J.Venkateswarlu Vs. Union of India represented by its Cabinet Secretary, New

Delhi and others wherein it is held that:

“The submission that Section 13 of the POC Act, 1988 imposes an active misconduct of a civil servant beyond the prescriptions of the Conduct Rules is totally misconceived. Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules put an embargo on the civil servants working in the State in the matter of acquisition, disposal, exchange, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise of the properties without prior permission or intimation to the competent authority. Violation of the said rule by an employee/civil servant may render himself liable to for departmental action for imposition of major and minor penalties. It is difficult to discern as to how and in what manner Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules, which does not deal with any criminal offence, can be equated with that of the criminal misconduct under the provisions of the POC Act, 1988. The ingredients of Section 13 (1) (e) of the POC Act, 1988 and Rule 9 of the Conduct Rules are quite different and covering two different fields. They do not operate in the same field and area. The provisions of the POC Act, 1988 do not in any manner whatsoever deal with any classification and conduct of civil servants. It is not a law made with respect to State Public Services. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 fall squarely within Entry 41 of List II of the seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Entry 64 of the same list empowers the State Legislature to enact laws with respect to offences arising in all matters in this list. Therefore, it follows that the State Legislature could prescribe what acts or conduct would be regarded as offences in relation to State Public Services. Admittedly, the Conduct Rules do not prescribe what acts or conduct of a civil servant would be regarded as offences in relation to State Public Services. The rules are mere conduct rules. Contravention and non-compliance of those rules may result in departmental action. The department may impose major or minor penalties, as the case may be. Those rules do not have any bearing whatsoever upon misconduct of a public servant within the meaning of POC Act, 1988. The submissions made in this regard are totally misconceived. In these circumstances, we are inclined to agreed with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8727 of 2000 and Batch, dated 28 th April, 2001.”

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

18. The learned counsel for Accused Officer referred to a

G.O.Ms.No.415 GA (Cabinet) Department, dated 5.9.2005 in a memo

No.623/Spl.C/A1/2008-1 of Government of A.P. General Administration (Spl.C)

Department, dated 15.10.2008 wherein it is mentioned in Para 2 iii) 3.

“The properties of kith and kin of the Accused Officer should not automatically be added to the properties. Proper analysis of the sources of such assets of kith and kin and friends should be undertaken before arriving at a decision to include the same in the properties of the Accused Officer.

And it is mentioned in Para 2 vi)

The investigating agencies shall have a balanced and judicious approach when a trap is attempted / disproportionate assets booked or a surprise check made.

19. The above instructions are for scrutiny whether they were made genuinely by the Investigating Officer in the light of the contentions of the

Accused Officer.

20. Further, with regard to submission of annual property returns by employees promptly, there is a circular memo vide Circular memo

No.695/Ser.C/2006, dated 12.10.2006 wherein it is directed that “All the Special Chief Secretaries/Principal Secretaries/Secretaries to Government and Heads of Departments etc., are requested to list out the employees who have not furnished their Annual Property Returns as on 15.01.2005 and thereafter issue show cause notices to each as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against them and if within a reasonable time thereafter the Annual Property Returns are not received, or if the explanation to the query raised is not given or if given, but found not satisfactory, then they are requested to award “Censure” to the employee concerned.”

The above circular is to say that if the Government employee fails to submit the Annual Property Returns as on the date fixed, the show cause notices can be issued for disciplinary action and the explanation is not satisfied, then the authorities requested to award “Censure” to the employee concerned.

21. To the reference of this case, it is argued upon that if at all this

Court finds that the Annual Property Returns were not submitted, the irregularity

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 is not to penalize but the disciplinary action is the only way to proceed against the employee.

22. The learned counsel for Accused Officer also relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in between M.Krishna Reddy Vs.

State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad reported in 1993 0 AIR

SC 313 wherein it is held that the case of Banami transaction alleged by

prosecution is to be established and the burden is strictly upon the prosecution to discharge by adducing legal evidence of a definite character. The prosecution cannot be said to have successfully fixed if the case is not based upon sufficient proof. It is also held that as per the Government Memo No.700/SC-D/88-4,

dated 13.2.1989 issued by Government of A.P. wherein certain guidelines were

issued to the Anti Corruption Bureau to give allowance of a reasonable margin of 20% on the total income of a Government servant while computing disproportionate assets.

23. Further, the learned counsel for Accused Officer also relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in between State of Karnataka Vs.

Selvi J.Jayalalitha and others wherein it is held that:

“Income Tax Returns or orders passed in related proceedings do not definitely attest lawfulness of the sources of income of the accused persons. Hence, cannot satisfactorily account for their disproportionate pecuniary resources and properties. However, also held that Orders passed in tax proceedings do

not certify or authenticate lawfulness of sources.

24. At the same time, the prosecution also relied upon the case between Selvi J.Jayalalitha Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 SC

Online SC 134 with the same contention as contended by the Accused Officer.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that only for the reason that the Income

Tax returns of the Accused Officer or his wife and children were not placed of the period concerned does not reflect upon the contentions of Accused Officer adversely.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

25. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in between State of Maharastra Vs.

Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla reported in AIR 1988 SC rendered by Hon’ble

Supreme Court wherein it is held that possession of assets disproportionate shall be from the known sources of income. The period of service is to be considered for ascertaining the disproportionate of assets. The said analogy of period of service was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case relied upon by Accused Officer above mentioned in between M.Krishna Reddy Vs.

State Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad wherein also apart from all other submissions the period of service as 25 years completed unblemish service was considered in favour of Accused Officer.

26. In order to scrutiny the case of prosecution in the light of contentions of the Accused Officer, it is desirable firstly to scrutiny whether the assets alleged as purchased and owned by Accused Officer, Wife of Accused

Officer and children of Accused Officer in fact only out of income of Accused

Officer and his wife alone as one unit.

ASSETS:

27. Item No.1: Item No.1 of the asset is allegedly purchased by

Accused Officer, a residential Flat in 4G Velmathre – Plaza Apartments,

Padmavathipuram, Tirupati in the name of wife of Accused Officer Smt.

Y.Chowdeswaramma/DW5 under a registered sale deed vide Document

No.6104/2005, dated 20.08.2005 under Ex.P31- Sale deed for an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also alleged that subsequent to purchase, the accused spent for interior decoration and the same is valued under valuation report Ex.P49 by

PW14 wherein PW14 given a report that an amount of Rs.2,11,500/- was incurred towards the interior. Thereby, the prosecution alleged that the value of the asset is Rs.7,11,500/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

28. It is not in dispute that the said property is in the name of wife of

Accused Officer Smt. Y.Chowdeswaramma admitted by DW2, DW5 and also is evident under Ex.P31. The value of the property under Ex.P31 is shown

Rs.5,00,000/- the purchase amount.

29. PW27 is the Area Manager in LIC Finance Limited, Tirupati who deposed that the housing loan was obtained by Smt. Y.Chowdeswaramma/DW5 from their branch under Account No.48010649 for Rs.4,80,000/- and agreed to repay the same with monthly installments at an interest of 10.5% per annum.

The loan was sanctioned on 11.07.2005. The wife of accused officer DW5 herein repaid the said loan amount. A sum of Rs.2,27,639/- as on 07.06.2007 (date of raids). The processing fee was Rs.5,400/- which included in Rs.2,27,639/-.

Ex.P58 is the statement of the said housing loan. The evidence of PW14 reveals that this property value is estimated at Rs.2,11,500/- and a report to that effect is also submitted by him under Ex.P49. The contention of Accused Officer is that no such interior like Cup-boards and other decorations were made and only an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- were spent from the amount in ICICI Bank of Accused

Officer who withdrew and gave to his wife DW5 herein. Thereby, consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- rupees were spent towards other necessary arrangements to the Flat. Therefore, only an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is admitted by the Accused Officer towards this asset. Therefore, Rs.1,11,500/- is under dispute.

30. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW14 and valuation report submitted by him to the Investigating Officer PW46 under Ex.P49 does not show the valuations under SSR of the Government to the relevant years. It is not in dispute that PW14 is the Officer in ACB Department for the assistance to the

Investigating Officer to arrive with regard to the valuation of the properties. In such case, PW14 ought to have enclosed copy of SSR Government to the relevant years. A rough sketch with all the alleged interiors and decorations would have been placed. The rough notes admittedly prepared by PW14 is not

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 placed before this Court. It is also admitted by PW14 that Ex.P49 the valuation report with regard to structures were prepared by him in his Office on the basis of the information, measurements and other details noted by him in his rough notes.

It is also stated that at the time of such inspection, the accused was not present and the brother of accused was present. When such is the case, signatures of brother of Accused Officer ought to have obtained in the rough notes so as to show the transparency in assessment of the value of the property. No third party said to be an independent person to believe the presence of PW14 and the structures noted by him whether true or is present. Further, it is surprising to note that it is the information given by ACB Inspector to PW14 that the building in

Item No.1 was constructed in the year 1995, he made such valuation. Therefore, it is argued upon by the learned counsel for Accused Officer that the valuation under Ex.P49 and the evidence of PW14 cannot be considered.

31. Therefore, in the light of evidence of PW14 and the arguments of learned counsel for Accused Officer that in absence of any rough sketch, rough notes, copy of SSR of the Government to the relevant years and also that the construction was made in the year 1995 and also in absence of presence of any independent person or signature of brother of Accused Officer Ex.P49 as such cannot be accepted. It also cannot be held that Ex.P49 is sufficient to establish the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the admitted value of the asset is alone considered which is Rs.6,00,000/-.

32. The other contention of the prosecution that Accused Officer did not intimate about this property to the competent authority and also that he did not submit annual property returns to the competent authority under Rule 9(1) AND

Rule 9(7) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 respectively will be scrutinized at a later stage. Further, the wife of Accused Officer had no independent source of income nor filed Income Tax returns and also whether Accused Officer had

Rs.1,00,000/- from out of foreign money sent by his children to the Joint Account of himself and his wife in ICICI Bank, Tirupati and also whether there are relevant

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 entries made in Service Register under Ex.D2 will also be scrutinized at a later stage.

33. ITEM No.2: Item No.2 is said to have been purchased by Accused

Officer in the name of wife Smt. Y.Chowdeswaramma vide Document

No.782/1990, dated 6.9.1990 which is a house site of 2 cents behind Gram

Panchayat, Koilkuntla under Original of Ex.P36 for a sale consideration of

Rs.14,550/- under a registered sale deed.

34. In this regard, PW7/Sub Registrar is examined who deposed that a registered sale deed was obtained vide Document No.782/1990, dated 6.9.1990 for a sale consideration of Rs.14,550/-. Accused Officer admitted with regard to property in the name of his wife DW5. At the same time contended that the said property is purchased by DW5 his wife out of her personal income. The said personal income of rental income and agricultural income of herself. DW5 deposed to that effect. It is elicited from PW7 Sub Registrar that it is up to the parties the Vendor or Vendee to pay the Stamp duty and registration fee. The stamp duty is shown as Rs.1,630/- and registration fee as Rs.161/-. With regard to stamp duty and Registration fee separately shown in expenditure. The admitted value of this asset is only Rs.14,550/- and in fact pleaded by prosecution is also as such. Therefore, the value of this asset is considered as

Rs.14,550/-.

35. ITEM No.3: Further, it is also the case of prosecution that in Item

No.2 house site property two storied building is constructed which is worth

Rs.3,35,700/-. To substantiate the case of prosecution, it examined

PW14/Engineer ACB who assessed and estimated the value of the construction and given a report under Ex.P49.

36. On perusal of the evidence of PW14 it is in fact deposed by him that he assessed the value of the construction of Item No.3 which is Door No.10- 956 Koilkuntla village and estimated the same as Rs.3,35,700/- and also issued

Ex.P49 the Valuation report to that effect.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

37. Therefore, it is to observe that the prosecution failed to establish

Ex.P49 and its valuation as Rs.3,35,700/-. At the same time, it is the contention of Accused Officer that his wife DW5 herein sold gold weighing 453 grams for

Rs.1,79,455/-. To that effect also placed the gold receipts under Ex.D21 to D24.

It is also deposed by DW2 and DW5 that such gold was sold. In the cross examination of the Investigating Officer/PW46 it is admitted that Ex.P49 does not indicate the year of construction as 1990-1991. On perusal of Ex.P78, the explanation of Accused Officer with regard to Item No.3 it is submitted by

Accused Officer that his wife constructed the house in the house site of Item

No.2 in the years 1993-1994 by spending Rs.2,25,260/- out of the money acquired on sale of gold of 453 grams for Rs.1,79,455/- and the remaining amount out of her own source of income it is also stated that the said gold receipts were seized by ACB at the time of search which is not in dispute.

Ex.D21 to D24 are the receipts showing sale of the gold. The price of the gold is also mentioned and also the date of sale of such gold. Ex.D21 shows that 14 thulas of gold was sold for Rs.63,840/-, dated 15.12.1992. Ex.D22 show that 8 thulas of gold was sold for Rs.34,230/-. Ex.D23 receipt, dated 15.07.1993 shows that 7 ½ thulas gold was sold for Rs.36,375/- at the rate of Rs.4,850/- per gram.

Similarly, Ex.D24 dated 8.10.1993 shows that 10 thulas of gold was sold for

Rs.45,010/- at the rate of Rs.4,890/- per gram. In total, the gold was sold for

Rs.1,79,455/-. Accused Officer could substantiate his contention with regard to sale of gold during the said period under the said receipts for the said amount.

38. PW6 the mother of Accused Officer also deposed that at the time of marriage of her son, Accused Officer with DW5, the parents of DW5 gifted 50 thulas of Gold and PW6 herself gifted 25 thulas of gold to DW5. No doubt, admittedly there is no document to that effect. It is also an acceptable argument that for such gifts of movable articles whether valuable or not valuable there cannot be any documents. At the same time, the valuation of the gold is to be

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 considered as correctly given under Ex.D21 to D24. It is admitted by PW47 that

LW49 the Gold Appraiser (K.Nagaraju Setty) stated in his statement that the price of gold as on the date of marriage (i.e., on 01.02.1998) of the daughter of

Accused Officer was Rs.404.50 ps and the value of 22 carrots of gold was

Rs.337.00 per gram.

39. The marriage of daughter of Accused Officer DW3 herein was performed on 1.2.1998, Ex.D21 to D24 the gold receipts under which the wife of

Accused Officer said to have sold. The said receipts were admittedly and evidently were seized under miscellaneous file by the search party under Ex.P84 – Miscellaneous Made-up file. Therefore, it cannot be held that Ex.D21 to D24 were created subsequent to the search to overcome.

40. The arguments of the Special Public Prosecutor that they were created to overcome this type of situation cannot be considered without any such material to show that Accused Officer deliberately did such act through his wife.

The construction of the house under Item No.3 was constructed in the year 1994.

The case of Accused officer that it was constructed in the year 1992-1993 makes no difference as the receipts were of the year 1992-1993 also. Accused Officer has submitted his explanation in Ex.P78 Page 17 Para 4 that his wife sold her gold of 453 grams for Rs.1,79,455/- under the receipts seized by ACB Officials which are Exs.D1 to D24. Thereby, there need not be any further probe into the matter whether the said receipts are genuine. This price of gold received under

Ex.D1 to D24 is shown in Additional income serial No.4.

41. As observed above, the evidence of PW14 in the light of Ex.P49 the valuation report submitted by him to the Investigating Officer PW46 could not be sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt that the building construction costs in fact is Rs.3,35,700/-. At the same time, the valuation given by Accused

Officer towards this Item No.3 is Rs.2,25,260/-, the money spent by DW5 for the construction of the said two storied building in the year 1994. Ex.P49 is not sufficient and failed to substantiate the case of prosecution. Therefore, the admitted value of construction if taken would be reasonable. Therefore, out of

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 the value of the asset Rs.2,25,260/- if the value of the gold sold by wife of

Accused Officer of Rs.1,79,455/- is deducted, the same would be Rs.45,805/- which can be assessed as value of the Asset. The value of the Asset gold needs no consideration as long back the same was sold prior to the search. Moreover, the said value of the gold is included in the total asset of the property by way of spending the said money in the construction.

42. The further contentions with regard to not submitting of Annual report nor seeking permission from the competent authorities and no relevant entry with regard to this property in the Service Register is for further scrutiny.

43. ITEM No.4: This item is a house site admeasuring 395 Square

Yards in Survey No.429 of Koilkuntla village in the name of wife of Accused

Officer Smt. Chowdeswaramma for Rs.49,500/- under the registered sale deed of original of Ex.P34, dated 8.5.2002 bearing Document No.582 of 2002.

44. There is no dispute with regard to this property in the name of wife of Accused Officer. At the same time, it is disputed that Accused Officer purchased the same in the name of his wife and it is pleaded that wife of

Accused Officer has her own personal income and also income from Abroad.

Thereby, this property is purchased by wife of Accused Officer DW5 herein out of the money from Abroad. Therefore, the value of the Asset is considered as

Rs.49,500/-.

45. ITEM No.5: Item No.5 of the asset is the two storied constructed building with four portions in Door No.1-969, Gandhi Nagar, Koilkuntla in the name of his wife Smt.Chowdeswaramma DW5 by spending Rs.1,83,700/-.

46. This property is also admitted to be in the name of wife of Accused

Officer. At the same time, it is contended that this property is acquired by DW5 under Ex.D11 – Unregistered Gift Deed, dated 10.01.1984 which can be held as old document. Ex.D11 is seized by ACB Officials while search under Ex.P1-

Made up file. DW6-Mother of Accused Officer also deposed to that effect that the said property was gifted by her husband. There is a specific mention in

Ex.D11 that the same is a constructed building which could not be disputed by

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 the prosecution anywhere. At the same time, the contention of the Accused

Officer that only Rs.40,000/- were spent towards repairs of the building by his wife. It is not in dispute that this property is mutated in the name of wife of

Accused Officer. Thereby, the contention of prosecution that the unregistered

Gift deed cannot be considered for want of registration as it is to look into with regard to possession. It is the case of prosecution that it belongs to Accused

Officer through his wife. The name of wife of Accused Officer is mutated in records. Moreover, Ex.D11 is seized while search by ACB Officials further substantiated the contention of Accused Officer in the light of evidence of DW6-

Mother of Accused Officer. When such is the case, it can safely be accepted that the property belongs to wife of Accused Officer. But the case of prosecution in the light of valuation report of PW14 under Ex.P49 which is short of its genuinety cannot be considered. The prosecution blows hot and cold at a time. If the unregistered gift deed is not considered as to how the prosecution can say that it belongs to Accused Officer or wife of Accused Officer is left unexplained.

Therefore, to the facts and circumstances it is observed that the property belongs to wife of Accused Officer. At the same time, Ex.P49 cannot be taken into consideration as the prosecution failed to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt. A detailed observation is made above with regard to Ex.P49. Therefore, the admitted value of spending money for repairs to the building of Rs.40,000/- alone can be taken into consideration. The property is acquired under gift.

Therefore, the value of the asset cannot be taken and only value of the repairs taken up by wife of Accused Officer alone is to be considered. In furtherance of the same, this Court considers Rs.40,000/- towards value of this asset.

47. Item No.6: Further, with regard to Asset No.6 which is said to be property is house site purchased by Accused Officer situated at

Padmavathipuram, Tirupati in the name of his son and daughter for a consideration of Rs.15,51,000/- vide registered Document No.4922/2006, dated 18.12.2006 under the original of Ex.P30.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

48. This property is also admitted as in the name of children of

Accused Officer. To substantiate the case of prosecution PW4 – District

Registrar is examined who deposed that this property is registered in the name of

G.V.Prasanna Lakshmi, daughter of Accused Officer and Y.V.Sudarsan Reddy ,

Son of Accused Officer from one Rajeswari @ Muni Rajamma and two others for

Rs.15,51,000/- and also that the stamp duty was Rs.1,39,609/- and registration fee is Rs.7,880/- purchased out of the money sent by their son and daughter.

49. This expenses towards registration fee and stamp duty Accused

Officer admitted to have spent the same by him towards his property and by his wife towards her property. This stamp duty and other charges are shown as

Item No.2 in expenditure. In this regard, it is elicited by the learned counsel for

Accused Officer from PW11 that the registration charges and stamp duty may be paid by any one Vendor or Vendee it depends. But to the circumstances, it is admitted by Accused Officer in Ex.P78 his explanation in page 20 Item No.2 of expenditure that the said registration charges are spent by his wife except Serial

No.9 of the Asset. Therefore, the value of the asset is taken as only

Rs.15,51,000/-.

50. The contention of Accused Officer that Item No.6 is purchased in the name of his children out of the money sent by his children from Abroad is for further scrutiny.

51. ITEM No.7: This property is Ambassador Car bearing No.AP03 U 6730 is said to have purchased by Accused Officer in the name of wife of

Accused Officer DW5 herein in the year 2004.

52. It is not in dispute that the said Ambassador Car is in the name of wife of Accused Officer. The value of the asset claimed by the prosecution can be seen in Ex.P74. With regard to same, PW45/Deputy Transport Commissioner also deposed that the said Ambassador Car bearing No.AP03 U 6730 stands in the name of Smt. Y.Chowdeswaramma. The cost of the vehicle was assessed as Rs.3,42,300/- and also stated that Rs.330/- was paid towards life tax quarterly

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 and on the request of the ACB Police, he has furnished all the details annexing

Form-24.

53. In the cross examination of PW45, it is admitted by him that at the time of purchase of the said Car, there was exemption of excise duty for vehicles purchased for public transport. At the same time, he deposed that he is not aware whether an amount of Rs.16,000/- and of excise duty and an amount of

Rs.27,300/- was deducted as an offer by the seller of the Car. It is the contention of Accused Officer that on deduction of the above said amounts of excise duty and offer price, the Car was priced at Rs.2,99,000/- (i.e., Rs.3,42,300/- -

Rs.27,300/- - Rs.16,000/- = Rs.2,99,000/-).

54. On perusal of Ex.P77 it shows that the total amount paid including taxes towards the said Ambassador Car is Rs.3,15,300/-. The said letter is given by Sai Ram Motors, Renigunta road, Tirupati. It is not in dispute that the said

Car is purchased from the said Sai Ram Motors. Under Ex.P77 the extra fittings and the amounts for services is also mentioned as Rs.2,020/- and Rs.831/- while free service towards costs of fitters. No further services were taken by the date of Ex.P77, dated 22.06.2007.

55. It is the contention of Accused Officer that the Car values

Rs.2,99,000/- after discount. PW37, the Branch Manager, Sundaram Finance evidence shows that cash loan was obtained for Rs.2,50,000/- on 6.11.2004 at

Madanapalle branch and the total loan amount was discharged by wife of

Accused Officer by 3.10.2007. In the cross examination, it is elicited that

Rs.2,80,000/- was repayable by 18.06.2007 including interest of Rs.30,000/-.

The monthly installment is Rs.10,000/-. The check period ends by 7.6.2007.

56. The evidence of PW35/Motor Vehicle Inspector, Madanapalle reveals that towards extra fittings Rs.1,75,990/- was spent and a report is given under Ex.P66. The said aspect with regard to expenditure is for scrutiny in Item

No.33, 34 and 40 of expenditure. In order to assess the value of the asset, there is no document placed by the Accused Officer to show that there was any exemption of excise duty and offer price by deducting Rs.16,000/- + Rs.27,300/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Therefore, Ex.P77 which is seized under Made up file can be accepted as the original value of the asset. No doubt, the loan is obtained for Rs.2,50,000/-.

With regard to repayment, it is for scrutiny whether by the date of search as to how much amount is repaid so as to see the expenditure. Therefore, to arrive the value of the asset, it is to consider that the same is Rs.3,15,300/-.

57.Item No.8: The further asset said to have been purchased by

Accused officer is the house site admeasuring 170 Square Yards in No.263 of

Kammapalli, Madanapalli for a sale consideration of Rs.1,24,500/- in the name of wife of Accused Officer Smt. Chowdeswaramma/DW5 vide Document No.6459 of 2004 under original of Ex.P45, dated 15.10.2004. It is not in dispute about the value of the asset and it being in the name of wife of Accused Officer. It is the contention of Accused Officer that the said property was purchased out of the money sent by his son-in-law. This asset value can be assessed at

Rs.1,24,500/-. The evidence of PW11 clearly shows that the said property was purchased in the name of wife of Accused Officer under Ex.P45. The other stamp duty is Rs.13,695/- registration charges Rs.625/- and user charges is

Rs.105/-. With regard to the registration expenses, the expenditure is shown separately. Therefore, the asset value in the light of Ex.P45 evidence of PW11 and admission of the Accused Officer is sufficient to hold that the value of this asset is Rs.1,24,500/-.

58. ITEM No.9: This property is said to have been purchased by the

Accused Officer the house site admeasuring 170 Square yards in No.263 of

Kammapalli, Madanapalle for a sale consideration of Rs.1,23,500/- in the name of his wife Smt. Chowdeswaramma/DW5 vide Document No.6458/2004 under original of Ex.P44, dated 15.10.2004.

59. PW11 the Sub Registrar also deposed to that effect that the said registered sale deed is in the name of wife of Accused Officer for a sale consideration of Rs.1,23,500/- and the stamp duty paid was Rs.13,585/-, registration charges Rs.620/- and user charge Rs.505/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

60. The value of the asset is not disputed by Accused Officer. But it is the contention of Accused Officer that the money was sent by his son-in-law from Abroad from which this property was purchased. Therefore, the value of the Asset can be taken as Rs.1,23,500/-. At the same time, it is for scrutiny whether the money used for purchase is in fact sent by son-in-law and the same is lawful for purchase.

61. ITEM No.10: This property is a house site admeasuring 123

Square yards in No.412/2 of Koilkuntla for a sale consideration of Rs.27,100/- in the name of son of Accused Officer by name Y.Sudarsan Reddy vide

Document No.2740 of 1999 under original of Ex.P33, dated 22.10.1998.

62. PW7 deposed accordingly and stated that the said property is purchased in the name of Y.Venkata Sudarsan Reddy, Son of Accused Officer for a sale consideration of Rs.27,100/-. The stamp duty paid is Rs.3,005/- and registration fee was Rs.291/-.

63. It is also not in dispute with regard to value of the asset. The only contention of Accused Officer is that it was purchased by wife of Accused

Officer in the name of his son out of her own source of income.

64. It is for further scrutiny with regard to registration fee and stamp duty shown in expenditure but the asset as not in dispute can be valued at

Rs.27,100/-.

65. ITEM No.11: This property is an agriculture land to an extent of Ac.4.03 cents in various survey numbers of Koilkuntla village said to have purchased by Accused Officer for sale consideration of Rs.65,000/- in the name of his wife Smt. Chowdeswaramma/DW5 vide Document No.2339/2006 under original of Ex.P35, dt.27.09.2006.

66. In this regard, PW7 is examined who deposed with regard to the said property and it being in the name of wife of Accused Officer which is purchased for Rs.65,000/-. It is also stated by him that the stamp duty was paid of Rs.5,850/- and registration fee of Rs.330/- and miscellaneous was Rs.95/- spent for registration.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

67. It is the contention of Accused Officer that this property is purchased out of the money sent by his son-in-law. Therefore, the value of the asset can be held as Rs.65,000/-.

68. ITEM No.12: This item is a house site admeasuring 507 Square yards in No.119-A situated in the outskirts of Tirupati for a sale consideration of

Rs.1,95,200/- in the name of wife of Accused Officer vide Document No.1899 of 2004 under original of Ex.P37, dated 12.07.2004.

69. PW8 is examined to speak with regard to same and he deposed that his property was purchased in the name of Smt. Chowdeswaramma, wife of

Accused Officer under Ex.P37 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,95,200/- and also that Stamp duty was Rs.21,400/-, Registration fee was Rs.980/- and user charges was Rs.105/-.

70. The value of the property is not disputed. At the same time,

Accused Officer contended that it was purchased out of the money sent by his son-in-law.

71. Therefore, the value of the asset can be considered as

Rs.1,95,200/- apart from the registration expenses which are shown in the expenditure.

72. ITEM No.13: This property is a house site admeasuring 200

Square Yards in No.162/1 in B-Block of Royal Estate in Indrasen village, Medak

District for sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- in the name of wife of Accused

Officer vide Document No.1843/1993.

73. With regard to this property, no one is examined nor any sale deed is brought on record. At the same time, Accused Officer did not dispute and in fact admitted that this property is in the name of his wife and also contended that the said property is purchased out of her own funds by his wife. DW5 the wife of Accused Officer also spoke with regard to same.

74. The contentions of prosecution with regard to source of income of wife of Accused Officer needs further scrutiny, but for assessment of the value of the asset, it can be considered as Rs.2,000/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

75. ITEM Nos.14 and 15: This property is an undivided share of the land in the Apartment premises vide Flat No.307 at Mahalakshmi Homes,

Bobbagunda village, Balanagar, Hyderabad for sale consideration of Rs.18,000/- in the name of wife of Accused Officer Smt. Chowdeswaramma/DW5 vide

Document No.2987/1995.

76. The other property Item No.15 is also the undivided share in the

Apartment premises vide Flat No.307 in the same Mahalakshmi Homes for a sale consideration of Rs.2,56,000/- in the name of wife of Accused Officer vide

Document No.2987/1995.

77. The sale deeds with regard to Item No.14 and 15 are not marked, but evidently they were seized are said to be in the Made up files. Both the properties are said to belong to Accused Officer and his wife and it is contended in Ex.P78-Explanation of Accused Officer in Page 6 in Item No.14 and 15 that the wife of Accused Officer purchased item No.14 property. Later, the builder constructed Flat i.e., asset in Item No.15 as per the terms and conditions agreed and entered into. It is contended that the amount the value of the asset of Item

No.14 and 15 is only Rs.2,74,500/-. Therefore, for purchase of Item No.14 and 15 the price amount is Rs.2,74,500/-.

78. It is explained by Accused Officer in his explanation that for purchase of this property himself and his wife jointly borrowed a loan of

Rs.1,25,000/- from Vysya Bank Housing Finance, Hyderabad remaining amount was paid by wife of Accused Officer from her own source of income.

79. With regard to source of income and the contention is for scrutiny subsequently, but for value of the Asset as it is admitted it can be held as

Rs.2,74,500/-.

80. In this regard, PW13 is examined by the prosecution by which the contention of Accused Officer that he obtained loan of Rs.1,25,000/- is substantiated. This loan received is shown as income in Item No.2. At the same time, on perusal of evidence of PW13 coupled with Ex.P48 it shows that the loan was obtained in the year 1996 and the total repayment was made by 31.5.2007.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

The properties under Item No.14 and 15 shows that they were purchased in the year 1995. Therefore, it cannot be held that from out of the loan amount the said properties were purchased.

81. ITEM No.16: This property is a house site admeasuring 2.52 cents for a sale consideration of Rs.6,300/- in the name of son of Accused Officer

Y.Sudarsan Reddy vide Document No.4493/2000 under original of Ex.P19, dated 20.06.2000. This property is contended to have been purchased by wife of

Accused Officer out of her income. Therefore, the value of this asset as is not disputed is Rs.6,300/- can as such be considered.

82. ITEM No.17:

This property is household articles found in the house of Accused Officer during searches which are valued at Rs.90,360/-.

83. These household articles were seized from the residential premises of Accused Officer in Door No.16-62-11/B1 Seshappa Thota Street, Madanapalle in the presence of mediators PW1 herein by the Investigating Officer/PW46 under search proceedings Ex.P24. It is also the case of prosecution that the values of the property was given by Accused Officer and his family members.

84. On the same day, simultaneously the search was also conducted in the presence of PW3 the other mediator in the second house of Accused Officer at Door No.10-969, 1st Floor, Koilkuntla. The household articles were valued at

Rs.24,350/- by the Investigating Officer under house search proceedings Ex.P27.

The value of household articles found in Madanapalle house was valued at

Rs.66,010/-. Therefore, the total value of the household articles is assessed at

Rs.90,360/-. PW1 and PW3 and also PW46 deposed in accordance with the case of prosecution and also his search proceedings under Ex.P24 and Ex.P27.

85. The value of the household articles found in the houses of Accused officer at Madanapalli and koilakuntla. Ex.P24 pertains to search conducted in

D.No. 16-6211/B1 Seshappathota street, Madanapalli for Rs. 66,010/- and

Ex.P27 pertains to search conducted in D.No. 10-969, 1st Floor Koilakuntla for

Rs.24,390/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

In this regard, the household articles purchased from the year 1980 to 2007 by Accused officer were alone taken into consideration and mentioned the value. The other items belonging to daughter, son and gifted are not noted with regard to their valuation nor taken into consideration as the asset of Accused officer.

On perusal of Ex.P24 the household articles from main hall is valued at

Rs.7,750/- in 2nd bed room the value of the articles are seen worth Rs.20,810/- and the articles in the kitchen from 1985 to 2007 is shown worth Rs.8,350/-.

Further the value of articles in Master bed room is shown Rs.27,250/- including the value of AC in the said bed room as Rs.24,000/-.

On perusal of Ex.D34 attested ledger copy from Shriram City Union

Finance dated 27.10.2007. It shows that the AC was purchased on loan of

Rs.25,850/- from Shriramram City Union Finance on 10.5.2007. It also shows that two months EMI of Rs.2,585/- were paid which shows that Rs.5,170/- was paid. This spent amount is shown in the expenditure of Accused officer in Item

No. 47. The loan of Rs.25,850/- is shown towards Additional income of Accused officer in Item No. 27. Therefore the value of the asset AC will remain only

Rs.25,850/- and not as contended in Ex.P24 of Rs.24,000/-.

The case of prosecution could well be stated by PW.1 and PW.3, the mediators about the searches conducted and finding of the said above household articles mentioned in Ex.P24 and Ex.P27.

Further with regard to the household articles from Koilakuntla house mentioned in Ex.P27 also could be substantiated and established by the prosecution. The household articles found in the said house are noted as per the information furnished as purchased from the year 1990 to 2007. The detailed particulars of purchase with regard to each item is mentioned in Ex.P27. In the small hall found household articles worth Rs.1225/-, from kitchen cum dining hall the articles purchased from 1990 to 2007 are value as Rs.10,675/- and the household articles found in the bed room said to have been purchased from 2000 to 2007 are valued at Rs.12450/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

In total the value of the above said household articles as per the case of prosecution is shown as Rs.90,360/- but on calculation of above household articles the value of the same is found as Rs.88,510/-. This is only because the difference amount in the valuation of AC shown in Ex.P24 with that of admitted value in Ex.D34 is also added and pleaded the value of the asset as Rs.90,360/-.

Therefore the valuation as pleaded by the prosecution can be taken into consideration.

The contention of Accused officer that Rs.20,800/- worth cloths are added in the household articles which is not proper as the household expenditure includes these cloths also. No material is placed before this court to accept the contention of Accused officer that cloths includes the household expenditure of a family excluding the furniture. Therefore the contention of Accused officer is not accepted.

ITEM No.18:

86. This is the value of the asset gold and silver articles found in the house of Accused officer and also in the locker at Koilakuntla co operative town bank and it is value at Rs.654300/-.

In Ex.P24 the gold ornaments found in the house of Accused officer are mentioned. Only the items said to have purchased by Accused officer and belonging to them are mentioned. Some of the items purchased by daughter are also shown and the value of the said gold is also mentioned. The gold ornaments said to have purchased by daughter clearly mentioned in Ex.P24 in the year 2004 and in the year 2006 cannot be shown including the asset of Accused officer. The daughter of Accused officer is married in the year 1998 and left to

USA in the year 2000 itself. She has her own personal income. Therefore when evidently there is a mention that the said items were purchased by daughter of

Accused officer the value of the said items cannot be taken into consideration as asset of Accused officer.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

In serial No. 15 value Rs.9,000/-.

Serial No.16 value Rs.4,500/-

Serial No.17 value Rs.9,000/-

Serial No.19 value Rs.2,250/-

Serial No.20 value Rs.13500/-

Serial No.37 value Rs.2,250/-

The above gold ornaments evidently and said to have purchased in the year 2006 clearly mentioned in Ex.P24.

Serial No.25 value Rs.6750/-.

Serial No.29 value Rs.3600/-

The above gold ornaments said to have purchased in the year 2004 clearly mentioned in Ex.P24 are worth Rs.50,850/-. Therefore the said value of the gold cannot be shown as the asset of Accused officer.

Further Ex.P24 also shows the gold ornaments belonging to Accused officer worth Rs.1,79,350/-.

The contention of Accused officer that the parents of his wife and others in the marriage gifted 230 grams of gold cannot be considered at this stage.

Therefore the value of the gold assessed in Ex.P24 excluding the gold of their daughter is to be considered as the asset of Accused officer and his wife which is

Rs.1,28,500/- (Rs.1,79,350 – Rs.50,850/-).

Further the gold found in the locker of wife of Accused officer under

Ex.P28 is shown as 554 grams belonging to Accused officer and his wife. The value of the said gold is not mentioned in Ex.P28. In order to arrive the value of the gold the several periods of purchase of the gold is to be taken into consideration. The period of purchase is also not mentioned in Ex.P28.

The evidence of PW.46 shows that value of 554 grams mentioned in

Ex.P28 is Rs.306350/-. On calculation it is found that PW.46 shown the value of each gram at Rs.552.9. It is not in dispute that even to the date of search the value of the gold was Rs.550 per gram. Moreover the average value per gram

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 shown in Ex.P24 by the very same Investigating Officer is Rs.380/- per gram.

Therefore the said valuation cannot be taken into consideration.

In the evidence of PW.47 it is stated by him that under Ex.P88 a requisition letter was given to LW.49 Sri K. Nagaraju Setty, the Government registered value, Tirupati the gold appraiser to submit the value of the gold. His statement was also recorded wherein LW.49 given the price of 24 carats of gold by the date of marriage of their daughter in 1998 is Rs.404.50 paise and value of 22 carrots is Rs.337. The said witness LW.49 could not be examined as he died.

At the same time the evidence of PW.47 the Investigating Officer admits with regard to the valuation given by the said appraiser.

Further the gold found at the time of searches cannot be said that the same was purchased in the year 1998 only. The said gold of 554 grams found in the locker of wife of Accused officer might have purchased even prior to 1998.

Accused officer is a Public servant since 1971. His marriage took place in 1960.

In Indian Hindu culture it is not ruled out that without gold any marriages are performed. The gifts from others without any proof cannot be accepted. At the same time without presenting of reasonable gold by parents of bride and parents of bridegroom the marriage cannot be performed. For a family who had agriculture lands which is evident under Ex.D6, Ex.D7 belonging to parents of wife of Accused officer prior to marriage and also under Ex.D10 and Ex.P1

Ryotwari passbook belonging to brothers and Accused officer, presenting of gold in the marriage to the bride and bridegroom is obvious which can be presumed

as 300 grams of gold. Further it also cannot be overlooked that since 1960 from

the date of marriage of Accused officer he had no income and not purchased any gold to him nor to his wife till 1971. The said argument of Accused officer is also accepted.

Further, the contention of Accused Officer that 253 grams belongs to his wife and also that 206 grams of gold belongs to his daughter seized from locker.

The daughter of Accused Officer DW3 herein also deposed that her gold of 550 grams was kept in the locker of her mother, which appears to be exggerated. No doubt some gold found in the house also belonged to DW5. Hence, in total gold of DW5 and DW3 if considered as not purchased by Accused Officer and his wife during check period, the said gold cannot be assessed as asset.

Therefore out of 554 grams if 300 grams is deducted as obtained at the time of marriage by both Accused officer and his wife and also gold purchased from the date of marriage till Accused Officer got Job and also part of gold belonging to their daughter would meet the ends of justice in the light of contention and arguments of Accused officer. Therefore only 254 grams value can be assessed towards the asset.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Further the check period is from 1971 till 2007. There is no period of purchase mentioned in Ex.P28. The evidence of PW.47 shows the value of 22 carats (which will be in ornament shape) is Rs. 337. Therefore from the period 1971 till 2007 the average value of the gold 22 carats if observed as Rs.250/- would meet the ends of justice. Therefore the said value will be Rs.63,500/- (250x254).

Therefore the total value of asset is Rs.63,500/- + Rs.128500/- =

Rs.1,92,000/-.

87. ITEM No.19: This asset is a cash found in the house of Accused

Officer at Madanapalle during house search of Rs.25,380/-. It is the contention of Accused Officer that only Rs.15,380/- was in fact found belonging to Accused

Officer in his house at Madanapalle on the date of search. The case of prosecution is that on the date of house search of Accused Officer at

Madanapalle on 7.6.2007 Investigating Officer found Rs.75,380/- at that time

Accused Officer claimed that Rs.50,000/- belongs to his daughter DW3 herein who came from USA and she intended to offer the said amount to Sri Sai Baba

Samsthan. The said amount was returned. It is not in dispute that said amount is returned and Accused Officer contended that said amount was sent to

Annadanam fund on 22.07.2007. Therefore, only Rs.25,380/- was shown as asset. The case of prosecution with regard to return of Rs.50,000/- is not disputed and in fact stated that the said amount is sent to Annadanam fund of Sri

Saibaba Samsthan Trust, Shirdi. At the same time, contends that Rs.10,000/- belongs to daughter of Accused Officer which was given to her by son of

Accused Officer. The said fact is not explained in Ex.P78, the explanation of

Accused Officer which is given at first instance. Only during the trial such a contention is made without any basis. Only for the reason that DW1 to 3 and

DW5, Accused Officer and his family members deposed to that effect, the contention of Accused Officer cannot be held as substantiated. Therefore, this amount of Rs.25,380/- has to be considered as asset of Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

88. ITEM No.20: This asset is a cash balance in the Account of

Accused Officer in SBI, Madanapalle which is to an amount of Rs.23,112/-. In this regard, PW9 Chief Manager of SBI is examined who deposed that Accused

Officer having Account in SBI, Madanapalle vide A/c No.11008181362 had the balance of Rs.23,112/- as on 7.6.2007 the date of search. It is admitted by PW9 that it is a salary Account. At the same time, it is contended by Accused Officer that the amount shown balance is not Rs.23,112/- but in fact it is Rs.21,113/- which is also an accrued interest. To that effect, no document is placed. On perusal of Ex.P38 no such balance claimed by the Accused Officer is seen, but shown the balance as Rs.20,527/-. In the explanation Ex.P78 this item is shown as Rs.20,112/-. There is a variation in the contention of Accused Officer which cannot be accepted. The Annexure-A of the asset in Item No.20 the cash is shown as Rs.23,112/- accordingly it is deposed by PW9, but Ex.P38 is contrary.

Accused Officer failed to show that it is an accrued interest on his salary income.

Therefore, the balance seen in Ex.P38 is Rs.20,527/- is to be observed as the

Asset of Accused Officer. The down loaded Account copy under Ex.D30 is placed before this Court by Accused Officer, but no authenticity can be attached to the said document.

89. ITEM No.21: This is a cash balance in the Account of son of

Accused Officer Y.Sudarsan Reddy/DW1 herein in Koilkuntla Co-operative town

Bank Limited, Koilkuntla which is an amount of Rs.1,260/-. When DW1 is confronted with this asset, he pleaded ignorance. The evidence of PW10 Chief

Executive Officer, Koilkuntla Co-operative Town Bank Limited deposed that this

SB Account belongs to Y.V.Sudarsan Reddy, Son of Accused Officer which is an amount of Rs.1,260/-. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW10, it shows that the original deposits were made in the year 1993 and amounts were matured in the year 1998, there were five F.D.Rs in the names of Accused Officer, Son,

Daughter and wife of Accused Officer and also others. The said five deposits matured in the year 2003 and the said matured amounts were given to the

F.D.Rs in the year 2010 under Ex.P41. The total five F.D.Rs matured amount

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 was deposited in the year 1993 which was Rs.69,000/-. The said particulars are furnished in Exs.P41 and P42.

90. When DW1, son of Accused Officer denied having knowledge about the cash balance in his name in the said Bank. Accused Officer is accountable for the same. Therefore, this asset is to be valued at Rs.1,260/- .

91. ITEM No.22: This asset is also cash balance of Rs.5,691/- in the

Account of DW5 wife of Accused Officer in SBH, Madanapalle. It is stated that originally this Account was in Tirupati which was transferred to Madanapalle.

PW16 is examined to speak with regard to this item wherein he stated that the wife of Accused Officer Chowdeswaramma had Account in SBH, Madanapalle bearing No.5211598118 in which the balance of cash was Rs.5,691/- as on 17.06.2007. Ex.P50 is the attested copy of the letter, dated 13.06.2007 which shows the said balance.

92. At the same time, it is also admitted by PW16 that the said Account was originally in Tirupati, later transferred to SBH, Madanapalle. It is stated by

PW16 that he cannot say that NRI amounts were deposited in the said Account to an amount of Rs.5,45,131/-. The contention of Accused Officer that the NRI amounts were sent to the said Account in particular to SBH or SBI and the said amount is balance of the same is not clear. Ex.D38 is not clear to say whether this amount is from SBI or SBH. Therefore, with regard to assessment of the value of the asset, it can be held as Rs.5,691/-.

93. ITEM No.23: This is also a cash balance in the Account of Accused

Officer in Andhra Bank, Sanjeevareddy Nagar Branch, Hyderabad which is an amount of Rs.34,445/-. Accused Officer did not dispute with regard to the cash balance. At the same time, pleads that Item No.21 to 25 is the accrued interest on the deposits which is for scrutiny.

94. ITEM No.24: This is also a cash balance in the Account of Accused

Officer in ICICI Bank, Tirupati to an amount of Rs.67,507/-. This is not disputed that this Account is a joint Account of Accused Officer and his wife. It is the contention of Accused Officer that in the Account cash balance was only

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Rs.17,507/- in ICICI Bank and as the cheque was issued by him for Rs.50,000/- which was encashed. The asset cannot be shown as Rs.67,507/-. On perusal of the evidence of PW21 in his cross examination the said fact has been admitted by him who is a Branch Manager of ICICI Bank that by the date of 7.6.2007 (date of search) the balance in the Account of Accused Officer was Rs.17,507/-. It is the case of prosecution that as per the statement of Account, total amount credited into the Account of Accused Officer which is a foreign currency is

Rs.63,49,513/- and the total amount withdrawn from the Account was

Rs.59,31,000/-. It is also deposed by PW21 that on 7.6.2007 itself Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn from this Account and transferred to LIC Housing Finance towards loan. Therefore, the contention of Accused Officer that the cash balance in the said Account was only Rs.17,507/- can be assessed as the asset.

95. The further contention of Accused Officer is that on the said huge amount deposited from Abroad an amount of interest of Rs.15,427/- is the accrued interest and the net asset is only Rs.2,080/-. On perusal of Ex.D33

Bank Statement in spite it is not confronted with PW21, it gives sufficient information that in the said Account such huge amounts were credited and the interest accrued is also deposited into the said Account which amounts to

Rs.14,384/- (Rs.17507 – Rs.3123). Ex.D33 in spite it being a down loaded copy, it is never disputed of its authenticity.

Interest dt.3.9.2005 – Rs. 101, Interest dt.4.3.2006 – Rs.1,11,300/- Interest dt.2.9.2006 – Rs. 12,975/- Interest dt.3.3.2007 – Rs. 195/- ------------------------------ Total Rs. 14,384/- ------------------------------

Therefore, when the figures stated by PW21 also reflects in Ex.D33 the interest accrued shown can also be taken into consideration. Therefore, the cash balance said to be asset will only be Rs.3,123/- and not as contended by

Accused Officer Rs.2,080/-. At the same time, Rs.50,000/- are to be considered as expenditure of Accused Officer by the date of search.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

96. ITEM No.25: This is also a cash balance in the Account of

Accused Officer in Koilkuntla Co-operative Town Bank Limited, Koilkuntla which is an amount of Rs.5,543/-. This is claimed as a salary income by Accused

Officer and this Account being a salary Account, PW10 also deposed to substantiate the case of prosecution that the said amount of Rs.5,543/- was lying in the Account of Accused Officer. This cash balance is not disputed as an asset by Accused Officer. Thereby, the asset can be held as Rs.5,543/-.

97. ITEM Nos.26 to 30: This item is six years NSC bond

No.EE/493383, dated 21.2.2002 issued by Deputy Post Master, Chandragiri in the name of Accused Officer for Rs.10,000/-. Another NSC Bond

No.47EE/497166, dated 23.02.2002 by Sub Post Master, Society Colony,

Madanapalle in the name of Accused Officer for Rs.10,000/-. Another six years

NSC Bond No.47EE/497165, dated 23.02.2002 issued by Sub Post Master,

Society Colony, Madanapalle in the name of Accused Officer for Rs.10,000/-, Six years NSC Bond No.44CC/200443, dated 25.02.2002 issued by Sub Post

Master, Kothapalle, Done Mandal, Kurnool District in the name of Accused

Officer for Rs.10,000/-. Locker linked Fixed Deposit Receipt No.1215, dated 16.09.2005 of Koilkuntla Co-operative Town Bank Limited, Koilkuntla in the name of Accused Officer is Rs.3,000/-. The above said assets are not disputed. At the same time, pleaded that they are the salary income of Accused officer. To substantiate the said balance PW10 is examined who deposed in accordance with the case of prosecution. Thereby, Asset No.26 to 29 value is assessed as

Rs.10,000/- each and asset No.30 is valued at Rs.3,000/-. In total Rs.43,000/-.

98. ITEM No.31: This fixed deposits are valued at Rs.98,000/- in total.

These fixed deposits are dated 10.04.2003 in the name of DW1, son of Accused

Officer vide A/c No.194/16 (SVD No.4665 for Rs.33,000/-, A/c No.195/16 (SVD

No.4666 for Rs.33,000/-), Account No.196/16 (SVD No.4667 for Rs.32,000/-) in total observed as Rs.98,000/- worth asset.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

99. It is explained by Accused Officer in Ex.P78 that his wife deposited an amount of Rs.49,000/- in the name of their son on 30.03.1998 by way of Fixed

Deposit and the same was accrued of Rs.98,000/- by 2003. The said

Rs.98,000/- were re-deposited under Accounts in Asset No.31, 32, 33. The original amounts invested by the wife of Accused Officer is only Rs.49,000/- from her own source of income.

100. In this regard, PW10 is examined by prosecution to show that such

F.D.Rs were in fact deposited and they were reinvested. The evidence of PW10 shows that the original deposits were made in the year 1993 and on maturity in the year 1998 they were re-deposited and renewed in the year 2003. Ex.P41,

P42, P43 shows the details of such renewal of the F.D.Rs. On perusal of Ex.P43 the invested amount as contended by Accused Officer i.e., Rs.49,000/- clearly appears. It also shows that on 30.03.2003 they were re-invested and original date of deposit is 30.03.1998. There is no information with regard to investment in the year 1993. Therefore, the asset of Accused Officer in the name of his son is to be considered as Rs.49,000/-.

101. By the date of original investment 1998, son of Accused Officer had no personal earnings. The contention of Accused Officer that his wife invested the said amount is for scrutiny. Accused Officer and his wife are taken as one unit with regard to income. Further, Ex.D12 and D13 issued by Manager,

Koilkuntla Co-operative Town Bank, Koilkuntla also helps the case of Accused

Officer. Thereby, this asset value is observed as Rs.49,000/-.

102. ITEM No.32: This is a fixed deposit in Co-operative Town Bank,

Koilkuntla in the name of son of Accused Officer Y.V.Sudarsan Reddy for an amount of Rs.51,480/-. In this regard, Accused Officer contends that this is the money invested by his wife out of her own source in the name of their son in 1998 and it was matured into Rs.40,000/- in the year 2003 which was re-invested and the same was matured into Rs.51,480/- in the year 2006. Therefore, the original deposit of Rs.20,000/- alone is to be taken as an asset.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

103. The prosecution to substantiate its case examined PW10 who placed Ex.P41, 42 and 43. According to the same, it is evident on record under

Ex.P43 that on 11.07.1998 under F.D.No.2058 Rs.20,000/- were deposited which became Rs.40,000/- by 11.07.2003 which was again re-invested on 11.07.2006 which matured to an amount of Rs.51,480/-. The evidence to that effect is also elicited from PW10. Thereby, the contention of Accused Officer could be substantiated Ex.D12 and D13 also supports the case of Accused Officer.

Therefore, this asset is to be assessed as value at Rs.20,000/- only.

104. ITEM No.33: This is also the cash balance of Rs.14,441/- in SBH

Bank, Tirupati Account bearing No.520896983302 in the name of Accused

Officer.

105. It is the contention of Accused Officer that only an amount of

Rs.12,767/- alone is to be taken as an asset as Rs.1,674/- is the accrued interest.

106. In this regard, on perusal of the evidence of PW17 it shows that the cash balance in the said Account belonging to Accused Officer by the date of 5.6.2007 was in fact Rs.14,441/- and also that a statement to that effect is supplied by him under Ex.P51. The period of the said statement is from 2.7.2001 to 7.6.2007. At the same time, in his cross examination he admitted that

Rs.14,441/- is inclusive of interest amount of Rs.1,674/-.

107. The evidence of PW17 clearly establishes the contention of

Accused Officer. Therefore, the value of this asset can be held as only

Rs.12,767/-.

108. ITEM No.34: This asset is also cash balance of Rs.14,892/- lying in SBI, Koilkuntla in the name of Accused Officer by the date of raid.

109. The contention of Accused Officer is that this asset also to be taken as Rs.6,058/- as Rs.7,942/- is the accrued interest. This cash balance is a salary income of Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

110. In this regard, PW22 is examined. He deposed that in the Account of Accused Officer bearing No.10941968240 cash balance was only Rs.14,000/- as on the date of raid i.e., 7.6.2007. It is also elicited from PW22 in his cross examination that the Account of the Accused discloses that an amount of

Rs.7,942/- is towards accrued interest.

111. Therefore, the contention of Accused Officer could well be substantiated. At the same time, the prosecution failed to establish that the cash balance was Rs.14,892/- but could establish that it was Rs.14,000/- only cash balance in the said Account. Therefore, the value of the asset would be only

Rs.6,058/- (Rs.14,000/- - Rs.7,942/-).

112. ITEM No.35: This is also cash balance in the Post Office, Koilkuntla in the R.D. Account of the Accused Officer bearing No.103385 to an amount of

Rs.35,750/-. It is the contention of Accused Officer that this is a salary income and that Rs.35,100/- inclusive of one month extra instalment of R.D. which was not paid by the date of search i.e., on 7.6.2007. Therefore, the value of the asset shall only be Rs.35,100/-.

113. With regard to this asset PW24 is examined who admitted in the cross examination that in Ex.P55 , Serial No.1 Account (referring to the asset earnings) as Rs.650/- and that the said amount is beyond the period of 7.6.2007.

On perusal of Ex.P55 in fact shows the deposited amount as Rs.35,750/-, but the evidence of PW24 is very clear to state that it is inclusive of the month of June, instalment also which is subsequent to the date of raid i.e., 7.6.2007. The asset value is to be taken only to the date of check period. Therefore, the value of this asset was only be Rs.35,100/-.

114. ITEM No.36: This item is also the cash balance in the Post Office in R.D. Account bearing No.1032825 in the name of Accused Officer in the Post

Office, Koilkuntla which is an amount of Rs.36,300/-.

115. In this regard also the evidence of PW24 clearly reveals that one month instalment of Rs.550/- is shown credited which is beyond the period of searches. Ex.P55 in Serial No.5 clearly shows that the deposit amount is

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Rs.36,300/- including instalment of June of Rs.550/-. Therefore, one month subscription is to be subtracted from the said cash balance in the said R.D.

Account which would be the correct value of the asset. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.35,750/- is considered as the value of this asset.

116. ITEM No.37: This asset said to be belonging to wife of Accused

Officer which is cash balance of Rs.3,455/- found in the Account of wife of

Accused Officer bearing No.10941968068 of SBI, Koilkuntla.

117. It is the contention of wife of Accused Officer and also the Accused

Officer that is this amount is the personal income of wife of Accused Officer.

PW22 deposed and substantiated the case of prosecution that such amount is lying in the Account of wife of Accused Officer. Therefore, the value of the asset is to be observed as Rs.3,455/-.

118. ITEM No.38: This is also a cash deposit in the R.D. Account bearing No.1034367 in the name of wife of Accused Officer in Bus Post Office,

Koilkuntla to an amount of Rs.45,500/-.

119. To substantiate the case of prosecution, PW24 is examined and

Ex.P55 is filed which clearly goes to show that there was an amount of

Rs.45,500/- lying in the said Account of wife of Accused Officer. The contention of Accused Officer that Rs.1300/- the monthly subscription for the month of June, 2007 is inclusive of the cash in the said Account of Rs.45,500/-. The said fact is admitted by PW24 that the said one month subscription for the month of June, is shown inclusive in Ex.P55 in Serial No.2. Therefore, the correct value of this asset is to be held as Rs.44,200/-.

120. ITEM No.39:This is a cash deposit found in R.D. Account bearing No.1031473 in the name of wife of Accused Officer in R.D. Account in

Post Office, Koilkuntla for an amount of Rs.1,12,350/-.

121. This is also substantiated by PW24 in his evidence and also placed

Ex.P55 in Serial No.3. The said amount clearly reflects. The subscription amount of Rs.1,050/- is also clearly shown.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

122. PW24 admitted that the amount of Rs.1,12,350/- is inclusive of

Rs.1,050/- which is for the month of June, 2007 and which is beyond the period of searches. Therefore, the said amount is to be deducted from the said cash balance so as to assess the asset which would be Rs.1,11,300/-.

123. ITEM Nos.40 and 41: These two assets also are inclusive of one month subscription of Rs.300/- and Rs.1,100/- respectively in the name of wife of Accused Officer in R.D. Account bearing No.1032428 and R.D. Account 1034712 respectively for an amount of Rs.21,900/- and Rs.30,800/-. PW24 admitted one month subscription shown in Ex.P55 . Thereby, the said amounts are to be deducted from the said cash balance. Therefore, the value of the asset in Asset No.40 shall be Rs.21,600/- (Rs.21,900/- - Rs.300/-) and value of Asset

No.41 shall be Rs.29,700/- (Rs.30,800/- - Rs.1,100/-).

124. ITEM Nos.42 to 44: These assets are the cash deposits in Post

Office, Koilkuntla under Monthly Investment Scheme (MIS) said to have purchased in the year 2005 in the name of wife of Accused Officer for amounts of

Rs.60,000/- + Rs.60,000/- + Rs.45,000/-. PW24 is examined to substantiate the same and Ex.P55 is placed in support of the case of prosecution.

125. It is the contention of Accused Officer and wife of Accused Officer that the above said amounts were in fact not the value of the asset as the said

principal amount is the matured R.D. Accounts of wife of Accused Officer in

Account No.1031857 and 1031858 which were closed on 21.3.2005. The net amount received by wife of Accused Officer was Rs.83,958/- + Rs.79,960/- and adding to the said amount Rs.1,082/-. The instant R.D. Accounts under Asset

No.42 to 44 i.e, Account Nos.2301310, 2301311 and 2301312 deposited as

Rs.60,000/- + Rs.60,000/- + Rs.45,000/- respectively on the same date i.e., on 21.03.2005.

126. The contention of Accused Officer that the R.D. Accounts maturity amount were deposited in this Monthly Income Scheme (MIS) under Item No.42 to 44 could be established. At the same time, the subscription amounts of investment so as to exactly know the value of the asset invested by wife of

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Accused Officer prior to 2005 is not placed. Therefore, the value of the asset as such contended by Accused Officer i.e., Rs.1082/- cannot be considered and the value of the these assets are to be held as Rs.1,65,000/- only.

127. ITEM No.45: Item No.45 is the cash balance in Co-operative Bank

Account bearing No.1454 in the name of wife of Accused Officer at Koilkuntla

Co-operative Town Bank, Koilkuntla to an amount of Rs.4,017/-. To substantiate the same PW10 is examined and in support of the same, Ex.P41 to P43 is placed before this Court. He substantiated the case of prosecution with regard to the said cash balance. It is also admitted by Accused Officer with regard to the said cash balance. Therefore, value of this asset can be considered as

Rs.4,017/-.

128. ITEM No.46: This is a cash balance found in the Account of son of

Accused Officer DW1 herein in his Account bearing No.10941968137 in SBI,

Koilkuntla for an amount of Rs.3,296/-. This is substantiated by the evidence of

PW22 with regard to said cash balance in the light of Ex.P53. It is also admitted by Accused Officer with regard to said cash balance. At the same time, it is pleaded ignorance by son of Accused Officer DW1 herein about the said cash balance in his name in the said Bank. This Account said to have much earlier to the date of income source to the son of Accused Officer. Therefore, this is also to be considered as an asset of Accused Officer which is an amount of

Rs.3,296/-.

129. ITEM No.47 and 48:

This amount is a deposit in R.D. Account No.57304 and 57305 in the name of wife of Accused Officer in LSG Post Office, Koilkuntla from 5.4.2005 to 18.5.2007 which is an amount of Rs.26,000/- each respectively. Prosecution could establish this asset in the light of evidence of PW25 and Ex.P56. Accused

Officer admits the said asset in the name of his wife which is an amount of

Rs.26,000/- towards each asset and also contends that it is her own income.

Therefore, the value of this assets are to be considered as Rs.26,000/- under each Asset. In total Rs.52,000/- (Rs.26,000/- + Rs.26,000/-).

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

130. ITEM No.49:

This is an amount found in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy bearing

No.03254966 in the name of Accused Officer to an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

The said asset could be substantiated in the light of evidence of PW21 and

Ex.P52. This amount is admitted by Accused Officer as found in his name. At the same time, pleads that this amount is the deposit amount which was received from Abroad from his children. Therefore, the value of this asset shall be

Rs.3,00,000/-.

131. ITEM No.50: These amounts pertain to LIC premium amounts from the seven LIC Policies which is to an amount of Rs.4,12,363/-.

It is the case of prosecution that Accused officer paid LIC premium amounts to an amount of Rs.4,12,363/- in his name and in the name of his wife and also son during the check period.

(i) It is not in dispute that there were 7 LIC policies. No particulars of the policies have been given by the prosecution at the same time to substantiate their case the prosecution examined PW.32 who clearly deposed that Accused officer had an account bearing No. 651486564 commenced from 28.2.1996 to 22.9.2007. The premium contended is Rs.105468/-. PW.32 clearly deposed that the said amount of Rs.105468/- has been paid towards premium by Accused officer towards the said account. Therefore the value of the asset with regard to said account can be held as Rs.105468/-.

(ii) Further admittedly Accused officer had LIC account bearing No.

651079493 on his name commenced which was commenced from 28.3.1992.

PW.34 is examined to that effect who also deposed that Accused officer had the said account and the total premium paid by Accused officer is Rs.39,540/-.

Ex.P65 is filed to that effect.

(iii) Further the prosecution also to establish in the light of evidence of

PW.23 that wife of Accused officer had a LIC policy bearing No. 841705325 and the single premium paid is Rs.10,000/- on 15.2.2005. The wife of Accused officer

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 is taken as one unit therefore the asset of wife of Accused officer in the said policy is valued at Rs.10,000/-.

(iv) Further admittedly Accused officer also had LIC policy bearing No.

841706023 which was opened on 28.2.2005. The total premium paid is

Rs.55,195/- as on 7.6.2007. Therefore the total value of the asset can be observed as Rs.55,195/-.

(v) The other policy admittedly in the name of Accused officer and also deposed by PW.33 is bearing No. 71865192 commenced on 28.2.1986 for a period of 20 years. Towards the said total premium paid was Rs.34,128/- the same was matured on 28.2.2006 for Rs.41,925/-. Therefore the value of the asset can be held as Rs.34,128/-.

(vi) Further it is not in dispute that the son of Accused officer DW.1 by name Sudarsan Reddy had LIC policy account bearing No. 652101039 commenced on 25.5.1999. In this regard PW.31 clearly deposed that the total premium paid is Rs.17,791/- till 5.6.2007.

In the evidence of DW.1 it is deposed by him that he does not know the

LIC policies in his name, which goes to show that it is Accused officer who took the policy. Moreover by the date of said policy DW.1 son of Accused officer was aged 19 years which is evident on Ex.P62. No doubt the arguments of the learned counsel for Accused officer is acceptable that from the year 2001 itself he received money from Abroad from his son in law and subsequently from his son DW.1 himself which is paid can be considered. If at all it is the case of DW.1 that at the first instance his father obtained the policy later he paid the premiums.

From the total premium amount the payments made by DW.1 can be excluded as he was no more in the unit. The income of DW.1 is not shown in this case as a unit after he left to USA. The arguments of the learned counsel for Accused officer is acceptable to the extent that out of the money received from Abroad he used to pay premiums. At the same time the value of the asset is to be considered to the account of Accused officer himself. Thereby the value of this asset can be held as Rs.17,791/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

(vii) Further with regard to accounts bearing No. 651477993 in the name of Accused officer allegedly commenced on 15.10.1993 and the premium paid Rs.65,057.10 and also with regard to Account bearing No. 650471569 in the name of Accused officer. The date of commencement is not shown but the amount of the asset contended is Rs.5,349/-.

In this regard no document is placed by the Investigating Agency itself nor any relevant documents could called for by the prosecution and also that no witness is examined to establish the above said assets. Therefore the said assets allegedly of Rs.65,057.10 and Rs.5,349/- cannot be considered as assets. Therefore the total value of this asset is considered as Rs.2,62,122/-.

INCOME:

132. To the instant case, when the value of the assets is arrived it is for scrutiny to see the income as stated by the prosecution whether the same is correct.

133. ITEM No.1:

This income is said to be the salary income of Accused Officer for the check period i.e., from 16.11.1971 to 07.06.2007. The Investigating Officer arrived to a conclusion that the income of Accused Officer for the said check period is Rs.18,01,206/- and he also deposed to that effect.

134. It is the contention of Accused Officer that 51 months salary was not taken into consideration. The said fact was also explained in Ex.P78 and claimed that his income is Rs.18,74,706/- during the check period. The difference occurred due to mis-credits and the said missing credits are 7/1979 to 1/1980, 8/1980 to 11/1980, 8/1983 to 10/1983, 2/1986, 9/1986 to 3/1987, 5/1987 to 6/1987, 3/1988 to 2/1989 and 3/1989 to 4/1990 and also that D.A. arrears and

Festival advances and other advances were not taken into consideration.

Therefore, the salary income was requested to be considered as Rs.18,74,706/- tentatively.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

135. In this regard, PW46 is examined and also placed the Ex.P76 under Made-up files. The statement with regard to salary particulars is placed.

On perusal of Ex.P76 admittedly and evidently towards some of the period, there appears that the “record is destroyed” or “record is not traced”. PW46 admits that salary of the accused for the period from July, 1979 to December, 1979,

January, 1980 is not disclosed in Ex.P79 as it is shown that “records damaged”.

Likewise, August to November, 1980, September and October, 1983, September to December, 1986 and January, 1987 have not been disclosed in salary particulars due to the same reason “records damaged”. It is true that the salary has not been disclosed for the period from 01st February, 1987 to 23rd February, 1987 in the salary particulars. It has been mentioned for the period from March, 1988 to May, 1990 that “the records were not traced out”.

136. In the light of above evidence of the Investigating Officer/PW46, it clearly appears that these salary income of Accused Officer for the said admittedly missing period was not taken into consideration nor further investigating into. At the same time, Accused Officer placed Exs.D14 to D16 showing his salary income inclusive of 51 months. In spite, it has been prepared by Accused Officer himself, when Investigating Agency has not taken any steps to investigate and place missing period income, the income for the said period placed by Accused Officer which could not disproved can be accepted and the case of Accused Officer can be believed. It is to observe that Accused Officer being Public servant certainly cannot go against the record. If at all there is any material contradicting the case of Accused Officer, obviously it would have been placed. Therefore, in absence of the same, Exs.D14 to 16 can be accepted. In the explanation under Ex.P79, the amount of income claimed was Rs.18,74,706/- tentatively, thereafter, on correct calculation is placed. Accused Officer placed

Exs.D14 to D16 showing 51 months salary as well Festival advance, Education advance amounts deducted towards RD and LIC amounting to Rs.25,702/- which amounts to Rs.18,94,281/-. Further, on perusal of Ex.P76 there is a clear statement showing Rs.1,20,000/- credited towards G.P.F. loan on 19.8.2004.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

This amount is included in Rs.18,94,281/-. Therefore, the said salary income in total as contended by Accused Officer can safely be accepted.

137. ITEM No.2: This income said to have obtained by Accused Officer for housing loan from Vysya Bank Housing Finance Limited, Abids, Hyderabad vide A/c No.685/609 in the name of wife of Accused Officer for purchase of

Mahalakshmi Homes House at Hyderabad, Asset No.15. This an admitted income and also could well be substantiated by the evidence of PW13 coupled with Ex.P48. Therefore, the income of Accused Officer is held as Rs.1,25,000/-.

138. ITEM No.3: This is the income secured from Housing loan in the name of wife of Smt. Y.Chowdeswaramma/DW5 wife of Accused Officer from

LIC Housing Finance Limited, Tirupati for purchase of Velmatru Plaza Apartment,

Padmavathipuram, Tirupati, Item No.1 of the Asset. It is evident on record that the consideration of the said property under Ex.P31 is Rs.5,00,000/-. The income by way of loan obtained through A/c No.48010649 is Rs.4,80,000/-. The said fact is established by the prosecution in the light of evidence of PW27 that the Housing loan is obtained in the name of wife of Accused Officer for

Rs.4,80,000/-. The same is exhibited under Ex.P58, the statement showing the house loan amount of repayment particulars.

139. At the same time, it is stated in chief examination as well elicited in the cross examination that the wife of Accused Officer repaid an amount of

Rs.2,27,639/- by the date 7.6.2007 i.e., before check period. The said expenditure is shown in item No.11 of expenditure. This income is not disputed by Accused Officer, but in the evidence of DW5, the loan amount is stated as

Rs.5,00,000/-. The said evidence needs no consideration as evidently Ex.P58 is very much clear and also when the remaining consideration amount Rs.20,000/- and for interiors an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is withdrawn by Accused Officer. If such a discrepancy is in the evidence of DW5, it does not reflect adverse to the contention of Accused Officer. The income remains Rs.4,80,000/- only.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

140. ITEM No.4: This is the income obtained by way of Car loan purchased by wife of Accused Officer Smt. Y.Chowdeswaramma DW5 herein from Sundaram Finance Limited, Vijayawada to purchase Car bearing No.AP 03

U 6730 for Rs.2,50,000/- which Item No.7 of Assets.

141. To substantiate this fact, the prosecution examined PW37,

Manager, Sundaram Finance and also placed Ex.P67 which shows that the repayments for the said amounts of loan was Rs.10,000/- per month. (The said loan amount was discharged by 3.10.2007 which is after search. Therefore, the expenditure is to be calculated till the search period). The total repayment is

Rs.2,80,000/- by 18.06.2007 which is few days after the raid period. At the same time, it is the evidence of prosecution itself that the contract with regard to loan was closed by 21.3.2007.

142. In this regard, the prosecution could successfully establish that the income by way of Car loan is Rs.2,50,000/-.

143. ITEM No.5: This is the income secured by way of personal loan from SBI, Madanapalle by Accused Officer for an amount of Rs.2,20,000/-.

144. This income is admitted by Accused Officer as obtained by way of loan. This also could be substantiated by the prosecution in the light of evidence of PW9, who deposed that under the SB Account No.11008181362 personal loan was obtained for Rs.2,20,000/- by Accused Officer on 30.10.2006 and repaid part of the loan amount for an amount of Rs.52,470/- by 7.6.2007. The statement with regard to said particulars is placed under Ex.P38 for the period from 25.11.2006 to 13.06.2007. It is admitted by PW9 that this is a salary Account.

This repayment is also shown in Item No.41 of Expenditure. In this Account itself cash balance is shown as Rs.23,112/- by 7.6.2007 it is Item No.20 of Asset.

Therefore, for the purpose of income of Accused Officer, this is to observe that it is Rs.2,20,000/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

145. ITEM No.6: This is the income received by Accused Officer under money back policy vide Policy No.650016750 which is alleged as Rs.5,000/-.

146. This amount of Rs.5,000/- is clearly admitted by Accused

Officer/DW2 that the said amount is by way of money back policy. At the same time, Ex.D17 filed by Accused Officer himself issued by Senior Branch Manager,

LIC branch Office, Banaganapalle shows that on 15.6.1993 Rs.5,000/- were paid to Accused Officer likewise on 15.06.1998 Rs.5,000/- and on 15.6.2003

Rs.5,000/- were paid , the date of maturity i.e., final settlement was on 18.6.2008 which is beyond the check period. But within the check period, it shows that

Rs.15,000/- were received by Accused Officer under money back policy. Ex.D17 could not be disputed on its authenticity with any material. Therefore, the income of Accused Officer under this money back policy is to be considered as

Rs.15,000/- and not as Rs.5,000/-.

147. ITEM No.7: This income is also by way of money back policy vide Policy No.651486564 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

148. In this regard, PW32 Chief Manager, LIC is examined who clearly deposed that this policy was commenced on 28.02.1996 and expired on 28.02.2011. Ex.P63 gives detailed particulars of this money back policy. It is admitted by PW32 that an amount of Rs.25,000/- in the year 2001 and also

Rs.25,000/- in the year 2006. Altogether was Rs.50,000/- paid to the Accused

Officer under money back policy. The total amounts paid by Accused Officer was Rs.1,05,462/- at the rate of Rs.2244/- per month under 47 installments.

Therefore, the income evidently is Rs.50,000/- and as it is not disputed, it is to observe that the income of Accused Officer is Rs.50,000/-.

149. ITEM No.8: This is the income of Accused Officer from LIC

Account bearing No.71865192 which is matured for an amount of Rs.56,925/-.

This is shown in Asset No.50.

150. In this regard, the prosecution examined PW33. In his evidence, the total amount paid in the light of Ex.P64 could not be stated properly thereby in his cross examination, it is evidently elicited that under this Money back policy,

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 the accused officer received Rs.5,000/- on 28.2.1991, 28.2.1996 and also on 28.2.2001 in total Rs.15,000/- received. Further, admitted that as per Ex.P64 their branch paid Rs.41,925/- on 28.02.2006 on the maturity of the policy to the

Accused Officer. Thereby, the total received sum by Accused Officer is

Rs.56,925/-. Therefore, the case of prosecution that Accused Officer had income of Rs.56,925/- is admitted and evident. At the same time, the said amount been paid during 20 years period. But the income of the Accused Officer is to be assessed as Rs.56,925/-. This policy being for 20 years is not in dispute which is in fact stated by PW33 himself.

151. ITEM No.9: This income is the income of Accused Officer from the amount received under LIC Policy on maturity of Policy No.651079493, dated 29.03.2007. This is also shown in Asset No.50.

152. The evidence of PW34 clearly shows that there was such policy in the name of Accused Officer. It is also stated by Accused Officer that the accused paid the total premium amount of Rs.39,540/-. Nothing could be deposed with regard to maturity amount by 28.03.2007. It is elicited in the cross examination that an amount of Rs.39,690/- was paid to Accused Officer on 28.03.2007 and also Rs.7,500/- on two occasions i.e., on 21.2.1997 and on 21.2.2002 in total Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, in total Accused Officer received

Rs.54,690/- (Rs.39,690/- + Rs.15,000/-). Therefore, the total income out of the said LIC Policy is not Rs.47,190/-, but the same is Rs.54,690/-.

EXPENDITURE:

153. ITEM No.1: It is the case of prosecution that during the check period Accused officer ought to have spent Rs.6,59,210/- towards household expenditure. PW.46 the Investigating Officer deposed accordingly.

154. It is the contention of Accused officer that from 1971 from the date of his appointment as a public servant till 1990 he resided in the Joint Family along with his other brothers and parents. Thereby his father met with all expenditure of the family. From 1991 only he met with household expenditure.

He calculated per unit as Rs.200.48 per month.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

It is argued upon by the learned spl. PP that as per Central Statistics Data per unit Rs.268.86 is to be calculated. Thereby the contention of Accused officer cannot be considered and also that there is no document nor any proof to believe that Accused officer with his family resided in the Joint family.

155. PW.6 the mother of Accused officer, who is declared hostile to the case of prosecution, deposed that Accused officer along with his family were residing in the joint family. Nothing could be stated by her that her husband father of Accused officer met with total family expenditure. The evidence of

DW.2/ Accused officer and his wife DW.5 alone is not sufficient to believe that the total expenditure was met by father of Accused officer from 1971 till 1991.

Therefore the total household expenditure is believed to have been spent by

Accused officer.

156. In order to assess the expenditure the arguments of learned counsel of Accused officer is to be considered that the expenditure cannot be shown as argued upon the learned Spl Public Prosecutor as in the instant case already the value of all the expenditure with regard to purchase of cloths,

expenditure towards newspaper, gas, maintenance of the house,

education, flight ticket, rents of the house, House Tax, Purchase of mobile phone, marriage expenses are all considered. Therefore only for food and other miscellaneous expenditure even the self assessment of household expenditure given under Ex.D41 which is Rs.2,97,432/- is more. The household expenditure during check period from 1971 to 2007, it is alleged by the Investigating Agency that the expenditure of Accused Officer for himself and his family members taken as a unit is Rs.6,59,210/-.

157. In the light of arguments of the learned counsel for Accused officer when all other expenditure is already shown again contending the expenditure per unit at Rs.268.86 appears to be very high. Moreover no document pertaining to Central Statistics Data is placed before this court. Further it is admitted and evident in evidence that daughter of Accused officer got married in the year 1998 and resided outside and also went to USA in 2000 year. Son of Accused officer

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 left India in the year 2001. Therefore the expenditure as per the Central Statistics

Data at Rs.200.48 per month is very high for maintenance of Accused officer and his wife alone which is till 7.6.2007,

To the instant case as it is evident on record that till 1998 for daughter and towards son only till 2001 Accused officer and his wife met with children expenditure, thereby the average expenditure for the check period admitted by

Accused Officer himself can be assessed. Therefore if the household expenditure is considered at Rs.2,97,432/- it would meet the ends of justice.

158. Item No.2: This is the expenditure of Rs.2,58,518/- towards registration charges, Stamp duty, User charges during the check period.

159. In this regard, Accused Officer contends that only Item No.9 of the

Asset towards Stamp duty, Registration fee was met by Accused Officer which is

Rs.15,000/- only. At the same time, expenditure admitted as Rs.2,43,518/- towards the registration charges and stamp duty is also admitted as spent. It is the contention that the said expenses were met by his wife DW5 herein.

Therefore, the amount of expenditure of Rs.2,58,518/- which is admitted can be held as spent towards stamp duty, Registration charges, user charges. Both

Accused Officer and his wife are considered as one unit.

160. Item No.3: Item No.3 which is a processing charges of LIC loan

Rs.5,400/- met by wife of Accused Officer is not disputed. The said fact is established and substantiated in the light of evidence of PW27 and DW5. At the same time, on scrutiny of evidence of PW27 it is very much clear that the wife of

Accused Officer repaid an amount of Rs.2,27,639/- towards loan amount of

Rs.4,80,000/-. It is also in particular deposed that an amount of Rs.2,27,639/- is inclusive of processing fee of Rs.5,400/- . Therefore, when Item No.11 is considered as an expenditure, this needs no consideration as it is already included. Therefore, NIL expenditure is recorded towards this item.

161. Item No.4 to 6: The expenditure met towards payment of insurance for 2004-2005 Rs.14,784/-, Rs.11,010/- for 2005-2006, Rs.9,683/- towards 2006-2007 is also not disputed and is admitted. The said fact could also

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 be substantiated by prosecution in the light of evidence of PW38 coupled with

Ex.P68. Therefore, the expenditure can be held as Rs.14,784/- for 2004-2005,

Rs.11,010/- for 2005-2006 and Rs.9,683/- for 2006-2007.

162. Item No.7: Loan repayment. This is the amount spent towards repayment of loan amount obtained from Sundaram Finance towards purchase of Ambassador Car. It is stated by PW37 that the total payment made by wife of

Accused Officer is Rs.2,80,000/- which is not disputed. Therefore, the expenditure towards the loan repayment from 2004-2007 can be held as

Rs.2,80,000/-.

163. Item No.8: This is an amount of Rs.11,010/- said to be paid towards health insurance policy.

164. In this regard, Accused Officer contended that this is a double entry of Item No.5 of expenditure. On perusal of Item No.5, the said amount is an amount of rs.11,010/- which is similar to the amount in Item No.5 of expenditure.

Moreover, no document, no bond nor any bill for that is placed before this Court except the oral evidence of PW46, the Investigating Officer. Therefore, this expenditure alleged by the prosecution cannot be taken into consideration as the prosecution failed to establish the said expenditure.

165. Item No.9: This amount said to have spent from the year 2004 to 2007 for quarterly payment of taxes towards Ambassador Car. This is admitted by Accused Officer and wife of Accused Officer. Evidently and admittedly the said Ambassador Car upon which quarterly tax has been paid admittedly is in the name of wife of Accused Officer. It is contended that the said amount is paid out of own source of income by wife of Accused Officer. The said aspect is for further scrutiny. But as the expenditure is admitted, the said expenditure can be held under one unit of Rs.3,520/-.

166. Item No.10: This is an amount of Rs.1,275/- spent for temporary registration charges for the Ambassador Car in the year 2004. This is also admitted to have been spent. Therefore, the expenditure is held as Rs.1,275/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

167. Item No.11: This is an amount of Rs.2,38,573/- spent for loan repayment to LIC Housing Finance Limited.

168. This is substantiated by the prosecution in the light of evidence of

PW27 coupled with Ex.P58. In this regard, the evidence of PW27 is very clear that the loan was obtained. At the same time, the repayment is specifically stated as Rs.2,27,639/- which is inclusive of processing fee of Rs.5,400/-.

Therefore, the total expenditure with regard to repayment of LIC loan is to be held as Rs.2,27,639/- only. This aspect of double accounting of expenditure is not pleaded by Accused Officer to the reasons best known to him.

169. Item No.12: This amount of Rs.2,50,302/- is an amount spent towards repayment of loan amount to Vysya Housing Finance Limited from the period 1998 to 2007. In furtherance of the case of prosecution, PW13 is examined who deposed in accordance with case of prosecution. At the same time, it is deposed by him in his chief examination itself that the total sum repaid by Accused Officer is Rs.2,45,862/- by 31.5.2007. This loan was obtained for

Rs.1,25,000/- which is shown in Item No.2 of the income. Ex.P48 is very clear to the said fact. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also argued that this expenditure can be held as Rs.2,45,862/-. Thereby, the same is considered as expenditure towards this item.

170. Item No.13: This is an expenditure allegedly met by Accused officer towards education of his son who studied B.Tech., at RGM College of

Engineering, Nandyala from 1997 to 2001 which is for an amount of Rs.72,850/-.

This expenditure is admitted by Accused Officer in Ex.P78 page 23 in Item No.22 and also admitted before the Court by Accused Officer/DW2 and his wife DW5.

Therefore, the expenditure towards education of son of Accused Officer can be held as Rs.72,850/-. It is contended by Accused Officer that this amount is spent out of salary income of Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

171. Item No.14: This is also an admitted amount of Rs.1,950/- spent by Accused Officer towards studying of C++ towards his son. This fact has been admitted in Ex.P78 explanation as well before the Court by Accused Officer as

DW2. Therefore, the expenditure can be held as Rs.1,950/-.

172. Item No.15 and 16: These are the amounts of Rs.8,492/- spent towards electricity charges for the house at Madanapalle and Rs.1,681/- towards

HP Gas connection which is also not in dispute and admitted by Accused

Officer/DW2. Therefore, the expenditure for electricity is held as Rs.8,492/- and

Rs.1,681/- towards HP Gas.

173. Item No.17: This is an amount of Rs.69,000/- said to have been spent for purchase of flight ticket to go to USA by wife of Accused Officer .

PW42 the counter staff in Atluri Travel AIR, Hyderabad who deposed that the said flight ticket was purchased during the period of N.V.Seshagiri Rao, the then

Accounts Manager. The ticket was issued by their travels in the name of

Y.Chowdeswaramma who purchased AIR ticket from Hyderabad to Houston of

Texas State, USA through Lusthaja AIR ways. The purchase value evidently and admittedly does not reflect in Ex.P72, the letter issued by the travels. At the same time, as the purchase value of Rs.69,000/- is not disputed, the same value can be considered towards expenditure.

174. At the same time, it is the contention of wife of Accused Officer as well Accused Officer that wife of Accused Officer obtained loan from one

P.Ramesh Babu for Rs.2,25,000/-. Out of which, wife of Accused Officer spent this amount. The said amount is shown in Item No.14 of additional income and also explained for expenditure of Item No.45. The said P.Ramesh Babu is examined as DW6. He deposed in support of contention of Accused Officer.

DW6 was working as Bill Collector in Panchayat Raj Department, Tiruchanuru. It is also stated by DW6 that a promissory note is got executed from wife of

Accused Officer in advancing the said loan by him. In his cross examination it is elicited that during August, 2005 his salary was Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The said amount was not in his Bank Account. It is voluntarily stated by DW6 as he

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 was in joint family and he had agricultural land also, the said amount was the proceeds of agriculture. He has no such document. Admittedly Accused Officer was Superior Officer to him. He has not shown the said amount in Income Tax

Returns nor Annual Property Statement nor informed to Superior Officers about lending of money to wife of Accused Officer.

175. On scrutiny of evidence of DW6 it appears that he is not a money lender. It is voluntarily stated that he had agriculture lands and the amounts lent to wife of Accused Officer is the proceeds from agriculture lands. Only for the reason that, he has not shown the said transaction in the Income Tax Returns nor informed to his Superior authorities, the said transaction cannot be suspected. DW6 is also the Government Official, he cannot venture to speak falsehood and show his unnecessary income. It is for the I.T. Returns

Department and his own Department to probe into the case of DW6 and his financial capacity. But to the instant case, the evidence of DW6 is sufficient to believe the hand loan received by wife of Accused Officer. Further, the arguments of learned counsel for Accused Officer that on completion of the transaction, the promissory notes would obviously be cancelled and torn is an acceptable argument. It is the evidence of DW6 that the said borrowed amount was returned to him by wife of Accused Officer along with the interest to an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- by way of cheque of ICICI Bank. Further, the said amount is shown by the prosecution itself in Expenditure Item No.36. Therefore, this expenditure of Rs.69,000/- can be considered, but only on deduction from

Rs.2,60,000/-.

176. Item No.18: This is an admitted expenditure of Rs.18,801/- towards house taxes of Item No.3 and 5 of Asset from the period 1984 till 2007.

This is substantiated by the evidence of PW40 coupled with Ex.P70 by the prosecution. In spite the expenditure is admitted, it is the contention of Accused

Officer that the said amount is paid out of rental income of his wife. The said aspect is for scrutiny at a later stage. Therefore, the expenditure can be recorded as Rs.18,801/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

177. Item Nos.19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32: These are the expenses of Rs.14,764/- towards telephone charges for the house at

Madanapalle, Rs.500/- towards payment to Red Cross Society, Rs.2,249/- towards Diabetic medicines by Accused Officer, Rs.316/- towards Donation to

Subrahmanyaswamy, dated 15.11.1992 , Rs.1,000/- towards Subscription to

Vaartha Telugu Daily Newspaper, dated 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007, Rs.500/- to

BSNL Telephone Connection, Rs.1116/- towards donation to Rayalaseema

Reddy Jana Sankshema Samithi, dated 24.01.2004, Rs.1,000/- towards Sri

Shirdi Saibaba Sansthan, dated 30.08.2006, Rs.6,000/- dated 28.1.2007 towards

Vanajarao Quick Marriage Private Limited, Rs.1,000/- dated 6.6.2007 towards donation to CPI, Rs.516/- dated 30.05.2007 donation to CITU, Rs.1,947/- payment to Hotel Rukmini Rivera, dated 19.11.2005. All the above expenditure is admitted. But on scrutiny of Item No.24, the subscription amount paid towards

Vaartha Telugu Daily Newspaper which is Rs.1,000/- for the period from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2007. In spite it been admitted by Accused Officer as it is beyond check period only Rs.500/- will be taken into consideration as expenditure. With regard to other items, admitted expenditure as taken into consideration as per the case of prosecution which is Rs.14,764/-. Item No.19 –

Rs.500/-, Item No.20 – Rs.2,249/-, Item No.21 – Rs.316/-, Item No.23 – Rs.500/- , Item No.24 – Rs.500/-, Item No.26 – Rs.1116/-, Item No.27 – Rs.1000/-, Item

No.28 – Rs.6000/-, Item No.29 – Rs.1,000/-, Item No.30 – Rs.516/-, Item No.31 and Item No.32 – Rs.1,947/-.

178. Item No.22: This is an expenditure incurred by Accused officer spent towards payment of membership and maintenance charges of Flat No.4G in Sri Velmathre Plaza Apartment to an amount of Rs.11,200/-.

179. In this regard, Accused Officer admitted to have paid membership fee of Rs.5,000/-, but denied the expenditure of Rs.6,200/- towards monthly maintenance charges in the Apartment that Accused Officer received rents and shown the rents in the income. At the same time, on perusal of the show cause notice, it shows that the rental income shown is towards six portion house at

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Koilkuntla village, Kurnool District. This property is situated in Tirupati. The documents collected shows clear payment of the said amount. If at all the tenant has paid such an amount it would be with the tenant. Moreover, Accused

Officer in his explanation admitted this expenditure in total in his

explanation in page 24 Item 31 in Ex.P78. Therefore, the expenditure in this regard is held as Rs.11,200/-.

180. It is the case of prosecution that they collected a receipt No.450,

dated 3.9.2006 issued by the Association and another letter, dated 6.11.2007

showing maintenance charges and also deposed by PW46 as such. It is also stated that Accused Officer spent an amount of Rs.5,000/- for water pipeline and

Rs.6,200/- for maintenance. No document is brought on record towards the same pipeline.

181. It is the acceptable argument of the learned Special Public

Prosecutor that in the I.T. Returns, wife of Accused Officer in whose name the said Apartment stands has submitted her residential address as 4-74/1/4G Sri

Velmatre Plaza, Padmavathipuram, thereby, it is observe that Flat is in occupation of Accused Officer and his wife. Therefore, the maintenance charges also to be held as paid by Accused Officer.

182. Item No.25: This is an expenditure incurred by Accused Officer towards purchase of Samsung Cell phone which is an amount of Rs.2,500/- vide

Bill No.2121, dated 1.6.2007 which was seized during searches. In this regard , no document is brought on record except the oral evidence of PW46. In spite of the same, in the light of admission of Accused Officer in his explanation in

Ex.P78 in Page 25 with regard to purchase of the said cell phone the expenditure can be calculated at Rs.2,500/-. At the same time, the contention of Accused

Officer that this expenditure towards purchase of cell phone includes household expenditure cannot be accepted. The household expenditure shown by the

Investigating Agency as per the guidelines Central Statistics Data is only

Rs.268.86 does not include electrical appliances. Therefore, the said argument can be accepted. At the same time, the arguments of learned counsel for

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Accused Officer that the said bill is in the name of some other person Sri

Y.V.Subba Rao, instead of Y.V.Subba Reddy. Thereby, the said expenditure cannot be calculated towards Accused Officer cannot be accepted. The said seizure of the said receipt is made from the house of Accused Officer. Moreover,

Accused Officer admitted the said purchase in his explanation as well

before the Court on oath. Therefore, the said expenditure is to be taken into

consideration.

183. Item No.33: This is an expenditure allegedly incurred by Accused

Officer towards extra fittings to the Car purchased by him in the name of his wife for an amount of Rs.21,000/- to the Car bearing No.AP 03 U 6730. In this regard, PW35 /Motor Vehicle Inspector is examined who deposed that the total costs of the vehicle and other extra fittings of the said vehicle is furnished by him under Ex.P66 report, dated 9.7.2007. It is also stated that he has mentioned the total costs of the said vehicle along with the extra fittings is Rs.1,75,990/-. In his cross examination he admits that he failed to place nor enclose the costs of diesel for the years 2004 to 2007 and also did not give test mileage of the vehicle per liter. He has not taken photograph of Odometer to prove the mileage of total reading of 68,281 Kms run by the vehicle as mentioned in Ex.P66. Admittedly, the said Ambassador Car is a Motor Cab for hire purchase. By this evidence, it is to be presumed that the Car is for commercial purpose and not for private use.

Further, on perusal of Ex.P66 towards extra fittings mentioned in Column No.8 under several heads Rs.21,000/- is shown. It is the contention of Accused

Officer that the said Car was given on rent to Srinivasa Travels by his wife in whose name the said Car was. Ex.D28 a note book submitted along with the explanation under Ex.P789 by Accused Officer at the very first instance which shows that there was a rental contract in between wife of Accused Officer and

Srinivasa Travels, Tirupati.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

184. The arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor that no one from Srinivasa Travels are examined to speak with regard to Ex.D28. No lease agreement is placed before this Court. Therefore, it cannot be held that the said amount of Rs.21,000/- is not spent by Accused Officer towards extra fittings.

185. On scrutiny of the case facts, no doubt it discloses in the evidence of PW35 that the Car was used for the purpose of Motor cab. In spite, when there is no substantial evidence to show that the extra fittings were got fitted by the Srinivasa Travels to whom the Car was rented, the said amount is to be presumed as met by the owner of the Car who is wife of Accused Officer herein.

No doubt, Ex.D28 is placed before the Investigating Officer at first instance along with explanation. It will be for scrutiny separately as the fact of extra fittings does not contain in Ex.D28. Moreover, in page 26 of Ex.P78 an amount of Rs.19,200/- towards extra fittings of Tape Recorder is admitted by Accused Officer. Ex.D28 does not disclose with regard to extra fittings to be borne by the tenant.

Therefore, the amount of Rs.21,000/- towards expenditure is to be considered towards the unit of Accused Officer.

186. Item No.34: This is an expenditure incurred by Accused Officer to an amount of Rs.2,346/- for service of the Car bearing No.AP 03 U 6730 Asset

No.7, the Ambassador Car to which extra fittings under Item No.33 expenditure is also held positively to the case of prosecution. Similarly, towards this expenditure also it is not disputed by Accused Officer in his explanation Ex.P79.

But pleads that the said amount is paid by his wife.

187. At the same time, it is pleaded before the Court that the Srinivasa

Travels to whom the Car was rented, the services were got done by them. To the instant case, as it is admitted in the explanation, it cannot be accepted that the service of the Car expenditure will be borne out by the owner of the Car which is a universal truth. DW5 wife of Accused Officer clearly deposed before the Court that the maintenance was borne by Srinivasa Travels for the said Car.

With regard to extra fittings, in Item No.33 it is presumed that owner will bear such extra fittings. Therefore, the said expenditure is shown towards Accused

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Officer. But to the service done to the Car cannot be presumed as will be got done by the owner of the Car whenever it is required. Therefore, the said expenditure contended by Investigating Agency is not accepted and recorded as

NIL.

188. Item No.35: This is an amount of Rs.26,60,000/- spent by

Accused Officer given to one Sri Leelamohan Naidu.

189. In this regard, Accused Officer admitted this expenditure. At the same time, it is pleaded that he repaid Rs.22,60,000/- to the said Leelamohan

Naidu. It is the contention of Accused Officer that he intending to purchase a site at Tirupati from Leelamohan Naidu. His wife paid such amount but as it was not materialized, Rs.22,60,000/- was returned back to Accused Officer and his wife and the sale agreement in between them was returned to Leelamohan Naidu.

The said sale agreement could not be materialized as Leelamohan Naidu was leaving to USA. The remaining amount Rs.4,00,000/- includes Rs.2,00,000/- borrowed by wife of Accused Officer from Leelamohan Naidu which is shown in

additional income. Thereafter, the said Rs.2,00,000/- were paid along with

interest of Rs.2,00,000/-. Therefore, Rs.4,00,000/- was not repaid to Accused

Officer and his wife. Therefore, the expenditure of only Rs.4,00,000/- is to be shown towards this item.

190. On perusal of the record, it is established that six cheques worth

Rs.26,60,000/- were issued from the Account of Accused Officer in ICICI Bank,

Tirupati to Leelamohan Naidu. It is not in dispute that the said Account is joint

Account of Accused Officer and his wife. It is also not in dispute that to the said

Account, foreign money was deposited. The evidence of DW7 said to be a mediator to the alleged agreement in between Accused Officer and Leelamohan

Naidu is examined. It is deposed by him accordingly that Accused Officer and

Leelamohan Naidu know much prior to transactions. It is stated that Accused

Officer requested him for a loan amount in the year 2001, but he did not give.

Thereafter, he has taken Accused Officer to Leelamohan Naidu and the Accused officer was given Rs.2,00,000/-by said Leelamohan Naidu. A promissory note

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 was got executed in this regard. Thereafter, Accused Officer repaid the loan amount along with interest in total Rs.4,00,000/- in the year 2006. In the year 2006 itself Accused Officer intended to purchase house site from Leelamohan

Naidu for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- under the sale agreement and

Rs.22,60,000/- were given under the agreement. Later, on verification it was found that the said land is a DKT Patta, thereby Accused Officer spoken to

Leelamohan Naidu that he do not wish to purchase and sought for refund of the amount with interest. DW7 was the mediator to the transactions and he requested to pay the said principal amount, thereby Leelamohan Naidu repaid the said amount to Accused Officer.

191. On scrutiny of cross examination made by Special Public

Prosecutor it is found that there is no document in support of his evidence. It is already the case of DW7 that the agreement in between them was cancelled which goes to show that the same will be non existing with regard to other particulars of Encumbrance Certificate and other aspects, DW7 would not have any knowledge, the reason for borrowing amount from Leelamohan Naidu prior to agreement is stated that as Accused Officer intended to send his son Abroad such amount was borrowed.

192. It is argued upon by the prosecution that when by the year 2006

Accused Officer got foreign money, there cannot be any necessity to borrow amounts from Leelamohan Naidu. But to the instant case, the evidence of DW7 shows that in the year 2001, the amount was sought from him towards loan by

Accused Officer. DW2 Accused Officer herein also deposed that he obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2001 from said Leelamohan Naidu. Therefore, borrowing of amount in the year 2004 does not arise. It is in the year 2001.

193. No doubt, in the instant case, a huge amount was paid to

Leelamohan Naidu which ought to have been informed to the higher authorities.

At the same time, this being an amount spent by Accused Officer it would not presume to be the amount from ill-gotten money until it is established. Moreover,

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 in the Account of ICICI Bank, foreign money was deposited. Therefore, the amount if any given by Accused Officer under cheques would not amount to not lawful money until such foreign money is not believed. The evidence of DW7 clearly shows that the remaining amount of Rs.22,60,000/-were repaid to

Accused Officer by Leelamohan Naidu in the year 2006 itself. To that effect, it is not in dispute as the said amount is paid by way of cheque.

194. It is not the case of Accused Officer nor his wife and also is not the case of Investigating Agency that Accused Officer or his wife ever reclaimed said amount. If at all it is repaid and the balance of Rs.4,00,000/- is kept with

Leelamohan Naidu towards due from wife of Accused Officer, there would not be any claim, otherwise from 2006 till the check period June, 2007 Accused Officer and his wife ought not to have kept quiet and obviously would have taken legal action. Moreover, the contention has been explained in the explanation of

Accused Officer under Ex.P79. The income of Rs.2,00,000/- is also shown by

Accused Officer in his additional income. Therefore, the contention of Accused

Officer that Rs.4,00,000/- alone is to be shown towards expenditure can be considered and accepted.

195. Item No.36: This is the expenditure met by Accused Officer paid to

Ramesh Babu of an amount of Rs.2,60,000/-.

196. This expenditure is admitted as Rs.2,25,000/- taken towards loan from Ramesh Babu in the year 2005 which amounted to Rs.2,60,000/-in the year 2006 along with interest. This amount is repaid through cheques on various occasions by wife of Accused Officer from ICICI Bank.

197. In this regard, the said P.Ramesh Babu/DW6 is examined who clearly deposed that the principal amount of Rs.2,25,000/- was borrowed by wife of Accused Officer which was returned by her with interest amounting to

Rs.2,60,000/- by way of cheques of ICICI Bank. It is also stated by him that a promissory note was got executed from her at the time of lending of money and on receipt of the loan amount, the said promissory note was torn.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

198. It is already observed above in Item No.17 that the principal amount as contended by Accused Officer was believed to have been borrowed by wife of

Accused Officer in the light of evidence of DW6. Moreover, if at all Accused

Officer and his wife have given Rs.2,60,000/- to DW6 towards nothing, there is no question that any prudent person would keep quiet without seeking return of the said amount. This transaction happened in the year 2006. Till 2007 June, no action is taken by Accused Officer nor his wife seeking repayment. If at all this amount is given towards the debt towards a person, then only a prudent person would keep quiet. Moreover, DW6 himself being a Government employee appeared before this Court and deposed that with regard to his sources and lending of money so boldly. These transactions are explained by Accused

Officer in his explanation in Ex.P79. In this regard, Investigating Officer PW46 not taken any steps nor examined DW6 admittedly. Therefore, this amount can be accepted as expenditure but deducting expenditure under Item No.17 which is

Rs.69,000/- which is Rs.1,91,000/- (Rs,.2,60,000/- - Rs.69,000/-) as no double entry of expenditure can be shown.

199. Item No.37: This is an amount of Rs.5,60,000/- said to be the payments made to the brother of Accused Officer by name Y.Muralimohan

Reddy.

200. This amount is also admitted by Accused Officer and contends that this amount is paid to his brother DW4 herein towards the loan obtained by his wife for the purpose of her business and other expenditure for an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-. The said Rs.5,00,000/- was repaid along with interest of

Rs.60,000/- through a cheque to his brother. This amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is shown towards additional income of his wife in Serial No.15 as this is a joint

Account in ICICI Bank with his wife Accused Officer issued the said cheques.

DW4 brother of Accused Officer Retired Army Officer deposed in accordance with the contention of Accused Officer. Admittedly, there is no document to show that wife of Accused Officer borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from brother of Accused

Officer DW4 has not submitted any Income Tax Returns to that effect.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

201. Similar to the observations above made no one would keep quiet without seeking of repayment if at all he is not due to pay in this case also in spite the amount paid in the year 2006 by cheque bearing No.570281 on 10.6.2006 if at all for no reason, the amounts were given to the brother of

Accused Officer. Certainly, the said amount ought to have sought back by wife of Accused Officer or Accused Officer. Therefore, the evidence of DW4 and the contention of Accused Officer are accepted and the expenditure is accepted as

Rs.60,000/- only,

202. Item No.38: This is an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-paid to Doraswamy

Naidu in the year 2007. The evidence of PW44 by way of cheques ICICI Bank,

Tirupati towards leveling and for compound wall etc.

203. PW44 is examined who deposed accordingly this amount of expenditure is not disputed and also admitted in Ex.P78 explanation. At the same time, states that this expenditure incurred by his wife for her property in

Asset No.6. PW44 is not cross examined and his evidence is left unchallenged.

204. In the light of admission and the evidence of PW44, the expenditure towards leveling and raising compound wall in Asset No.6 can be held as

Rs.3,00,000/-. Asset No.6 is in the name of daughter and son of Accused

Officer on 18.12.2006 which is after receipt of foreign money.

205. Item No.39: This is an expenditure of Rs.6,00,000/- of cash withdrawal by Accused Officer from ICICI Bank, Tirupati by way of self cheque.

This withdrawal is admitted by Accused Officer in his explanation Ex.P78. At the same time pleads that on behalf of his wife, the same was withdrawn and spent this amount for expenditure in Item No.2, 3 and 20 belonging to his wife.

206. The prosecution in this regard has not shown any other investments by way of expenditure by Accused Officer or his wife. Only for the reason that a cash withdrawal is made, the same cannot be considered as expenditure. The expenditure shown in Item No.2, 3 and 20 of Ex.P78 which relates to the Registration charges, stamp duty, user charges which is an admitted expenditure by Accused Officer of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.2,40,503/- by

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 wife of Accused Officer. But the actual expenditure found in Item 2 is

Rs.2,58,518/-. The Account in which the foreign money fell is the ICICI Bank from which Rs.6,00,000/- were withdrawn. Therefore, this amount of expenditure can be deducted from the said Rs.6,00,000/-.

207. Further, it is contended that Rs.1,00,000/- is spent towards interior decorations to the Asset No.1 as Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, this amount can also be deducted.

208. Further, Item No.20 of Ex.P78 relates to Item No.11 of expenditure shown here which is an amount of Rs.2,27,639/-. Item No.11 is with regard to clearing of housing loan to LIC Housing Finance. Therefore, the contention of

Accused Officer that he spent the amount for clearing of housing loan of

Rs.2,27,639/- can also be accepted as used the money withdrawn by him of

Rs.6,00,000/-. But not Rs.2,38,573/- as contended by Accused Officer. The total amount used towards this expenditure is Rs.5,86,157/- (Rs.2,58,518/- +

Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.2,27,639/-). The remaining amount of Rs.13,843/- ought to have spent towards other expenditure mentioned by Investigating Officer himself towards movable assets. Therefore, this Rs.6,00,000/- withdrawn by Accused

Officer cannot be accepted as the expenditure.

209. Item No.40: This is the expenditure made towards maintenance of

Ambassador Car for Rs.1,50,195/-. This is contended by Accused Officer that

Srinivasa Travels were obligated to bear all the maintenance and expenses of the said Car. The income of wife of Accused officer upon this Ambassador Car is only Rs.10,000/- per month. Ex.D28 clearly shows that installation of new tyres, over oiling shall be borne out by the owner. Accused officer admits Ed.D28. The evidence of PW35/Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that there was extra fittings and maintenance expenditure towards expenditure in Ex.P66. The said amount of Rs.1,50,195/- is shown clearly in Column No.9. It is elicited in the evidence of

PW35 that he did not file any proof to show the average cost of diesel for

Rs.32.50 ps in the years 2004 to 2007. The exact rate of diesel cannot be shown, but it is an average cost shown. The engine oil and oil fitters and cost of

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 diesel need not be borne out by the owner. It is the only condition that for replacement of tyres, over oiling shall be borne by the owner. Obviously, the maintenance of the car for the years from 2004 to 2007 cannot be expected by wife of Accused Officer as it is a cab which is a motor car obtained for commercial purpose. The evidence of PW35 is very clear about the same.

There is no possibility of usage of the said Car for private use by Accused Officer or wife of Accused officer. Therefore, the said expenditure cannot be expected to have borne out by the Accused Officer or his wife. Thereby, the said expenditure cannot be taken into consideration towards the Account of Accused

Officer nor his wife and it is to be recorded as NIL.

210. Item Nos.41 to 43: The expenditure of Rs.52,470/- is towards loan repayment to SBI, Madanapalle in the year 2006-2007, Rs.29,645/- is towards education expenses of son of Accused Officer at Pendekanti Public School,

Banaganapalle and Rs.21,000/- towards education expenditure of son of

Accused at Rayalaseema Junior College, Tirupati is all admitted by Accused

Officer having paid by him. The loan with regard to repayment of Item No.41 is substantiated by the evidence of PW9 coupled with Ex.P40. The other expenses of education is admitted. It is the contention of Accused Officer that the said amounts were paid from his salary income. Therefore, the expenditure of Item No.41, 42, 43; Rs.52,470/- Item No.41, Rs.29,645/- and Rs.21,000/-

Item No.43.

211. Item No.44: This an amount of Rs.610/- deposit made to obtain electrical service connection to the house at Koilkuntla. This is also an admitted expenditure. At the same time, contends that the said expenditure is made by wife of Accused Officer DW5 herein. Therefore, the expenditure with regard to this can be held as Rs.610/-.

212. Item No.45: This is an expenditure met by Accused Officer allegedly towards Post Graduation studies of his son Y.Sudarsan Reddy in USA of Rs.8,90,000/-. In this regard, the prosecution got examined the Investigating

Officer PW46 who deposed that at the time of search one notarized affidavit

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Ex.P91 was seized from the house of Accused Officer which contains that a fee of Rs.8,90,200/- is the cost of the fee to be paid to the University. Further, PW19 one Mukku Sathyavanthudu, Notary-cum-Advocate was also examined. He deposed that in his presence Accused Officer and his wife sworn in the said affidavit, dated 3.7.2001 undertaking to bear the educational expenses of their son pursuing studies at USA. PW36 is the Charted Accountant who verified the certificates produced by the Accused Officer pertaining to his family status and on perusing the same, issued certificate of financial status for the purpose of sending DW1, Son of Accused officer to Abroad.

213. Thereby, the evidence of PW46, PW19 and PW36 substantiates that the copy of notarized affidavit under Ex.P91 found in the house of Accused

Officer was in fact signed by Accused Officer and his wife and also that Accused

Officer and his wife had such financial capacity to send his son to Abroad and meet the expenditure.

214. On perusal of Ex.P91 apparently it shows that both Accused Officer and wife of Accused Officer undertaken to meet the expenditure of their son towards Post Graduation studies at USA. But for the said reason, it cannot be held that Accused Officer and his wife met with total expenditure and in fact paid the same.

215. It is the contention of Accused officer in the explanation in page 28,

Item No.55 in Ex.P79 that the said amount is paid by his wife DW5 herein.

216. At the same time, Accused Officer in his evidence deposed that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,07,543/- towards sending his son to Abroad for

Post Graduation studies and it is not Rs.8,90,200/- as shown by Investigating

Officer. Admittedly, from Rs.3,00,000/- from SBH, Tirupati DW1 purchased

Dollars in India to meet their basic expenses in USA. DW2, Accused Officer herein also states that it is given towards expenses to send his son to Abroad. It goes to show that only said amount of Rs.3,07,543/- is spent admittedly by

Accused officer and his wife to his son. In the show cause notice it is mentioned that the said amount of Rs.8,90,200/- is towards first term fees.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

On scrutiny of Ex.P91, it shows that the said amount is the estimated expenditure for stay and study of Masters Degree in total. It is not for one

Semester i.e., for first year. The contention of Accused Officer that only

Rs.3,07,543/- is paid towards the expenses of his son DW1 to go to Abroad.

DW5 wife of Accused Officer also deposed that only an amount of Rs.3,07,543/- was met for such expenses. It is the contention of DW1 son of Accused Officer that he purchased dollars for Rs.3,00,000/- given to him by his mother. At the same time, it is also stated that he has completed studies by way of reimbursement as he worked as Teaching Assistantship in the said University.

He completed his Masters Degree from Tennacee University and Iklahoma

University, USA and also with the fee reimbursement was made and the

University paid 1200 dollars per month. He spent 400 dollars per month and the remaining money was sent to his mother. In the month of July, 2004, he got a job in Global Cynex INC Varginia, USA and they paid 86000 dollars per annum towards his salary. Therefore, in the light of evidence of DW1, DW2, DW5 it goes to show that DW1 was earning and he could meet his own expenses.

217. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued upon that when

DW1 went to USA on Student VISA he is not permitted to do any job which is not disputed. It is the argument of learned counsel for Accused Officer that Officially they are not permitted, but unofficially students do some job so as to meet their expenses and payment of fee. The said arguments are acceptable. At the same time, it is to observe that all the money acquired by DW1 was held to be legal as there is no allegation from the Abroad nor from India. Further, there is no

material to show that the total expenses of Rs.8,90,200/- towards

completion of Post Graduation course was in fact paid by Accused Officer

or his wife. It is only an undertaking given by Accused Officer and his wife

under Ex.P91. It does not go to show that they in fact paid the said amount.

Therefore, the admitted amount for payment of fee and expenses for the first year of Rs.3,07,543/- can be held as the expenditure met by Accused Officer and his wife.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

218. Item No.46: This is an expenditure met towards purchase of flight ticket to USA by Accused Officer for his wife for an amount of Rs.69,000/- towards flight ticket.

219. In Item No.17 also a similar amount of Rs.69,000/- was shown as spent towards flight ticket to USA. But this expenditure is contended as a separate expenditure. It is the case of Accused Officer while admitting the expenditure states that this expenditure was not met by him, but the same is purchased by his wife from the amount taken from P.Ramesh Babu as contended in Item No.17. The prosecution also did not take objection that these two items are separate expenses which were of the year 2005 and 2006. The evidence of P.Ramesh Babu DW6 is believed and accepted. The expenditure shown in Item No.36 is Rs.2,60,000/- paid to DW6 is not accepted by this Court.

Hence, item No.17 is deducted from said Rs.2,60,000/- which is amounting to

Rs.1,91,000/-. In the instant case, it is also the evidence of Accused Officer that his daughter and his son-in-law arranged flight tickets. The evidence of DW5 clearly shows the said expenditure of the flight ticket for her husband Accused

Officer herein was borne out by her daughter which goes to show that this ticket is purchased in the name of Accused Officer and towards the travel for Accused officer. Therefore, on raising of this ambiguity, it shows that this is not the amount spent out of the amount borrowed from DW4. Therefore, this amount of expenditure is held as Rs.69,000/- towards flight ticket of Accused Officer borne out by their daughter hence no expenditure by Accused Officer can be recorded.

220. Item No.47: This is the expenditure incurred by Accused Officer towards house rent of Rs.79,000/-. PW20 who is the owner of the house at

Madanapalle wherein Accused Officer was residing is examined. He deposed that the said house was let in by him and he collected rents from Accused

Officer. His statement was also recorded. The said evidence is not disputed by the Accused Officer and admitted that the rents of Rs.79,000/- were paid by him during 2004 to 2007 and also contended that this amount is paid out of his salary

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 income. Therefore, the expenditure towards rents can be held as Rs.79,000/- for the period from 2004 to 2007.

221. Item No.48: This is an expenditure of Rs.2,62,150/- alleged by

Investigating Agency spent towards marriage of daughter of Accused Officer .

The daughter of Accused Officer was married admitted on 1.2.1998. It is the contention of Accused Officer that Rs.1,00,000/- was given to his daughter for purchase of sarees and other things and only Rs.20,000/- were spent towards marriage expenses. It is not the case of Investigating Agency that in this regard any deep investigation is made to show that for marriage expenses such contended amount was spent and no witness is examined in this regard from the prosecution side. The difference amount in between the Investigating Agency and Accused Officer is only Rs.42,000/- which could not be investigated by the

Investigating Agency. Therefore, the expenditure admitted by Accused Officer can be accepted as Rs.1,20,000/-.

222. Item No. 49:

This expenditure towards purchase of AC in the house of Accused officer is not shown separately by the prosecution. On perusal of Ex.P24 there is a specific mention of fixing of AC in the house which is valued worth Rs.24,000/- which is considered as a asset. At the same time in the light of Ex.D34 the value of the AC is shown as Rs.25850/-. Which has been paid by Accused officer by way of EMI of Rs.2585/-. The Principal amount of the price is paid on obtaining loan from Shriram City Union Finance Limited. The statement with regard to same is Ex.D34 which is not in dispute. On perusal and scrutiny of the same it is found that the AC was purchased on 10.5.2007. Thereby it is to assess that only two installments have been paid by Accused officer. Therefore the expenditure towards this AC is to be held as Rs. 5170/-.

223. ITEM No.50: In the light of observations made in Item No.24 of the

Asset, Rs.50,000/- is to be shown as expenditure which was evidently withdrawn by way of cheque issued by Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

ADDITIONAL INCOME:

224. Serial No.1: This is the income claimed by Accused Officer in favour of his wife/Smt. Y.Chowdeswaramma of Rs.5,45,131/- during the period from 2001 to 2004 allegedly sent by their children from USA to her SBH Account.

225. In this regard, Accused Officer , his son and his wife spoke about this amount. It is also explained by Accused Officer in his explanation Ex.P78 in

Page No.17 about the said fact. Further, Ex.D38 is placed before this Court by

Accused officer, the statement issued by SBI which is obtained under Information

Act. It is not in dispute that SBH merged in SBI. On perusal of Ex.D38 various credits are made said to have been sent by husband of their daughter. DW3 daughter also deposed to that effect. Nothing is disputed with regard to such credits from Abroad which are clearly seen as:

(1) 16.08.2001 is Rs. 23,169/- (2) 10.09.2001 is Rs. 46,452/- (3) 11.12.2001 is Rs.2,38,078/- (4) 11.10.2002 is Rs.1,88,520/- (5) 20.08.2004 is Rs. 48,912/-. -------------------------- Total Rs.5,45,131/- --------------------------

Only for the reason that son-in-law is not examined, the credits made from

Abroad which is not disputed cannot be ignored. It is not the case of prosecution that by the year 2001 to 2004 the daughter and son-in-law of Accused officer were residing in USA. The said fact is intimated and explained by Accused

Officer. No investigation is made in this regard admittedly.

For the purpose of Section 13(1)(e) “known source of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

226. Rule 9(7) of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964 reads:

“No Government employee shall, except with the previous sanction of Government ask for , or accept or in any way participate in the raising of any

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 subscriptions or other pecuniary assistance in pursuance of any object whatsoever. “

Rule 6-A of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964 reads:

“Every Government employee shall intimate to the competent authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of any foreign currency or foreign goods”.

227. It is mandate for the public servant to inform about the foreign currency to the higher authorities within 15 days and also to show in annual property returns in the light of above rules framed. At the same time, only on failure to inform and show in annual property returns it will not attract the penal provisions. The contention of Special Public Prosecutor that DW3 daughter of

Accused Officer has no bank Account in USA till 2005 and only in the year 2005 her name was added to the Bank Account of her husband in the year 2005. It cannot be believed that her husband sent such amounts to her mother. It is clearly deposed by DW5, DW2 as well DW3 with regard to sending of said money during the said period which shows that DW3 has knowledge about sending of money and she was also working by that time. Therefore, sending of money by daughter through the Account of her husband to her parents cannot be held as not from “known source of income” which is publicly exhibited in the Bank

Account. Moreover, under Ex.D35 to D37 Accused Officer informed about receipt of foreign money from son-in-law also. Only for the reason that PW17 the

Bank Manager pleads ignorance that he has no idea about crediting of NRI amounts in her Account needs no consideration. Further, when Accused Officer could successfully show the credit of foreign money into the Account of his wife which is credited by his son-in-law evidenced by his daughter and also wife, it becomes the money from known sources of income. Therefore, this additional income claimed by Accused Officer as income of his wife can be considered and can be held as additional income of wife of Accused Officer as Rs.5,45,131/-.

228. Serial No.2: Further, it is also the case of Accused Officer that at the time of his marriage with DW5, his parents in law presented 3 ½ acres of land

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 at Gundlagunta village of Peddamudiam mandal of Kadapa District. Since then, his wife was at Koilkuntla along with him and her parents cultivated the said land and sent the income of the land to her every year. The total income received by his wife from 1976 to 1988 is claimed as Rs.1,08,000/- later his wife sold this land in the year 1988. The income given to his wife was Rs.9,000/- per year for 12 years. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- is claimed as additional income of wife of Accused Officer. This has been shown and claimed by Accused Officer in his explanation in Ex.P79.

229. In furtherance of his claim, he placed Ex.D6 to D9. On perusal of

Ex.D6, it evidently shows that Ac.2.50 cents were gifted by mother-in-law of

Accused Officer in favour of wife of Accused Officer, dated 13.07.1976. Ex.D7 is a registered sale deed executed by DW5 along with her mother for Rs.26,600/- in favour of third party, dated 7.4.1988. Ex.D8 is the Encumbrance Certificate over the said property Ex.D8 and D9. In this regard, Accused Officer nor his wife placed any material to show that there was any such income given by mother-in- law of Accused Officer in favour of wife of Accused Officer during the said period.

Therefore, the oral contention with regard to said income cannot be taken into consideration.

230. Serial No.3: This is the additional income of Rs.26,600/- claimed by Accused Officer as additional income of his wife on selling of the land of

Ac.3.50 cents allegedly gifted by mother-in-law of Accused Officer.

231. As above observed, Ex.D6 is clear about gifting of Ac.2.50 cents by mother-in-law of Accused Officer in favour of his wife and it is also evident under

Ex.D7 that together wife of Accused Officer and mother-in-law of Accused Officer both sold 3 ½ Acres under Ex.D7 which goes to show that mother-in-law of

Accused Officer had rights over Ac.1-00 cents and it was not gifted. The contention of Accused Officer that the said Ac.1-00 cents was also orally gifted cannot be considered without any document as such. Therefore, the income over Rs.26,600/- wife of Accused Officer will only be entitled for Rs.19,000/- out of Rs.26,600/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

232. Serial No.4: This is claimed by Accused Officer the additional income of Rs.1,79,455/- on selling of gold of 453 grams which is item No.3 of the

Asset. The sale receipts were also seized at the time of raid. Therefore, this amount is to be considered as the income of Accused Officer which is not shown by the Investigating Officer.

233. To substantiate his case, Accused Officer placed Ex.D21 to D24 which are the receipts of selling of gold. In item No.3 of Asset, this additional income claimed by Accused Officer which is also substantiated is already deducted from the said Asset. Therefore, it is observe that as already this

additional income is deducted from Asset No.3, further additional income need

not be shown. Therefore, the additional income of wife of Accused Officer is considered as Rs.1,79,455/-, but as it is deducted it is to record as NIL for calculation purpose.

234. Serial No.5: This an amount of Rs.50,000/- which is claimed as received as cash from parents of wife of Accused Officer at the time of her marriage and Rs.10,000/- at the time of marriage from kith and kin and also

Rs.15,000/- from her parents and kith and kin on various auspicious occasions.

235. With regard to this additional income, there is no document nor any independent witness is examined to show such receipt of amounts. No doubt, there is a ritual and practice of receiving of gifts from various persons and parents also but as it is not evidenced and there is no certainty of specific amount, it is very difficult for such acceptance. Therefore, this additional income claimed cannot be accepted as substantiated. Hence, it is recorded as NIL.

236. Serial No.6: Accused Officer also claimed Rs.,1,63,918/- as

additional income of his wife received from R.D. Accounts bearing No.1031857

and 1031858 of Post Office, Koilkuntla. In this regard, it is not disputed as wife of

Accused Officer receiving of such matured amounts under the said R.D.

Accounts. Ex.D1 shows the clear particulars of R.D. Account. Further, the evidence of PW24 coupled with Ex.P55 shows that the said R.D. Accounts were closed on 21.3.2005 and the said matured amount Rs.1,63,918/- (Rs.83,958/- +

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Rs.79,960/-) was redeposited after adding cash of Rs.1,082/- under Monthly

Income Scheme on the very same date which are shown in Item No.42 to 44 of

Asset. Therefore, this income which is not shown as income of wife of Accused

Officer can be considered as additional income of wife of Accused Officer.

237. Serial No.7: Further, it is not in dispute that wife of Accused Officer purchased Ambassador motor Cab which is shown as item No.7 of Asset in the year 2004. The purchase value of the said asset is held as Rs.3,15,300/-. In this regard, it is explained that the said Ambassador Car was given on rent to

Srinivasa Travels, M.R.Palli, Tirupati at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from

November, 2004 till the date of raid. Ex.D28 is submitted along with his explanation under Ex.P78.

238. It is the vehement argument of learned Special Public prosecutor that the said owner or staff of said Srinivasa Travels is not examined. No document is placed before this Court to substantiate the said fact. To the instant case, it is for consideration whether the said Ambassador Car is a private Car or a commercial one. The evidence of PW35 clearly shows that the said

Ambassador is a motor cab. Therefore, it cannot be expected that the said

Ambassador car was used for personal purpose of Accused Officer or his wife.

Obviously, the motor cab will be given on hire or will be driven by the owner for commercial purpose. To the instant case, owner of said Ambassador Car is wife of Accused Officer, thereby it is contended that the said Car was given on hire to

Srinivasa Travels which is explained in Ex.P78.

239. It is argued upon by the learned counsel for Accused officer that when it is clearly explained in Ex.P78 explanation at the first instance on 30.10.2007 immediately after searches and receipt of show cause notice

Investigating Officer is obligated and duty bound to make investigation and examine the said Srinivasa Travels. After lapse of more than one and half a decade, Accused officer cannot secure the said witnesses. It is evident and admitted that no investigation is made in this regard. No owner or the staff of

Srinivasa Travels were examined. Ex.D28 appears to be genuine which is

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 submitted along with Ex.P78 -Explanation. The said note book in between

Srinivasa Travels and wife of Accused Officer was sought to be taken to the

Expert opinion with regard to age of the paper. But the same was not pressed by the prosecution. On perusal and scrutiny of Ex.D28 the terms and conditions appears to be reasonable and basing on the said terms and conditions Accused

Officer was made liable for the extra fittings alleged by the Investigating Agency in this case. Therefore, the said document can be based upon and believed for the transaction in between wife of Accused Officer and said Srinivasa Travels.

240. Further, with regard to quantum of rent as claimed by Accused

Officer i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month appears to be more. Accused Officer herein was working as Divisional Panchayat Officer (DLPO) from the month of

December, 2000 till the date of raid. By November, 2004, the gross salary of

Accused Officer was Rs.15,337/- and on official deductions, net drawn amount is

Rs.8,687/- which is evident on perusal of Ex.P76-Made-up file . The Accused

Officer being an Officer could not draw net amount of Rs.10,000/- per month.

The rent for a Car apart from maintenance of the Car cannot be expected higher than income of the Officer i.e., Rs.10,000/- per month . Therefore, the average rent from November, 2004 till the date of raid can be considered as Rs.8,500/- per month. Therefore, the rental income of wife of Accused Officer on the

Ambassador Car can be held as Rs.2,72,000/- (Rs.8,500/- x 32 months).

241. Serial No.8: The further case of Accused Officer is that his wife got income from interest of 3 monthly income scheme deposits bearing Nos. (1) 2301310 (2) 2301311 (3) 2301312 which is to an amount of Rs.10,800/-,

Rs.10,800/- and Rs.8,100/- respectively. On perusal of Ex.D1, there is no reference of these deposit Accounts under monthly income scheme. Ex.P55 shows that under monthly income scheme, the said deposits were made into the said Account. But no interest as claimed by Accused Officer is reflecting in

Ex.P55. It is admitted by PW24 that Serial No.1 to 3 in Monthly Income Scheme under Ex.P55 monthly interest will be given. At the same time, no specific

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 amount of monthly income is seen under Ex.D1 nor Ex.P55. Exs.D18 to D20 are the pass books of the said Accounts which shows that monthly income was received. These R.D. deposits are shown as Item No.42 to 44 in the assets.

This monthly income is not shown by Accused Officer towards income.

242. It is the argument of learned Special Public Prosecutor that when the source of income itself is not shown as legal in depositing of R.D. Accounts.

The monthly income or the interest claimed cannot be the legal income nor it can be said as income out of known sources. This income is not shown in the annual property returns nor I.T. returns, thereby this cannot be considered as the income out of known sources.

243. On perusal of Ex.P55, this itself shows that this amount deposited towards monthly income scheme is out of matured amount from R.D. Account.

No doubt, there is no particulars of monthly subscription. Accused Officer failed to place any material that such specific amount is received towards interest. No doubt the fact of receipt of interest is not disputed in spite without any material, the case of Accused Officer cannot be accepted and this interest claimed cannot be considered as additional income.

244. Serial No.9: Further, the claim of Accused officer that the foreign money of Rs.63,49,513/- is credited into his Joint Account with his wife in ICICI

Bank, Tirupati which has been spent towards purchase of assets including the assets in the name of their children. Therefore, this amount is also to be considered as additional income of Accused Officer and also his wife.

245. The evidence of PW21 clearly shows that there was such joint

Account and the said amount of Rs.63,49,513/- of foreign currency was credited to the said Account bearing No.630901508420. Ex.P53 is the statement of

Account from the period 14.06.2005 to 18.04.2007.

246. Further, the evidence of DW5 wife of Accused Officer, DW1 son of

Accused officer and also evidence of Accused Officer reveals the said fact.

Ex.P78 is show cause notice referring to the receipt of this amount by Accused

Officer and his wife. Nothing is suggested to DW2 Accused officer herein with

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 regard to suspicion over the credits made. Ex.D35 and D36 are the true copies of intimation letters to his higher authorities about receipt of foreign money from his son and son-in-law. Ex.D37 is the true copy of Despatch Register which clearly shows about sending of Ex.D35 and D36. Therefore, this major portion of amounts cannot be held as not informed to higher authorities. Moreover, this foreign money credited is to the knowledge of Investigating Officer and mentioned in his show cause notice to Accused Officer which has been explained by Accused Officer in Ex.P78. But no further investigation in this regard is made. Ex.D35 to D37 are not disputed with regard to its authenticity.

No other material could be placed to dispute the said documents.

247. Therefore, only for the reason that this amount is not shown in the

Income Tax Returns nor any document is placed showing this income in the annual property returns cannot be held that this is not income from known source. This aspect will be discussed at length at latter stage. This income can also be held as lawfully obtained. Therefore, the additional income of Accused

Officer and his wife can be held as Rs.63,49,513/-.

248. Serial No.10: This is the amount claimed as rents from item

No.3 of assets which is in two portions in the house of Koilkuntla. The additional income claimed is Rs.800/- per month towards two portions rent.

249. This asset as being in the name of wife of Accused Officer is not disputed. Ex.P49 shows ground floor as 588 Square feet and first floor as 617

Square feet. Towards each portion Accused Officer claimed Rs.400/- each in average from 1994 till 2007. It is not in dispute that the said house was constructed in Item No.2. The constructed building is item No.3.

250. On perusal of the show cause notice issued by the Investigating

Officer PW46 herein, there is a clear mention that Accused Officer got rents of

Rs.34,740/- towards six portions from the said Koilkuntla house in Kurnool

District.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

251. It is explained by Accused Officer in Ex.P78 that the said house belongs to his wife which was gifted by his father in Asset No.5 in the year 1984 consisting three portions. Later, she altered the same into two portions in the year 1994 and let out them and received rents towards four portions of

Rs.7,05,300/- towards asset No.5. Further, with regard to asset No.3 also it is explained that the said house was let out by his wife and she received rents of

Rs.2,49,800/- from 1994.

252. Thereafter, this rental income is not shown in the charge sheet to the reasons best known to Investigating Officer. At the same time, Accused

Officer claimed this rents towards his wife from the year 1994 to an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- towards 156 months. Accused Officer has not placed any document towards the said average rent received in the said Koilkuntla village as

Rs.400/- towards each portion from 1994. It is not in dispute that Accused officer and his wife let out the said house on rent. Therefore, if at all the amount specified in the show cause notice by the Investigating Officer of Rs.34,740/- is considered would meet the ends of justice and would not be prejudicial to anyone.

253. Further, with regard to other four portions of the house in Koilkuntla also Accused officer claimed rents from 1984 to 2007 for 276 months at an average monthly rent of Rs.640/-. In this regard Accused Officer failed to place any material. In the show cause notice Investigating Officer mentioned the income of Rs.34,740/- towards all the said portions in the houses at Koilkuntla.

Therefore, the additional income towards asset No.5 and also Asset No.3 together the rents can be held as Rs.34,740/- as the additional income.

254. Serial No.11: Accused Officer further claimed the additional income of Rs.1,38,700/- towards rents from the house situated at Hyderabad in

Item No.15. In this regard, except the oral evidence of Accused Officer and his wife, there is no other material. In Ex.P78 also it is explained and claimed

additional income but could not place any document in support of his claim. No

show cause notice is issued by the Investigating Officer over this income.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Thereby, no additional income can be observed in favour of wife of Accused

Officer in this regard and it is to record as NIL.

255. Serial No.12: Similarly, as above observed Accused Officer also failed to place any document towards his claim from rents over Item No.1 of

Asset from 2005 to 2007 which is for 21 months at an average rate of Rs.3,500/- per month. Therefore, in this regard also no additional income can be recorded and it is to observe as NIL additional income towards this claim.

256. Serial No.13: Accused Officer further claimed that Srinivasa

Travels given a deposit of Rs.50,000/- on 4.11.2004. To that effect there is a clear endorsement in Ex.D28. The said document is taken into consideration by this Court but the Investigating Agency has not taken into Account the contention of Accused Officer nor made any investigation towards the same in spite Ex.D28 was submitted along with Ex.P78 – the Explanation. Ex.D28 contains visiting card of the owner of said Srinivasa Travels by name V.K.Obul Reddy. In spite of furnishing of such particulars and having signature towards said deposit and also terms and conditions, the Investigating Agency failed to investigate upon the same. No doubt, the custody of Ex.D28 is with Accused Officer by the date of explanation. Only for the said reason, nothing adverse needs to be presumed when Accused Officer placed fair explanation which is left unprobed. Therefore, this deposit of Rs.50,000/- can be believed as received by wife of Accused

Officer towards deposit on 04.11.2004 while handing over her Ambassador car on hire.

257. Serial No.14: Further, the additional income claimed by Accused

Officer as Rs.6,00,000/- withdrawn by way of self cheque from ICICI Bank,

Tirupati. In this regard, the prosecution shown this amount towards expenditure in Item No.39 of expenditure. This amount being withdrawn is shown as spent towards various assets and observed as this amount cannot be shown as expenditure separately. Further, this Rs.6,00,000/- of amount also cannot be shown as additional income as this is part of the foreign money including

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Rs.63,49,513/-. Therefore, no additional income also can be observed and is to be recorded as NIL.

258. Serial No.15: The other claims of Accused officer towards

additional income is Rs.81,600/- towards interest got from local people and small

vendors from 1976 to 1990. Accused Officer roughly calculated the said amount.

Ex.P83 is the note book said to have containing all the particulars of transactions in the village. No doubt, Ex.P83 was seized at the time of searches in the house of Accused Officer by the Investigating Officer. But on perusal of the same, nothing can be calculated so as to arrive that there was any income received by wife of Accused Officer during the said period. Thereby, the said amount cannot be held as from known source of income and also that as the same could not be substantiated by Accused Officer.

259. Serial No.16:The further contention of Accused Officer that he got income of Rs.4,374/- out of interest accrued from SBH, Tirupati from 2001 to 2004. Ex.D38 is not disputed which is obtained under Information Act from the

Bank concerned. On perusal and calculation of interest mentioned are dated 2.1.2002 - 725.87, 3.7.2002 – 174.48, 3.1.2003 – 1031.44, dt.2.7.2003 – 1145,

Dt.5.1.2004 – 27.96, dt.2.7.2004 – 28.44 which amounts to Rs.3,133.95, but not as contended by Accused Officer i.e., Rs.4,374/-. Therefore, the additional income of wife of Accused Officer towards interest accrued can be held as

Rs.3,133.95.

260. Serial No.17: The further claim made by Accused Officer is

Rs.2,25,000/- received from one Ramesh Babu DW6 herein towards loan obtained by wife of Accused Officer in August, 2005.

261. It is the case of prosecution that Accused Officer paid Rs.2,60,000/- to DW6 Ramesh Babu which is shown as expenditure in Item No.45.

262. It is the contention of Accused officer that his wife borrowed

Rs.2,25,000/- from DW6 for purchase of flight ticket to go to USA and for education purpose of their son and the same was returned to DW6 of

Rs.2,60,000/- towards principal and interest by a cheque No.570280. DW6 is

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 admittedly subordinate in office to Accused Officer in spite he deposed before this Court on oath about his financial capacity being a public servant. His evidence is taken into consideration and the expenditure contended by prosecution is taken into consideration in item No.36 of expenditure and deducted Rs.69,000/- towards expenditure of flight ticket in Item No.17 of expenditure. Therefore, the additional income of Rs.2,25,000/- is also considered as received by deducting Rs.69,000/-. Hence, Rs.1,56,000/- (Rs.2,25,000/- - Rs.69,000/-) is considered as Additional income of wife of

Accused Officer.

263. ITEM No.18: Further, the additional income of Accused Officer is also claimed by way of four R.Ds. from A/c Nos.1031303, 1031462, 1030461 and 1031146 of Post Office, Koilkuntla. It is elicited from PW24 the Post Master that there were such R.D. Accounts mentioned in Ex.D1 in Serial No.1 to 4. The above said R.D. Accounts are shown in the name of Accused Officer. It is admitted that towards said Accounts, Accused Officer received the matured amounts much prior to 7.6.2007 which are Rs.54,171/- on 11.12.2022,

Rs.24,634 on 16.08.2004, Rs.47,102/- on 10.12.1997 and Rs.45,837/- on 18.01.2002. It is elicited from PW24 that Accused Officer and his family members received maturity amounts from six R.D Accounts of Rs.3,35,662/- with regard to Serial No.5 and 6, the claim of wife of Accused Officer towards the said maturity amounts is already considered above. With regard to Accused Officer, the evidence of PW24 and the particulars admitted by PW24 in Ex.D1 are sufficient to believe the case of Accused Officer that such matured amounts were received by Accused Officer. One of the R.D. Accounts bearing No.1031303 the matured amount of Rs.54,171/- clearly reflects in Ex.P55 also. Therefore, the

additional income as claimed by Accused Officer can be accepted which is not

taken into Account by Investigating Officer. Therefore, the additional income of

Accused Officer towards the above said R.Ds is observed as Rs.1,71,744/- (Rs.54,171/- + Rs.24,634/- + Rs.47,102/- + Rs.45,837/-).

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

264. Serial No.19: Accused Officer also claimed Rs.1,20,000/- received towards GPF loan in the year 2004 which is also contended in his explanation Ex.P78 in page 15, Para 2. To substantiate the same, DW2 deposed

before the Court on oath that he received the said amount. Ex.D25 is the loan

sanction proceedings, dated 13.08.2004. Ex.D29 is the down loaded copy showing that the said amount was encashed. Ex.D29 is the Bank statement on the letter pad of Bank. All other particulars is not disputed. Rs.1,20,000/- credited on 19.08.2004 as per Ex.D29. Towards the said credit, there is a specific mention that it is a Government bill. It is also very clearly mentioned in

Ex.P76 Made-up file where salary particulars and its statement is enclosed, that the said amount of Rs.1,20,000/- towards G.P.F loan was credited on 19.08.2004 which includes. Therefore, no further additional income can be claimed by Accused Officer as already shown received. Hence, this amount cannot be again claimed as additional income.

265. Serial No.20: It is also the contention of Accused Officer that on several Banks cash balance, he got accrued interest. The said accrued interest amount is to be taken into consideration as the additional income.

(i) This is said to be an amount of Rs.1,999/- said to be the accrued interest in the S.B Bank Account of Accused Officer bearing

No.11008181362 in which Accused Officer obtained personal loan of

Rs.2,20,000/- which is also shown in Item No.41 of expenditure with regard to repayment of loan. The cash balance is shown as Rs.23,112/- in Asset No.20.

Upon this amount and the previous amounts, the interest accrued is Rs.1,999/- is the contention of Accused Officer. On perusal of Ex.P38 with regard to this

Account, there is only Rs.231/- shown credited towards interest. Therefore, only

Rs.231/- alone can be taken into consideration as the additional income of

Accused Officer with regard to this Account.

(ii) This is also said to be accrued interest of Rs.4,330/- in the

SB Bank Account of Accused Officer bearing No.37276 (old) 052210011037276 (New) in which admittedly there was a cash balance available in the said Account

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 of Rs.34,445/- as on 16.06.2007 which is shown as Asset No.23. PW12 deposed accordingly. At the same time, in his cross examination it is also deposed that the amount of Rs.34,445/- includes Principal amount as well the accrued interest. The accrued interest is stated as Rs.4,330/- which includes

Rs.34,445/-. Therefore, as it is clearly admitted by PW12 this accrued interest contended as additional income can also be considered.

(iii) Further, the evidence of PW17 reveals that in SBH, Tirupati

Account bearing No.52089698302 in the name of Accused Officer, the cash balance available is Rs.14,441/- which is shown as Asset No.34 of Accused

Officer in this case. On perusal of evidence of PW17 and Ex.P51, the prosecution could establish the said cash balance. At the same time, it is elicited that the said cash balance of Rs.14,441/- includes the accrued interest of

Rs.1,674/-.

Therefore, in the light of arguments of learned counsel for Accused

Officer, out of the said cash balance, the said accrued interest was already deducted and shown the value of the Asset No.33 as RS.12,767/-. Therefore, again it need not be held that there is additional income as already it has been considered.

(iv) Further, the contention of Accused Officer that there is also an accrued interest in his SB Bank Account bearing No.10941968240. There is an accrued interest of Rs.10,396/-. It is the case of prosecution that in the said

Account, there is cash balance of Rs.14,482/- which is shown as Asset No.34.

The cash balance deposed by PW2 is only Rs.14,000/- as on 7.6.2007. It is also elicited from PW22 that the said Account of accused officer discloses that a sum of Rs.7,942/- is towards accrued interest. Thereby, this Court has deducted the said accrued interest i.e., an additional income of Accused Officer from out of the said Cash balance Asset and held the value of the Asset No.34 as Rs.6,058/-.

Therefore, it again need not be considered here as already it is taken into consideration.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

(v) Further, the contention of Accused Officer that there is an accrued interest of Rs.15,427/- in his ICICI Bank, Tirupati Account . The evidence of PW21 reveals that in the said Account, the total amount credited was

Rs.63,49,513/- by means of foreign currency. It is also admitted by PW21 that the accrued interest in the said Account is Rs.15,427/-. At the same time, on perusal of Ex.D33 down loaded copy of statement of Bank Account by Accused

Officer himself and also in the light of observation in Item 25 of asset, accrued interest held as Rs.14,384/- alone can be taken into consideration. Therefore, this accrued interest from the said Account can also be considered as additional income which is Rs.14,384/-.

266. Serial No.21: The further case of the Accused Officer is that he had additional income from Leelamohan Naidu of Rs.22,60,000/- as

Rs.26,60,000/- is shown as expenditure and in fact an amount of Rs.22,60,000/- was repaid to Accused Officer and that in the year 2001, he borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/- and also that he repaid the said amount along with accrued interest of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e., in total Rs.4,00,000/- to said Leelamohan Naidu.

267. In support of his contention, DW7 said to a mediator is examined.

It is established by the prosecution in the light of evidence of PW21 that by way of six cheques Rs.26,60,000/- was paid to said Leelamohan Naidu. At the same time, the evidence of DW7 is considered while discussion in Item No.35 of

Expenditure and it is noted that the expenditure of Accused Officer is only

Rs.4,00,000/-. Thereby, again it need not be observed.

268. Serial No.22: Further, as the case of Accused Officer is believed in the light of evidence of DW7 that there was a transaction in between

Leelamohan Naidu and also that Rs.22,60,000/- was received back by Accused

Officer. It is also to take into consideration the case of Accused Officer that he received Rs.2,00,000/- earlier from said Leelamohan Naidu which was returned along with interest in total Rs.4,00,000/-. The cheque was issued for

Rs.26,60,000/-. But the contention of Accused Officer is considered in Asset

No.35 of expenditure and the expenditure was shown as Rs.4,00,000/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Therefore, when the loan is obtained from Leelamohan Naidu much prior for

Rs.2,00,000/-, it also can be considered as additional income of Accused Officer.

269. Serial No.23 and 24: The contention of Accused Officer with regard to receiving of lease amount from Muralimohan Reddy towards Ac.2.00 cents of agricultural land of Accused Officer and towards house rent of Item

No.15 of the Asset. No document is placed before this Court to show that there was such income got to Accused Officer. No doubt, Ex.D10 in Ex.B1 Ryotwari

Pass Book is placed before this Court, but there is no clarity that Accused Officer is given Ac.2.00 of property exclusively and that the same is in his occupation and enjoyment.

270. Mother of PW6 deposed that Accused Officer got Ac.2.00 cents of land under partition in between their sons. Accused Officer claimed lease amount out of the said Ac.2.00 cents of land, but no document could be placed

before this Court. Only because the evidence of PW6 and also in the light of

Ex.D1 if at all it is considered, the rights of the Accused Officer as 1/3rd over

Ac.2.00 cents of land also in absence of any document towards said income, the same cannot be considered. Similarly, the house rents claimed by Accused

Officer in the light of his own evidence and his wife is not sufficient to consider the case of Accused Officer.

271. Serial No.25: This is an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- claimed by

Accused Officer as additional income stating that this amount was transferred from ICICI Bank to Prudential Bank for deposit. In Ex.P79-Explanation, Page 47

Statement of ICICI Bank also shows that this amount was transferred from ICICI

Bank to Prudential Life Insurance. The said amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is shown as a premium paid in Prudential Life Insurance Policy by Accused Officer as an

Asset. The said amount if lying in ICICI Bank or in Prudential, it makes no difference. It cannot be considered as income of Accused Officer. It is only an asset whether it may be in ICICI Bank or Prudential. Therefore, this again need not be considered as an additional income.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

272. Serial No.26: Accused Officer also contended that he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- in 2005 from his brother/DW4 herein and the said

Rs.5,00,000/- was returned by way of cheque in the year 2006 along with interest to an amount of Rs.5,60,000/-. The evidence of DW4 brother of Accused Officer is considered to that effect and a discussion with regard to evidentiary value of the evidence of DW4 is also observed in Item No.37 of Expenditure. The prosecution could establish that Accused Officer issued a cheque to DW4 for

Rs.5,60,000/-. Therefore, the expenditure is held as Rs.60,000/- only. Thereby, again the additional income here needs no further consideration as already considered in Item No.37 of expenditure.

273. Serial No.27:

It is not in dispute that in the house of Accused officer while searches AC was found. It was valued at Rs.24,000/- in Ex.P24. Ex.D34 shows the value of this AC as Rs. 25850/-. The loan was obtained to meet the expenditure for purchase of this AC. This AC was purchased on 10.5.2007. The check period is from 1971 till 7.6.2007. Therefore the expenditure was considered for two months and asset in Ex.P24 was valued at Rs.25,850/-. At the same time when

Accused officer obtained loan of Rs.25,850/- it becomes his additional income which is not considered in spite of explanation in Ex.P78 in page 16, para no.7.

After obtaining loan from Shriram City Union Finance, Accused officer used to make repayment by way of EMIs. Therefore the additional income of Accused officer is considered as Rs.25,850/-.

274. Serial No.28: Further, the case of the Accused Officer is also to be accepted in the light of evidence of PW33 that Accused Officer received

Rs.41,925/- on 28.2.2006 on maturity of the policy bearing No.71865192. The said policy was for a period of 20 years. The total premium paid of Rs.34,128/- was considered as an Asset. Therefore, the additional income of Rs.41,925/- can be considered in favour of Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

275. In the light of above assessment with regard to Assets, Income, expenditure and also additional income, the case of prosecution is to be scrutinized whether the offence is established beyond reasonable doubt. Further the contention of Accused officer is also for scrutiny with regard to additional income claimed by him. The Additional income is a prima facie considered but the same is for further consideration.

In this regard the Learned Spl Public Prosecutor relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in between V.K.Puri v/s Central Bureau of

Investigation on 27.4.2007 wherein it is clearly held the ingredients of the offence to be established u/s 13(1)(e) of 1988 which is the offence in the instant case also. The said ingredients reads as

I. The accused is a public servant;

II. The nature and extent of the pecuniary resources of property found in his possession;

III. His known sources of income i.e. known to the prosecution.

iv. Such resources or properties found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income

To the instant case it is already observed that the Accused officer herein is a public servant, which is not in dispute.

With regard known sources of income it is relied upon by the Learned counsel for Accused officer over the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in between State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Awath Kishore Gupta and others reported in 2004 (2) Supreme 501 which is by Division bench wherein it is explained with regard to “known sources of income” it is held that “known source of income mean income received from any lawful source the receipt of which has been intimated in accordance with a provisions of any law rules orders for the time being applicable to the public servant” further also held that “legislature has advisedly used to the expression “satisfactorily account” the emphasis must be on the word satisfactorily and the legislature has thus deliberately cast a burden on the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 came by his large wealth but also to satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.

In this regard it is firstly to see whether the income contended by Accused officer is from lawful source and whether the same was intimated in accordance with provisions of law to the competent authorities and also that the said explanation of Accused officer is whether satisfactorily accounted.

Further whether the old enactment prior to amendment of Act XVI of 2018 is applicable or the amended provisions attract to the instant case is also to be determined.

In this regard the Learned Spl Public Prosecutor relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR on line 2019 S.C.1686 in between State of Telangana V/s Sri Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar

Reddy wherein it is clearly observed by the Hon’ble Apex court that as the crime in the said case was registered on 9.11.2011 which is much before the Act was amended in the year 2018 the old law will be applicable.

Therefore to the instant case wherein the date of alleged offence is on 7.6.2007 the old law prior to amendment in the year 2018 is applicable.

Further with regard to the argument of Special Public Prosecutor the

Assets and the additional income claimed by Accused officer were not shown in

Income Tax returns by Accused officer or his wife. Thereby the said additional income cannot be considered and also that non intimation in Income Tax returns about the assets also shows that they were not obtained legally and amounts to misconduct.

The learned counsel for Accused Officer relied upon Judgment in between

State of Karnataka v/s Selvi J Jayalalitha reported in 2017 (0) Supreme SC

160. Wherein it is held in para 175 that “The decision is to convey that though the I.T. returns and the orders passed in the I.T. proceedings in the instant case recorded the income of the accused concerned as disclosed in their returns, in view of the charge leveled against them such returns and the orders in the I.T. Proceedings would not by

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 themselves establish that such income had been from lawful source as contemplated in the explanation to Sec. 13 (1) (e) and that independent evidence would be required to account for the same”.

“In any view of the matter however such returns and orders would not Ipso facto either conclusively prove or disprove the charge and can at best be pieces of evidence which have to be evaluated along with other materials on record”.

Further also held “in the overall perspective therefore neither the income tax returns nor the orders passed in the proceedings relatable thereto, either definitely attest the lawfulness of the source of income of the accused person or are of any avail to them to satisfactorily account the disproportionateness of their pecuniary resources and properties as mandated by Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Act”.

Further held that the “import of this decision is that in the tax regime the legality or illegality of the transactions generating profit or loss is inconsequential qua the issue whether the income is from a lawful source or not. The scrutiny in an assessment proceedings is directed only to quantify the taxable income and the orders passed therein do not certify or authenticate that the sources thereof to be lawful and are thus of no significance vis-a-vis a charge under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act”.

276. Therefore in the light of above observations only for the reason that

Accused officer and his wife has not placed the I.T. returns before this court it cannot be held that the sources were ill-gotten or any misconduct is made. In the instant case evidently the wife of Accused officer filed I.T. returns. But they were filed subsequent to the search of the Investigating Officer and his team in the house of Accused Officer. The I.T. returns for the year 2005 – 2006 was filed on 16.11.2007, I.T. returns of 2007-2008 filed on 28.11.2007 and I.T. returns of the year 2008-2009 were filed on 26.12.2008. The date of instant offence is on 7.6.2007. Therefore in spite of the said I.T. returns the same needs no consideration and also it is to observe that only for the reason that no I.T. returns filed prior to the offence would not reflect adverse upon the contention of

Accused Officer. The contention of Accused officer is to be scrutinized in the light

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 of material whether the assets were acquired lawfully and intimated and also that the additional income claimed were “lawfully” acquired and the same was from “known sources of income.”

Further the argument of Spl Public Prosecutor that the downloaded copies have no authenticity and they cannot be received towards evidence it is to be established U/s 65(B).

277. To the instant case the downloaded copies of statement of accounts from various banks and other documents are Ex.D29 to Ex.D33.

Ex.D29 is said to be downloaded copy of the statement of bank account wherein

GPF amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is said have been credited. The said document is also disputed by the prosecution. At the same time on perusal of Ex.P76 made up file which includes statement of salary clearly shows that there is a credit of

GPF amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore only because it is downloaded copy it cannot be said that Ex.D29 cannot be believed as it is in consistency with

Ex.P76.

Further Ex.D30, Ex.D31, Ex.D32 and Ex.D33 are said to be the downloaded copies of the bank statements. At the same time it is not in dispute that the relevant particulars considered in favour of Accused officer are not basing upon Ex.D30, Ex.D32, Ex.D31, Ex.D29 and Ex.D33 but the very same statements filed by the prosecution under Ex.P38, Ex.P47, Ex.P51, Ex.P53 and

Ex.P52 respectively were considered. With regard to said statements the evidence of PW.9, PW.17, PW.22, PW.21 is supported. This is with regard to accrued interest claimed by Accused officer from five banks SBI, Madanapalli,

Andhra bank, Hyderabad, SBH Madanapalli, SBI Koilakuntla and ICICI Tirupati.

Therefore there is nothing that this court taken into consideration only basing on the downloaded copies.

Further the other allegation of the prosecution is that Accused officer himself being the drawing and disbursing officer used to make entries in surrender leave, other leaves, joining entries and other entries. In that process,

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 he himself made entries in the Service Register to show that intimation is made to the competent authorities.

No doubt on perusal of service register Ex.D2 the surrender leave entries at page no.97,205 dated 10.7.1997 and from 1.1.2000 to 15.1.2000 and also other entries in the year 1975,1979,1983 in pages 16,39,42,46,97,67,68,69 are made and the signature of Accused officer appears to have been made but the endorsements to that effect appears to have been made by the office and the initials of the concerned are also found. They are completely with different hand writings. Therefore it cannot be held that the endorsements are also made by

Accused officer so as to presume the habit endorsements with regard to assets.

Further it is evident in Ex.D2 that the entries with regard to assets Item

No.1 to Item No.5, Item No. 8, Item No.9, Item No.10, Item No.11, Item No.12,

Item 14 and Item 15 are made. On perusal of the writings of the said properties towards the said properties it is alleged that except item no.1 of the property all other property endorsements are made by Accused officer. To that effect no material is placed. The endorsements appears in different handwriting and with different inks at different places and also on different dates. It cannot be disputed that during the said endorsements Accused officer was transferred and posted to other places. No one noticed such false endorsements if any. Further meanwhile also Accused officer was sanctioned several leaves including medical leaves, surrender. Finally there is a endorsement with regard to suspension of Accused officer on 7.6.2007 and underneath the same there is a specific mention that the

service register is verified and found correct with reference to office copy

of pay bills etc. for the period from 1.4.2007 to 7.6.2007. The endorsements to the effect of retirement dated 31.5.2010 also made. It is obvious that on every transfer the service register will be verified no one noticed such false endorsement if any. This also presumes that the prior record with regard to bills etc is verified. It also shows that the property endorsements were never questioned. Only because it is argued upon that Accused officer himself made endorsements without any intimation to higher authorities itself does not establish

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 the case of prosecution. The higher authorities when verifies the service register they did not find any false endorsement hence arguments of Spl Public

Prosecutor in this regard cannot be accepted.

It is admitted by PW.46 the Investigating Officer that “It is true that the

service register of the accused was also seized at the time of raids and the

same was also returned to him by this court as per the orders in

Crl.M.P.No. 222/2013 dated 4.3.2004”. On perusal of the record no such orders

of return of service register is found by this court. Inspite it is evident that the service register was received by Accused officer under acknowledgment dated 17.5.2010 under Ex.P90 which is also deposed by PW.47. Ex.P90 is the photostat copy. In spite of it being photostat copy as it is admitted by Accused officer that the service register was in his custody and also produced the same and brought on record through him under Ex.D2. Therefore it is to observe that the service register was in custody of Accused officer. At the same time as per the case of prosecution itself the custody of Service register was acknowledged on 17.5.2010. Till that time no copy of the service register is obtained. No duplicate of the same is sought while giving the service register to Accused officer.

It is not the case of Investigating agency nor placed any material about the copy of service register as without any property purchase endorsements in the service register. In absence of any such material it cannot be held that without any intimation such property endorsements were made by Accused officer himself. Therefore it is to observe that only on intimation such endorsements with regard to above said properties of the assets are made.

278. With regard to other immovable properties of wife of Accused officer i.e. Item No.6 in the name of son and daughter, Item No.13 in the name of wife of Accused officer, Item No.16 in the name of son of Accused Officer is not informed.

The properties in the name of son and daughter who are earning members and purchased by wife of Accused officer out of the money sent by

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 them ought to have informed but the same is purchased by wife of Accused officer thereby Accused officer not informing cannot be a grave misconduct similarly the properties purchased by wife of Accused officer also ought to have informed. At the same time as the income of wife of Accused officer is also shown sufficiently, it can be held that no source of income of Accused officer is used for purchase of properties in the name of son and daughter and wife of

Accused officer.

In this regard, if a detailed scrutiny is made with regard to the total value of the purchase of the assets prior to 2001 the period from which the son in law and from 2004 son also started sending money it will give a clear picture whether

Accused officer had a disproportionate of assets prior to 2001 i.e. prior to receiving of foreign money.

Item No.2 of asset in the name of wife of Accused Officer purchased on 16.9.1990 for a value of Rs.14,550/-

Item No.3 value of construction observed made in the year 1994 in light of

Ex.D21 to Ex.D24 is Rs.45,805/- by wife.

Item No.5 the construction value held by this court as Rs.40,000/- by wife of Accused Officer in the year 1994.

Item No.10 purchased by wife in the name of son dated 22.10.1998 for

Rs.27,100/-.

Item No.13 Property purchased in the name of wife of Accused Officer for Rs.2,000/- in the year 1993.

Item Nos.14 and 15 purchased on loan Rs.1,25,000/- for the consideration of Rs.2,74,000/- in the name of wife of Accused Officer. Therefore the spent amount by Accused Officer and his wife would arrive at Rs.1,49,000/- in the year 1995.

Item No.16 purchased by wife out of her income in the name of her son on 20.6.2000 for Rs.6,300/-.

In total the value of the expenditure met by Accused officer and his wife prior to 2000 year is Rs.2,84,755/-.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

At the same time taking into consideration the salary income alone of

Accused officer from the period of 16.11.1971 to 2004 as per Ex.P76 itself shows the income as Rs.13,04,838.40 leaving other income as per case of prosecution itself.

Accused officer and his wife are considered as one unit. Their income and expenditure are shown together so as to assess the disproportionate of assets.

After the daughter and the son left India to USA their income is not considered.

Thereby after 2000 year on receiving of foreign money if the purchase of the properties out of the foreign money by wife of Accused officer in the name of their children and herself would not amount to the purchase made from ill gotten money of Accused Officer. The purchases of immovable properties made prior to year 2000 clearly shows the value of salary income itself is very high than the assets.

279. The immovable properties purchased after 2000 year which are asset item No. 1 in the name of wife dated 20.8.2005 for consideration of

Rs.5,00,000/- on loan of Rs.4,80,000/-, Item No.4 in the name of wife dated 8.5.2002 for consideration of Rs.49,500/-, Item No.6 in the name of son and daughter dated 18.12.2006 for Rs.15,51,000/-, Item No.8 in the name of wife

dated 15.10.2004 for Rs.1,24,500/-, Item No.9 in the name of wife dated

15.10.2004 for Rs.1,23,500/- , Item No.11 in the name of Accused Officer

dated 27.9.2006 for Rs.65,000/-, Item No.12 in the name of wife dated

12.7.2004 for Rs.1,95,200/-.

The above said items are immovable properties among which Item No.1

to Item No.5, Item No. 8, Item No.9, Item No.10, Item No.11, Item No.12, Item

No.14 and Item No.15 are all appears to have been intimated to the competent authorities and there is a clear endorsement to that effect in the service register in page Nos. 21, 87 and 155 which could not be disproved as made properly, by the prosecution.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

The value of the above said items would be Rs.26,08,700/-. This is the expenditure met for purchase of the said immovable properties. During this period evidently the foreign money is received by wife of Accused officer as well by Accused officer for an amount of Rs.5,45,131/- from the period 2001 to 2004 which is considered in serial no.1 of additional income. Further Accused officer also could substantiate his contention of receiving of foreign money into the joint account bank of himself with his wife for Rs.63,49,513/- for the period from 14.6.2005 to 18.4.2007. Only these two foreign money itself goes to show that there was sufficient lawful source of money and not from ill-gotten money.

280. With regard to other cash deposits and cash transactions appears to be very small in amounts which were paid towards monthly installments and cash balance in the accounts. No doubt there are several RD accounts and bank accounts wherein Accused officer and his wife and also accounts in the name of son are found. In spite if the said accounts and the balance and also the premium amounts and RD amounts paid monthly if taken into consideration would not show going beyond the income source prior to 2000 year nor after year 2004. This fact of receiving of foreign money has been intimated by Accused officer under Ex.D35 and Ex.D36 which is also evident under Ex.D37 entries in dispatch register of his office which could not be disputed nor disproved. No doubt correct amount is not reflecting but major portion is shown.

In the instant case, wife of Accused officer also had gold which was sold for construction of the house Item 3 of Asset made in the year 1994. The said sale of the gold receipts were seized at the time of search which are under

Ex.D21 to Ex.24 they are considered to be the source of income of wife of

Accused Officer for the construction. With regard to Ambassador car, Item no.7 of the asset the same was purchased on loan of Rs.2,50,000/- at the same time it is also observed that she used to get income of Rs.8,500/- per month from the year 2004. Accused officer and his wife got several RD accounts matured and got some of the income and some of the income was re deposited. Some fixed deposits in Item No.31 are observed to be in the year 1993 since then they were

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 been redeposited similarly item 42 to 44 of asset were also re deposits. The salary income alone of Accused officer till 2004 is Rs.13,04,838.40. Therefore if any such deposits are made monthly it cannot be held that the same premiums and monthly deposits were made from illgotten money.

After 2001 Accused officer and his wife got foreign money which is said to have intimated by Accused officer under Ex.D35 and Ex.D36 which are true copies from the office of Accused officer. Ex.D37 is the extract from dispatch register showing the dispatch of original of Ex.D35 and Ex.D36. No doubt Ex.D35

dated 10.4.2006 and Ex.D36 is 15.4.2007 are not within 15 days of receipt of

foreign money which mandates. At the same time it is not that if within 15 days if not intimated about the receipt of foreign money the public servant will be penalized under criminal law. No show cause notice is received or given by the competent authorities for not intimating about the foreign money within 15 days even to the date of searches i.e. 7.6.2007 from 10.4.2006 date of Ex.D35 or 15.4.2007 date of Ex.D36. Therefore the same cannot be a grave irregularity or a grave misconduct nor anything is to be presumed that the foreign money is illgotten.

281. The argument of the special PP appears to be very strange in stating that in fact the money has been sent by Accused officer to their children which is received back by Accused officer and his wife in the form of foreign money. No piece of document nor any investigation is made in this regard.

Therefore the arguments of the learned counsel that the said foreign money was routed by Accused officer from India is baseless. Thereby the said contention needs no consideration.

It is the arguments of both counsels that the burden is primarily cast upon the prosecution. At the same time it is the case of prosecution that sufficient material has been placed to show that Accused officer acquired disproportionate of assets more than his known source of income.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

It is argued upon that the said source of income which is specially within the knowledge of the accused is to be established by Accused officer. In case of

government servant the prosecution would naturally infer that his known

source of income would be the salary earned by him during his active

service.

The learned Spl Public Prosecutor relied upon a decision rendered by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in between C.S.D. Swamy Vs The State reported in

1960 AIR, 7 wherein above observation is made. At the same time it is also held in the very same Judgment that if the Investigating Officer has not disclosed all the sources of income of the Accused person it is always open to him to prove those other sources of income, which have not been taken into account or brought into evidence by the prosecution.

To the instant case in the explanation of Accused officer in Ex.P78, it is clearly explained by Accused officer with regard to receiving of foreign money by his wife as well receiving into the joint account of his wife and himself which is

Rs. 5,45,131/- and also Rs.63,49,513/- respectively. The said fact is intimated to the competent authorities under Ex.D35 to Ex.D37. In this regard the

Investigating Officer failed to make any investigation. If at all the Investigating

Officer made any efforts and probed positively about the receipt of foreign money and it source there would not be any case at all. The said arguments of learned

Counsel for Accused officer is acceptable.

282. In the light of observations made in the above Judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court, Accused officer has placed sufficient material of his income and its source. Nothing reflects adversely to the case of Accused officer.

283. In the light of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court above mentioned in between V.K.Puri vs Central Bureau of Investigation, it is already observed in the light of guidelines that accused officer is found a public servant. With regard to the nature and extent of pecuniary resources of property found in possession of Accused officer, there is sufficient material submitted by

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Accused officer before this court showing the nature of money as from lawful source and the extent of pecuniary resources are also substantiated.

In this regard it is argued upon by the learned Spl Public Prosecutor that

DW.1 son of Accused officer sending money from Abroad stating that he is working there is not valid nor believed. The son of Accused officer went on student visa. No question of working Abroad on student visa is permitted.

It is also the argument of learned counsel for Accused officer that no doubt going Abroad on student visa the student is not permitted to work officially as per rules, but it is very common for a student from India working there for money for his survival and also to save money and send to their country. In this process, if the son of Accused officer worked there and sent the money it cannot be found fault nor anything to suspect.

284. In the light of above contentions when the foreign money was not objected by the foreign states themselves in sending the same to other countries, it goes to show that the said foreign money is not illegal money. Only legal money out of his lawful source is expected to be sent from Abroad. It is not the case of prosecution that son of Accused officer did any illegal activities.

Therefore the arguments of the learned Spl Public Prosecutor in this regard cannot be considered.

Further in the light of above guidelines the said income shall also be his known source of income i.e. known to prosecution.

In this regard, sec.13 (1)(e), prior to 2018 amendment, explanation itself is very clear which reads that known source of income means income received from any lawful source and such receipts has been intimated.

In the instant case, the foreign money received by Accused officer is believed to be from lawful source and legal. Further receiving of the said foreign money is also intimated by Accused officer under Ex.D35 to Ex.D37.

Further it is for scrutiny whether the properties found in possession of accused were disproportionate to his known sources of income is for further scrutiny.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

285. The learned Spl Public Prosecutor also relied upon a case in between V.K.Puri Vs CBI rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 CRLJ 2929 wherein also it is observed with regard to known source of income of a public servant and also observed with regard to use of expression “Satisfactorily account” in sec 13(1)(e) of the Act emphasize the word “satisfactorily”. The burden is cast upon the accused not only to offer a plausible explanation as to how he came by his large wealth but also satisfy the court that his explanation was worthy of acceptance.

The income as per the case of prosecution of Accused officer itself including salary income is Rs.30,35,321/- (in fact found by court is Rs.31,45,896/-).

If the foreign money which is believed to have been received by Accused officer and his wife from lawful source itself would be Rs.99,29,965/- ( Rs.30,35,321 as per the case of prosecution + Rs.5,45,131/- + Rs.63,49,513/-). The value of the assets as per the case of prosecution is Rs.63,58,492/- (in fact found by court is 5010949). The said assets shows much lesser than the lawful source income of

Accused officer. The other additional incomes claimed by Accused officer and considered are not added to the income of Accused officer in the above calculation. Further, it is left unexplained in showing the asset, the immovable property in the name of daughter and son of Accused Officer as purchased by

Accused Officer in spite it is well known and admitted that by 1998 daughter of

Accused Officer left to USA and in the year 2001 son of Accused Officer also left to USA and had their own personal income. In the instant case, the income of son and daughter are not shown nor included as one unit. When such is the case, how can the property in the name of son and daughter in Item No.6 can be alleged that the same was purchased with the funds of Accused Officer. Only for the reason that the intimation of foreign money is informed not within 15 days and the same is informed much later it cannot construe an offence u/sec.

13(1)(e) of P.C. Act. At the most Accused officer has to suffer departmental enquiry in this regard.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

The further arguments of the learned counsel for Accused officer in the light of a decisions reported in 1981 (51)CLT 67 in between Sri Kalandhi

Charan Malik vs. Union of India and others, that acquisition of the property by the wife of government servant which is not intimated would not effect the government servant.

The above case was with regard to the departmental proceedings. In the instant case, even the properties belonging to wife were informed by Accused officer and found endorsements in the service register. Receiving of foreign money is also informed. Some of the movable properties and with regard to constructions carried are not informed by which itself it cannot be held that it is a grave misconduct so as to convict the Accused officer.

Further in the instant case, the learned counsel of Accused officer argued upon that the Investigating Officer in the instant case himself is the complainant and relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Mukesh

Singh Vs State in SLP No. 39528/2018 wherein it is observed that the informant himself being investigator by itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor and the question of bias are prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

To the instant case it is not in dispute that PW.46 the Investigating Officer on receipt of credible information with regard to possession of huge assets disproportionate to his known sources of income of Accused officer and he received necessary proceedings from Joint Director, ACB authorizing to register a criminal case. Accordingly he registered and took up investigation.

On scrutiny of his evidence it is admitted by him PW.46 the Investigating

Officer that for the specific period stated by him in the evidence he did not collect the salary particulars as found by him that the “records damaged” and “the records were not traced out”. This is the period of 51 months of salary and other perks related. Only for the reason that the “records were not traced out” and “records damaged” the Investigating Officer cannot ignore 51 months salary and calculate the assets as disproportionate assets. It is to observe that no proper

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 investigation is made in this regard with the treasury office or with any other available and reliable material.

It is further admitted by PW.46 that with regard to additional income in

Item No.1 to Item No.15 of Ex.P78 the explanation the relevant documents were also submitted by Accused officer and his wife. It is explained by PW.46 that on perusal of said documents he concluded that those documents are not connected to the said items.

The said explanation appears to be evasive. Item Nos. 1 to 15 of

additional income includes particulars of foreign money. If at all the said foreign

money was considered by the Investigating officer there would not be any case at all. Therefore the opinion that the investigation made is not on proper lines.

286. The learned counsel for Accused officer also relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Petition No. 22453 of 1998

dated 10.4.2002 in between J. Venkateswarlu V/s Union of India represented

by its Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi and others wherein it is held that, “The submission that Sec. 13 of P.O.C. Act, 1988 imposes an active misconduct of a civil servant beyond the prescriptions of the conduct rules is totally misconceived. Rule 9 of conduct rules put an embargo on the civil servant working in the state in the matter of acquisition, disposal, exchange, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise of the properties without permission or intimation to the competent authorities. Violation of said rule by an employee/civil servant may render himself liable to for departmental action for imposition of major and minor penalties”.

Further held that “those rules do not have any bearing whatsoever upon misconduct of a public servant within the meaning of P.O.C. Act, 1988. The submissions made in this regard are totally misconceived”.

The above observations were made in a different contest inspite to the facts and circumstances of this case when Accused officer could substantiate his case with regard to lawful source and known sources of income only for minor irregularities of not intimating about the constructions, several LIC policies,

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 several Recurring Deposits, and several other money transactions alone cannot be the ground for conviction.

287. The further arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that there cannot be any necessity for Accused Officer or wife of Accused Officer to borrow amounts from Leelamohan Naidu, Ramesh nor from the brother of

Accused Officer when huge amounts allegedly were sent to Accused Officer and his wife by their children.

288. In this regard, it is the case of Accused Officer that in the year 2001, the money was in fact borrowed from the said Leelamohan Naidu and the same was repaid in the year 2006. With regard to borrowing of amounts from

Ramesh Babu/DW6 in the year 2005, it is submitted that the foreign amounts were not as such received in lumpsum, thereby for necessity and also amounts borrowed Y.Muralimohan Reddy, brother of Accused Officer to meet the expenditure for the business of wife of Accused Officer and also for other purpose can be taken into consideration. Wife of Accused Officer purchased flight tickets met with such expenditure to go to USA and also other expenditure.

If at all she borrowed from her brother-in-law it cannot be said that the said transactions have any ulterior motive. It is not the case of receiving of money from others so as to infer any bribe. The transactions under the cheques is substantiated that they were repaid. It is not the case of Investigating Agency that the said amounts given to above said persons by way of cheque were misused and were given for any undue advantage in his service. As above said, it is not receiving of money. There is a clear documentary evidence that Accused

Officer has paid amounts. Therefore, the said arguments of Special Public

Prosecutor cannot be considered.

289. Further the learned counsel for Accused officer also argued upon that non submission of Annual Property returns would result into awarding of “censure”. In this regard a circular memo No. 695/SCR.C/206 dated 12.10.2006 is placed before this court. Another memo No. 623/SPL.C/A1/2008.1 dated 15.10.2008 wherein Government of A.P. given guidelines in para 2 (III) (3) that

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024 the properties of Kith and kin of accused officer should not automatically be added to the properties. Proper analysis of the sources of such assets of kith and kin and friends should be undertaken before arriving at a decision to include the same in the properties of Accused officer.

In the instant case, as above held the Investigation is not made on proper lines and as per guidelines above mentioned in memo.

Further learned counsel for Accused officer also filed a memo No.

623/SPL.C/2008 – 2 dated 15.10.2008 issued by Government of A.P. enhancing the existing margin in evaluating disproportionate assets from 10 percent to 20 percent – modified orders.

To the instant case there needs no necessity for application of any enhanced percentage in evaluation of disproportionate assets.

290. In the instant case, though the Conduct Rules are clear that the family includes spouse and children, but the Investigating Agency failed to show the income, expenditure of the children and only placed asset belonging to children. Therefore, it is to observe that the Conduct Rules cannot be implored to prove the guilt of the accused officer, as already the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Total Income … 31,45,896.00 (+) Additional Income considered by Court … 80,82,014.95 --------------------- Total ,,, 1,12,27,910.95 -------------------- Expenditure … 32,73,043.00 -------------------- Income – Expenditure … 79,54,867.95

The total value of the Assets during the check-period … 50,10,949-00 -------------------- Savings – Assets … 29,43,918.95 -------------------

The surplus amount is Rs.29,43,918.95.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish its case against Accused

Officer beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

291. In the result, the Accused Officer is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the Accused Officer shall be in force for a period of six month, as per Section 437-A(1) Cr.P.C. The attachment Order over the properties shown in

Annexures I to IV in Crl.M.P.No.957 of 2007, dated 24.11.2007 and made absolute Order, dated 4.3.2014 shall stand raised after appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 18th day of March, 2024.

Sd/- Smt.C.Satya Vani,

Spl. Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases-cum- II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1 : Challa Adinarayana Naidu, Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Madanapalli.

PW2 : R.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the then Inspector of Sericulture, Nakkaladinne, Madanapalli.

PW3 : G.Venkateswara Reddy, the then Agricultural Officer, Office of Deputy Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation) Collectorate Complex, Kurnool.

PW4 : P.Madhusudhana Reddy, the then Sub Registrar, Renigunta.

PW5 : Pendekanti Venkata Subramanyam, Gold Appraiser, Koilkuntla Co- operative Town Bank.

PW6 : Yarasi Ramasubbamma, Mother of Accused Officer.

PW7 : Kadapa Sirajuddin, the then Sub Registrar, Koilkuntla.

PW8 : Ekambram Satyanarayana, the then Sub Registrar, Chandragiri.

PW9 : Panthula Gangadharam, the then Chief Manager, S.B.I., Madanapalli Branch.

PW10 : C.Venkata Krishnamurthy, Chief Executive Officer, Koilkuntla Co- operative Town Bank Limited, Koilkuntla.

PW11 : G.Sundaram, the then Sub Registrar, Madanapalli.

PW12 : K.John Burg, Manager, Operations, Andhra Bank, Sanjeevareddynagar Branch, Hyderabad.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

PW13 : D.Suresh, the then Marketing Executive, D.H.F.L. Vysya Housing Finance Limited, Tirupati.

PW14 : K.P.Sudhakar, the then Deputy Executive Engineer, ACB, Hyderabad.

PW15 : Bukkera Subba Raju, R.K. Jewellery Shop at Madanapalli.

PW16 : K.Srihari Gopal, the then Branch Manager, S.B.H., Madanapalli.

PW17 : T.N.Sharath Chander, the then A.G.M., S.B.H., Tirupati Main Branch

PW18 : Bodhi Prathap, the then Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, City Branch- II, Tirupati.

PW19 : Mukku Satyavanthudu, Advocate, Tirupati Bar Association and was Notary Advocate from 1996 to 2013.

PW20 : Miss. S.Chandra, Retired as Brigadier, Nursing Section, Headquarter, Pune.

PW21 : K.Ram Mohan, Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Main Branch, Tirupati.

PW22 : K.Ramesh, Branch Manager, S.B.I. Koilkuntla.

PW23 : G.N.Linga Moorthy, the then Administrative Officer, LIC of India, Madanapalli.

PW24 : G.Vamisimohan Reddy, the then Sub Post-Master, Bus-stand Post Office, Koilkuntla.

PW25 : Paladi Rama Chandrudu, the then Sub Post-Master, Lower Selection Grade Post Office, Koilkuntla.

PW26 : A.Ramaswamy, the then Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Madanapalle.

PW27 : Mamillapalle Balaji Aravind, the then Assistant Manager, L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited, Tirupati.

PW28 : V.Subramanyam Raju, Assistant General Manager, B.S.N.L., Office of General Manager, Telecoms District, Tirupati.

PW29 : N.Srinivasulu, Principal, Rayalaseema Junior College, Tirupati.

PW30 : A.Balaji Kumar, the then Assistant Section Officer, Panchayat Raj Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

PW31 : Borra Lakshmaiah, Manager, LIC, Banaganipalli Branch, Kurnool District.

PW32 : C.Venkata Ramana, Chief Manager, LIC, Kurnool.

PW33 : N.Shankar Naik, Senior Branch Manager, LIC, Nandyal.

PW34 : B.Lakshma Naik, the then Manager, LIC, Dhone, Kurnool District.

PW35 : M.S.S.B. Prasad, the then Motor Vehicle Inspector, Madanapalle.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

PW36 : Ramakrishna Prasad, Charted Accountant, Tirupati.

PW37 : B.Phaniraju, Branch Manager, Sundaram Finance Limited, Nellore.

PW38 : B.Mahesh, Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor.

PW39 : S.R.Hussain Saheb, Accounts Officer, RGM Engineering College, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

PW40 : Y.Nageswara Reddy, the then Panchayat Secretary, Koilkuntla Gramapanchayat.

PW41 : B.Chennareddy, the then Principal, Pendekanti Public School, Banaganapalli.

PW42 : K.Srinivas, Counter Staff in Atluri Travel Air, Hyderabad.

PW43 : Jekka Janardhan, the then Managing Partner in Aptech, Nandhyala.

PW44 : A.Doraswamy Naidu, the then Chairman of Market Yard, Puttur, Chittoor District.

PW45 : Ch. Pratap, Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chittoor.

PW46 : M.Giridhar Rao, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range-III, Tirupati.

PW47 : B.Nagaraju, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Tirupati Range, Tirupati.

For Defence:

DW1 : Yerasi Venkata Sudharshan Reddy, Software Engineer, Fedex Corporation, Pitsburgh, Pennsylvania State, United States of America. (Son of Accused Officer)

DW2 : Yerasi Venkata Subba Reddy, Retired Divisional Panchayat Officer (Accused Officer)

DW3 : Kudeti Venkata Prasanna Lakshmi, Teacher at USA (Daughter of Accused Officer)

DW4 : Y.Murali Mohan Reddy, Retired from Army (Brother of Accused Officer)

DW5 : Y.Chowdeswaramma, Housewife (Wife of Accused Officer)

DW6 : Peddineni Ramesh Babu, Bill Collector, Panchayatraj Department, Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat.

DW7 : Kondakkagari Jagannadha Reddy, Cultivation.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Documents Marked

Ex.P1 Made up file consisting of original sale deeds and agreements seized at the time of inventory. Ex.P2 Made up file consisting of original LIC bonds of Accused Officer & Family members. Ex.P3 Made up file consisting of vehicle documents. Ex.P4 Made up file consisting of bank pass books of AO and his Family members Ex.P5 Made up file consisting of National Savings Certificates and Co- operative Bank belonging to AO and his Family members Ex.P6 Made up file consisting of gold and silver bills Ex.P7 Made up file consisting of Bank cheque books belonging to AO & Family members. Ex.P8 Made up file consisting IT returns of AO and his family members Ex.P9 Made up file consisting of LIC housing finance Ex.P10 Made up file consisting of housing loan pertaining to Vijaya Bank Ex.P11 Made up file consisting of bank statements of Accused Officer and his family members Ex.P12 Made up file consisting of qualification certificates of Accused Officer. Ex.P13 Made up file consisting of electricity demand notices and receipts. Ex.P14 Made up file consisting of Gas connection Ex.P15 Made up file consisting of bills of sarees and other Accused Officer and his family members. Ex.P16 Made up file consisting of house tax receipts. Ex.P17 Made up file consisting of telephone bills. Ex.P18 Made up file consisting of health cards. Ex.P19 Made up file consisting of sale deed dated 20.6.2000 standing in the name of Accused Officer. Ex.P20 Made up file consisting of letter issued by SBI showing the balance in the account of AO for Rs.16,60,000/-. Ex.P21 Made up file consisting of LIC Policies. Ex.P22 Made up file consisting of sale deed, dated 27.9.2006 standing in the name of wife of Accused Officer. Ex.P23 Made up file consisting of the certificate issued by Chartered Accountant regarding particulars of properties of AO and his family members. Ex.P24 Inventory report, dated 7.6.2007. Ex.P25 Search List dated 7.6.2007 (PW.1) Ex.P26 Search List dated 7.6.2007 in respect of Divisional Panchayat Office, Madanapalle (PW.2) Ex.P27 Inventory report dated 7.6.2007 (PW.3) Ex.P28 Inventory proceedings dated 7.6.2007 (PW.3) Ex.P29 Letter of PW4, dated 11.6.2007 . Ex.P30 Certified Copy of sale deed bearing Registration No. 4922/2006

dated 18.5.2006 (PW.4)

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Ex.P31 Certified copy of sale deed bearing Registration No. 6104/2005

dated 20.8.2005 (PW.4)

Ex.P32 Relevant portion of Sec 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 Ex.P33 Certified Copy of Registered sale deed bearing Document No. 2740/1988 dated 22.10.1998 obtained by Y.Venkata Sudharsan Reddy, S/o Accused Officer for a sale consideration of Rs.27,100/-, stamp duty paid Rs.3,005/- and registration fee of Rs.291/-. (PW.7) Ex.P34 Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Document No.582/2002, dated 08.05.2002 obtained by Y.Chowdeswaramma, W/o Accused Officer for a sale consideration of Rs.49,500/-, Stamp duty paid Rs.5,500/- and registration fee of Rs.255/-. Ex.P35 Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing Document No.2339/2006, dated 27.09.2006 obtained by Y.Chowdeswaramma, W/o Accused Officer for a sale consideration of Rs.65,000/-, Stamp duty paid Rs.5,850/- and registration fee of Rs.330/- and Miscellaneous was Rs.95/- (PW.7) Ex.P36 Certified copy of Registered sale deed bearing Document No. 782/1990 dated 6.9.1990 obtained by Y.Chowdeswaramma, W/o Accused Officer for a sale consideration of Rs.14,550/-, Stamp duty paid Rs.1,630/- and registration fee of Rs.161/- (PW.7) Ex.P37 Letter dated 13.6.2007 regarding registration charges (PW.8) Ex.P38 Statement of SB Account of Accused Officer maintained by SBI Madanapalli Branch (PW.9) Ex.P39 Loan account statement of Accused Officer maintained by SBI Madanapalli Branch (PW.9) Ex.P40 Letter dated 13.6.2007 addressed to ACB Police by PW9 Ex.P41 Covering letter dated 18.6.2007 addressed by PW10 to the ACB Police furnishing the particulars of S.B. Accounts, FDRs in the name Accused Officer and his family members. Ex.P42 Covering letter dated 07.06.2007 addressed by PW10 to the ACB Police furnishing S.B. Accounts, FDRs in the name of Accused Officer and his family members.

Ex.P43 Covering letter dated 22.6.2007 addressed by PW10 to the ACB Police furnishing particulars of the deposits made by the Accused Officer and his family members( PW.10) Ex.P44 Certified Copy of sale deed bearing Registration No. 6458/2004

dated 15.10.2004 obtained by the Accused Officer for a sale

consideration of Rs.1,23,500/- for which a stamp duty was paid a sum of Rs.13,585/-, Registration charges Rs.620/- and user charges Rs.105/- (PW.11)

Ex.P45 Certified Copy of sale deed bearing Registration No.6459/2004

dated 15.10.2004 obtained by the wife of Accused Officer for a sale

consideration of Rs.1,24,500/- for which a stamp duty was paid a sum of Rs.13,695/-, Registration charges was Rs.625/- and user charges was Rs.105/- (PW.11) Ex.P46 Covering letter dated 14.6.2007 addressed by PW11 to the ACB Police concerned (PW.11) Ex.P47 Statement of Account of the Accused Officer maintained by Andhra Bank, S.R.Nagar Branch, Hyderabad for the period from 01.01.1989 to 16.06.2007.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Ex.P48 Letter dated 20.6.2007 regarding Housing loan of AO (PW.13) Ex.P49 Evolution report dated 29.9.2007 given by PW14. Ex.P50 Attested Xerox copy of letter dated 13.6.2007 issued by PW.16. Ex.P51 Statement of Account of Accused Officer maintained by S.B.H., Main Branch, Tirupati for the period from 02.07.2001 to 07.06.2007. Ex.P52 Statement of Account of Accused Officer maintained by ICICI Bank, Tirupati (PW.21) Ex.P53 Covering letter dated 6.7.2007 addressed by the then Branch Manager, S.B.I., Koilkuntla, J.Saibaba along with Statements of Accounts of the Accused Officer and his family members (PW.22) Ex.P54 Status report on LIC policy of Accused Officer’s wife issued by PW.23 Ex.P55 Letter dated 14.7.2007 of PW.24 consisting of particulars of RD and MIS relating to AO and his wife of Post Office, Koilkuntla Ex.P56 Letter dated 18.6.2007 of PW.25 containing the particulars of the R.D. Accounts of Accused Officer and wife of the Accused Officer in Koilkuntla Post Office. Ex.P57 Statement showing the particulars of electricity consumption charges paid by the Accused Officer for the period from February, 2003 to May, 2007. Ex.P58 Statement showing Housing Loan Amount and repayment particulars of the wife of the Accused Officer along with covering letter, dated 18.06.2007. Ex.P59 Statement of Telephone charges paid by the Accused Officer for Telephone connecting bearing No.231569 for the period from 08.10.2003 to 06.06.2007 along with covering letter of PW28, dated 25.06.2007. Ex.P60 Letter, dated 21.8.2007 containing the Fee particulars paid by the student Y.V.Sudharshan Reddy (son of Accused Officer) in Rayalaseema Junior College, Tirupati. Ex.P61 Sanction Order in G.O.Ms.No.273 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vigilance-III) Department, dated 08.09.2009. Ex.P62 Letter dated 15.6.2007 issued by LIC, Banaganapalli Branch, along with particulars of the payments made by Sudarshan Reddy (Son of Accused Officer). Ex.P63 Letter dated 25.9.2007 issued by LIC, Kurnool along with particulars of the payments made by the Accused Officer in respect of the Policy No.651486564. Ex.P64 Letter dated 06.11.2007 issued by LIC, Nandyal along with payment particulars of policy bearing No.71865192 made by the Accused Officer. (PW33) Ex.P65 Letter dated 28.03.2007 issued by LIC, Dhone, Kurnool District along with payment particulars of the premiums of Policy No.651079493 made by the Accused Officer along with Xerox copy of Policy. Ex.P66 Report dated 09.07.2007 issued by PW.35 relating to the Motor Cab bearing Registration No.AP03U6730, dated 09.07.2007. Ex.P67 Letter dated 18.06.2007 issued by Sundaram Finance Limited, Madanapalle regarding the particulars of loan availed by the wife of the Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Ex.P68 Covering letter dated 18.6.2007 issued by Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor regarding the policies standing in the name of Y.Chowdeswaramma. Ex.P69 Letter dated 4.9.2007 of PW.39 regarding B.Tech Fees of AO’s son. Ex.P70 Letter dated 20.6.2007 of PW.40 House tax, Water tax paid by AO to the house situated at Koilkuntla. Ex.P71 Letter dated 29.6.2007 of PW.41 6th 10th class fees receipt of AO’s son in Pendekanti Public school, Banaganipalli. Ex.P72 Letter dated 18.6.2007 issued by PW.42 purchase of flight tickets for USA Ex.P73 Letter dated 15.6.2007 issued by PW. 43 Aptech computer coaching to Aos son at Nandyala Ex.P74 Letter dated 15.6.2007 issued by PW.45 value of Car AP03 U 6730 purchased by AO’s wife Ex.P75 FIR (PW.46) Ex.P76 Made up files pertaining to income of AO (PW.46) Ex.P77 Made up files pertaining to expenditure of AO (PW.46) Ex.P78 Explanation of AO (PW.46) Ex.P79 Explanation of AO (PW.46) Ex.P80 Explanation of AO (PW.46) Ex.P81 Bound volume containing the properties of AO and his wife (PW.46) Ex.P82 Bound note book relating to RD of AO and his wife (PW.46) Ex.P83 Bound long book containing the amounts received by AO (PW.46) Ex.P84 Made up files containing miscellaneous papers (PW.46) Ex.P85 Return permission dated 31.5.2007 of JD Rayalaseema to registered the case (PW.46) Ex.P86 Authorization letter of permission for further investigation dated 10.6.2008 (PW.47) Ex.P87 Memo of DG.ACB dated 21.9.2008 (Marriage expenses) Ex.P88 Letter to Lr 49 to appraise gold value Ex.P89 Message to expire item No.11 of income by DG ACB Ex.P90 Acknowledgment by 17.5.20 issued by AO Ex.P91 Affidavit of support Ex.P92 Show cause notice dated 12.3.2003 issued by DPO Ex.P93 Explanation of DW.2/A2 dated 14.3.2003.

Documents Marked for Defendants

Ex.D1 Gift deed Ex.D2 Service Register Ex.D3 Purchase of US dollars from SBH, Tirupati (DW.1) Ex.D4 Bank statement of DW.1 Ex.D5 Travel guidance papers sent by DW.1 to USA Ex.D6 CC of register gift deed dated 13.7.1976 DW.2 Ex.D7 CC of register sale deed dated 7.4.1998 DW.2 Ex.D8 EC dated 1.1.1983 to 31.12.1990 DW.2

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Ex.D9 EC dated 1.1.1975 to 1.12.1990 DW.2 Ex.D10 Ryatwari pass book dated 26.7.1980 DW.2 Ex.D11 Un registered gift deed Aos wife dated 10.1.1984 Ex.D12 Letter dated 18.10.2007 issued byCo operative town bank Koilkuntla DW.2 Ex.D13 Letter dated 18.10.2007 issued by Co operative town bank Koilkuntla DW.2 Ex.D14 Missing salary particulars of AO 16.11.1971 to 7.6.2007 DW.2 Ex.D15 Particulars of missing surrender leave salary from 16.11.1971 to 7.6.2007 DW.2 Ex.D16 Particulars showing the Festival Advance which is not considered by Administrative Officer DW.2 Ex.D17 Letter issued by Senior Branch Manager to the Administrative Officer with particulars of money back amount DW.2 Ex.D18 Monthly investment scheme bearing Account No. 2301311. Ex.D19 Monthly investment scheme bearing Account No. 2301310. Ex.D20 Monthly investment scheme bearing Account No. 2301312. Ex.D21 Receipt dated 15.12.1992 from the made up file 21 which was marked as Ex.P84 (Already marked) (DW.2) Ex.D22 receipt dated 30.6.1993 from the made up file 21 which was marked as Ex.P84 (Already marked) (DW.2) Ex.D23 receipt dated 15.7.1993 from the made up file 21 which was marked as Ex.P84 (Already marked) (DW.2) Ex.D24 receipt dated 8.10.1993 from the made up file 21 which was marked as Ex.P84 (Already marked) (DW.2)

Ex.D25 Proceedings of the sanctioning Officer of G.P.F. dated 13.8.2004 (DW.2) Ex.D26 carbon copy of invoice of purchase of car for Rs.3,87,600/- (DW.2) Ex.D27 served copy of letter dated 22.6.2007 given by dealer of the car to the Investigating Officer explaining the rebate (DW.2) Ex.D28 Note book with regard to particulars of terms and conditions and monthly rent of the car bearing No. AP03U6730 (DW.2) Ex.D29 Attested copy of statement of account of SBI, Koilkuntla (DW.2) Ex.D30 Downloaded copy of statement of account of SBI, Madanapalli. Ex.D31 Downloaded copy of statement of account of SBH, Hyderabad (DW.2) Ex.D32 Downloaded copy of statement of account of Andhra Bank.(DW.2) Ex.D33 Downloaded copy of statement of account of ICICI bank.(DW.2) Ex.D34 Attested copy of the history sub ledger from Shriram City Union Finance in the name of Accused Officer dated 27.10.2007.(DW.2) Ex.D35 Information with regard to informing the Panchayatraj office of A.O. by A.O. through Divisional Panchayatraj Officer about receiving of Foreign money with covering letter under Information Act dated 23.01.2010.(DW.2) Ex.D36 Information letter with regard to intimation of Foreign monies by A.O. through Divisional Panchayatraj Officer to the Commissioner, Panchayatraj with covering letter dated 23.01.2010.(DW.2)

Judgment in CC No.37 of 2015 Dated 18.03.2024

Ex.D37 Attested copy of Dispatch Register dated 23.01.2010 showing that the letter of Information sent by Divisional Panchayatraj officer to Commissioner Panchayatraj. (DW.2) Ex.D38 Statement of Account from S.B.H., Tirupati in the name of Chowdeswaramma. (DW.2) Ex.D39 The entry in 3rd page with regard to closure proceeds dated 27.12.2006 of an amount of Rs.6,91,031/-. (DW.2) Ex.D40 Attested copy of extract of registered contractors issued by Panchayat Secretary, Koilkuntla Grampanchayat, Kurnool District with covering letter under Information Act. (DW.2) Ex.D41 The self statement of household expenditure towards Item No.1 consisting of 10 pages. (DW.2) Ex.D42 Covering letter dated 7.6.2007. Ex.D43 Covering letter dated 22.6.2007.

Sd/- Smt.C.Satya Vani,

Spl. Judge for Trial of 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, this the 29 th day of December, 2023.

Present: Smt. C. SATYA VANI,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE No.11 of 2014

(Cr.No.07/RCT-NPK/2012 of Prakasam District, Nellore Range)

1.Name of the Complainant: State: Represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore.

2.Name of the Accused : Sri Upputuri Seetharamaiah, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, Assistant Executive Engineer, O/o Dy. E.E., Irrigation Department, Kandukur, Prakasam District.

3.Offence & Section of Law: Charge No.1: U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988. Charge No.2: U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988.

4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court : Accused is found guilty.

6.Result (Sentence or :In the result, the Accused Officer is found guilty order) for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 7 of P.C.Act, 1988. He shall also undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988. Total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The period of remand of the accused in judicial custody i.e., from 27.03.2012 to 29.03.2012 (3 days) shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O.7 – Currency notes Rs.7,500/- kept in FDR vide CPR No.7 of 2014 is confiscated to State and shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and M.Os.1 to 6 and 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

7. Prosecution conducted by : Smt. Ch. Thriveni, Special Public Prosecutor

8. Defence conducted by : Sri V.R.Machavaram & Sri V.V.Koteswara Rao, Advocates.

9. Date of hearing : 12.12.2023.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer in Crime No. Cr.No.07/RCT-

NPK/2012 of Prakasam District, Nellore Range for the offence punishable under

Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The accused worked as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Office of Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kandukur, Prakasam

District from 10.12.2008 to 26.03.2012. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C.Act.

3. The case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is as follows:-

PW1/Sri Allampati Niranjan Reddy is a Civil Contractor, resident of

Indupur village, Allur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. PW1/Sri Allampati Niranjan

Reddy obtained license to work in Irrigation Department vide Reg.No.03/2008 and he is the successful tenderer of the development works to Chowtapalem tank of Chowtapalem village of Ponnalur Mandal which falls under Ongole Circle office through ‘e’ tenders on 19.05.2008 with estimation of Rs.28.0 lakhs and he quoted for the work for 21.69% less i.e., Rs.21,90,526/- and made agreement vide Agt.No.31/08-09. PW1/Sri Allampati Niranjan Reddy completed the said work by 31.08.2009 and he received the payments for the same on 22.02.2011.

The maintenance period for the above work was 2 (two) years and was expired by 31.08.2011. Since then i.e., for the last six months, he has been approaching

Singarayakonda Irrigation Office for getting his EMD Deposits, FSD, Insurance,

Technical persons etc., for about Rs.1,60,140/- and he was informed by

Accused, the then Assistant Executive Engineer that the concerned M-Book was not available at Singarayakonda office.

PW1/ Sri Allampati Niranjan Reddy learnt that the said M-Book was taken away by Accused who has been transferred from Singarayakonda to Kandukur.

PW1 approached Accused and Accused demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe to return the M-Book to the concerned. For the last six months PW1 had been

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 approaching the Accused at his office and also at his residence and requesting him to send the M-Book to the concerned. But Accused put his words with deaf ear and demanding for bribe amount.

On 17.03.2012 PW1/Sri Allampati Niranjan Reddy again met Accused at his residence and requested to send the said M-Book to Assistant Executive

Engineer, Singarayakonda. Accused again demanded for Rs.20,000/- as bribe and on repeated requests of PW1, Accused finally reduced the bribe amount to

Rs.7,500/- and if PW1 fails to pay the said bribe amount, he would not send the said M-Book to the concerned. As there was no other go, PW1 agreed to pay

Rs.7,500/- as bribe and returned. However, PW1/ Sri Allampati Niranjan Reddy was not willing to pay the bribe amount to Accused. Therefore, he approached

PW9/Dy.S.P., ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore and lodged a written report for necessary action against Accused in this respect.

4. PW9/the then Dy. S.P., ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore after due verification of this report and on preliminary inquiry, registered the said report against the accused as a case in Crime No.07/RCT-NPK/2012 on 26.03.2012.

He arranged trap of the accused, organized and successfully it was laid against the accused, when he was trapped on 26.03.2012 in the Office of the Assistant

Executive Engineer, Irrigation Circle at about 12.25 P.M. The accused turned positive to Sodium Carbonate Solution Colour Test. The marked currency notes were also recovered in a sum of Rs.7,500/- from the accused immediately after he received Rs.7,500/- from PW1. The M-Book relating to the work of PW1/Sri

Allampati Niranjan Reddy was seized when produced by the accused from his office, in the course of the same transaction by PW9, the then Dy.S.P., ACB,

Nellore.

The Government of A.P., being competent authority to remove the accused from service, accorded sanction to prosecute him in this case.

Accordingly, the Government issued sanction orders for his prosecution in a

Court of Law vide G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 23.06.2014 of Irrigation and Command

Area Development (Vigilance-1) Department.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

Thus, the prosecution has set out that the accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.7,500/- from PW1/Sri Allampati Niranjan Reddy to show an official favour of sendingM-Book to Singarayakonda Irrigation office where you previously worked as Assistant Executive Engineer and thus made himself liable for punishment for the offence set out against him.

5. The trap amount of Rs.7,500/- was reimbursed to PW1 vide Order

No. 1) G.O. Rt.No.2142, G.A. (Spl-C) Dept., dated 09.04.2008, 2) Draft

Agreement (Annexure-A) and letter of Authorization (Annexure-B), executed by the Complainant Sri A.Niranjan Reddy, S/o Dayakar Reddy, Civil Contractor,

Indupur village, Allur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

6. The case was taken on file under section 7 of P.C Act and process was directed to be issued against the accused, for appearance in this Court.

7. After appearance of the accused in this Court, he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C in respect of the allegations of the prosecution. The accused denied these allegations. Upon consideration of the material and upon hearing the prosecution, as well as the accused, at first, Charge under Section 7 of PC Act was framed and subsequently an additional charge under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act was framed, read over and explained in Telugu. The plea of the accused is one of denial and not guilty.

8. In order to prove these charges at the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P16, apart from M.Os.1 to 8. On behalf of accused, DWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.X1 to X3.

9. PW1 is the defacto-complainant in this case. He supported the version of the prosecution relating to official favour pending with the accused, of sending M-Book pertaining to Chowtapalem Water tank of Ponnalur Mandal to

Singarayakonda Irrigation office. He further deposed in respect of the demands for bribe of Rs.20,000/- by the accused and subsequently reduced the same to

Rs.7,500/- including 26.03.2012, presenting Ex.P1 report against the accused to

PW9, the then Dy. S.P., ACB, Nellore, in respect of these demands of the

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 accused and further deposed relating to pre-trap as well as trap proceedings covered by Exs.P3 and P7 Mediator reports.

PW2 and Sri G.Anjaneyulu were working in the Office of the Assistant

Director, Sericulture Department, Nellore. Both of them appeared as mediators in the course of pre-trap and trap proceedings covered by Exs.P3 and P7 mediator reports respectively. PW2 deposed in respect of the same, supporting the prosecution version.

PW6/Sri P.Venkata Ramana was then Deputy Executive Engineer,

Irrigation Sub Division, Kandukur. He deposed in respect of the procedure followed relating to M-Book and execution of works and about ACB raid conducted on their office.

PW7/Sri N.Purnachandra Rao, was then Assistant Executive Engineer,

Irrigation Department at Singarayakonda. He deposed about not handing over of

M-Book by the Accused Officer as per the Charge list and by the date of trap, M-

Book was with the Accused Officer.

PW8/Sri T.Venkateswarlu was then Section Officer in Water Resources

Department previously known as Irrigation Department at Hyderabad. He deposed in respect of Ex.P11, sanction Order issued against the accused to prosecute him in this case.

PW9 was then Dy.S.P., ACB, Nellore. PW10 was then Inspector, ACB,

Nellore. PW9 deposed in respect of receiving Ex.P1 complaint from PW1/Sri

Allampati Niranjan Reddy against the accused, preliminary inquiry directed by him thereon, that was conducted by PW10, registering Ex.P2-F.I.R thereon against the accused and in respect of pre-trap as well as trap proceedings covered by Ex.P3 and P7 mediator reports respectively. PW10 deposed in respect of his further investigation in this case. Thus, both of them deposed in respect of investigative aspects.

Thus, the prosecution has let-in evidence in this case.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

10. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., basing on the incriminating evidence appearing from the prosecution evidence. On behalf of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.X1 to X3 were marked.

DW1/Sri Shaik Khaja Hussain deposed about one person offering some amount to the Accused Officer while he was coming on a motor cycle and the

A.O. objected him to give money to him, but that person kept the money in the shirt pocket of the accused. Then the accused took out that amount and tried to return the amount to that person. In the meanwhile, 3 or 4 persons came there and caught hold the accused.

DW2/Sri G.Venkata Ramana, the then Assistant Executive Engineer in

Irrigation Department, Kandukur deposed about producing Exs.X1 and X2 M- books from 10.03.2012 vide book No.1378 and another M-book No.1379 in respect of the work relating to Mopadu Tank.

DW3/Sri K.N.Ramesh, the then Deputy Executive Engineer in Irrigation

Department at Kandukur deposed about producing the charge list handed over by the Accused Officer to his successor Sri Poornachandra Rao, dt.31.12.2010.

Ex.X3 is the relevant entry with regard to the M-book in charge.

DW4/Sri P.Swamulu, the then Attender deposed about one person thrusted some amount in the shirt pocket of Accused Officer on 26.03.2012 while the accused officer was coming on his motor cycle and the accused officer trying to remove that amount, two persons came and caught hold of A.O. and took him to their office.

DW5/Sri R.Ankaiah, the then Work Inspector deposed about PW1 not doing the work properly and the accused officer used to stop the operation of

J.C.B and used to get the work done properly. He further deposed about PW1 used to utter the words that he would see the end of J.E./Accused Officer and bore grudge against the Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

11. The accused officer stated that he did not demand any bribe nor receive it from PW1 nor he had any work relating to PW1 pending with him. PW1 falsely implicated him in this case. He further stated that he did not commit any offence.

12. Written submissions are filed on behalf of prosecution as well as defence.

13. Now, the following points arise for determination are:

(1) Whether the prosecution established that Accused Officer was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c ) of Prevention of Corruption Act and as to whether the prosecution obtained a valid sanction under Section 19 of P.C.Act to prosecute the Accused Officer for the offences alleged under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act?

(2) Whether the prosecution established the pendency of official favour of PW1 with Accused Officer prior to trap and on the date of trap?

(3) Whether the prosecution established that Accused Officer demanded PW1 to pay bribe of Rs.7,500/- and accepted the same from PW1 for doing official favour in the manner as alleged?

(4) Whether the prosecution established the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act against the Accused Officer beyond reasonable doubt?

(5) To what finding?

14. POINT No.1:-

To the instant case, Accused Officer is Sri Upputuri Seetharamaiah,

Assistant Executive Engineer, O/o Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation

Department, Kandukur, Prakasam District. It is not in dispute that he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c ) of P.C.Act and that he was drawing salary from the Account of Government is concerned.

15. With regard to the allegation that the prosecution obtained a valid sanction for prosecution of Accused Officer in accordance with Section 19 of

P.C.Act for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act is concerned, the prosecution examined PW8 and relied upon Ex.P11, the Sanction

Order vide G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 23.06.2014. PW8 is the Section Officer in Water

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

Resources Department and previously worked as Projects Wing of Irrigation

Department. Sri Adityanath Das was the Principal Secretary of Irrigation

Department for the past 10 years.

16. It is also clearly deposed by PW8 that Director General, ACB,

Hyderabad sent a requisition to accord sanction to prosecute the accused along with copies of F.I.R. and Draft charge sheet, Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, statements of witnesses and other documents along with his letter, dated 28.04.2012. The file was sent to Vigilance Commissioner who recommended sanction to prosecute the Officer. Later, the file was circulated to the concerned

Minister, to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Secretary and finally to the Law

Department. After examining the file, Principal Secretary Sri Adityanath Das accorded sanction to prosecute the Accused Officer. PW8 identified the signature of the Principal Secretary Sri Adityanath Das in Ex.P11, the Sanction

Orders.

17. In his cross examination, it is elicited that draft sanction order was also enclosed to the letter of Director General, ACB, Hyderabad. It is deposed by PW8 that the said Principal Secretary Sri Adityanath Das is still in service.

18. In the light of above allegations and evidence of PW8, in the light of

Ex.P11 it is contended that the said Sanction Order could not be established that the same was sanctioned on application of mind by the sanctioning authority and also contended that PW8 is not the competent witness to speak about

Ex.P11.

19. In the cross examination of PW8, Accused Officer never contended with regard to application of mind while sanctioning of Ex.P11. The evidence of

PW8 goes to show that the Investigating Agency supplied all the necessary material to the sanctioning authority to go through it. But for the reason that draft sanction order was enclosed with the letter of Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, nothing needs to be presumed that the same will be copied without any application of mind by the Sanctioning authority in Ex.P11, otherwise there cannot be any need for supply of all other documents relevant to the sanctioning

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 authority. In the instant case, PW8 deposed with regard to supply of several relevant documents which could not be disputed. When such is the case, it cannot adversely infer that the said documents were not perused while issuing sanction orders. On perusal of Ex.P11 itself, there is a clear mention with regard to verification of all the material supplied by the Director General, ACB. It is not in dispute that PW8 has no knowledge nor that he cannot identify the signature of

Sri Adityanath Das, the Principal Secretary who issued sanction proceedings.

The evidence of PW8 and his credibility is not shaken to disregard the supply of material and sanction issued by Adityanath Das, the Principal Secretary.

20. In this regard, the prosecution relied upon a decision in between

State of T.N. Vs. T. Thulasingam reported in 1995 AIR 1314, dated

13.05.1994 wherein it is held:

“It will be noticed that here the sanction had been given by the superior authority, namely the Government itself which appointed the special officer. Once the sanction is granted by the superior authority it does not get invalidated. It could be invalid if the sanction had been granted by the authority subordinate to the authority who had to grant the sanction and in that case would have been subject to challenge. We thus find that the trial court was right in holding that the sanction was

validly granted by the competent authority”.

21. In another decision in between C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs. State of

Karnataka reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 2145 (SC) wherein it is held:

“When the sanction order is self explanatory of the material perused by the authority only formal evidence has to be produced to prove the validity of sanction order.”

22. In another decision in between Inspector of Police, A.P. Vs.

K.Narasimhachary reported in 2006(1) ALT (Crl) 114 SC wherein it is held:

“Sanction order is a public document within the meaning of section 74 of Evidence Act. It can be proved by examining an officer worked under the authority and

authentically of the Order cannot be questioned.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

23. Further, this Court also refers to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in between the State of M.P. Vs. Jiyalal (2009) 15 SCC 72 wherein it is held:

“The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bonafide manner.”

24. Similarly, in a decision in between Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (NCT Delhi) Judgment, dated 27.11.2019 wherein it is held:

“Once the order granting sanction shows that all the available material placed before the sanctioning authority, the sanction order stands proved” and “a mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure

of justice or has been occasioned thereby”.

25. In the light of above observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

State of M.P. Vs. Jiyalal, there is a clear mention that the sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official function, thereby this Court is of the opinion that a direct presumption u/s 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act can be drawn. It reads:

“(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.”

No doubt, the above presumption is rebuttable to the instant case. No material is placed to discard the evidence of PW8 in the light of the material supplied by the

Director General, ACB to the Sanctioning Authority. It cannot be observed that without referring of such abundant material, sanction orders under Ex.P11 have been issued. On perusal of Ex.P11 also it clearly shows that all such material and case facts have been scrutinized and verified in order to issue sanction proceedings.

26. No doubt, the endeavour of sanction is to protect the Government employee, but for the said reason when there is abundant material to presume that in discharge of routine official functions Ex.P11 is issued, nothing adverse needs to be presumed. Moreover, nothing elicited from the evidence of PW8 to disprove Ex.P11 and suspect the same. Further, in a case the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in K.Narasimhachary’s case

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 (1) 2006(1) ALT (Crl) 114 (SC) observed and considered that when there was no challeng to the authenticity of sanction at any stage during the course of trial and further the witness identified the signature of sanctioning authority, the Supreme Court observed that the sanction was proved.

27. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in Mohd. Iqbal

Ahmed’s case that :

“an order of valid sanction can be proved by the

Sanctioning Authority in two ways: either (1) by

producing the original sanction which itself

contains the facts constituting the offence and the

grounds of satisfaction; or (2) by adducing

evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed

before the Sanctioning Authority and the

satisfaction arrived at by it. In this case, the

original order of sanction has been produced.”

28. Therefore, the evidence of PW8 who had acquaintance with the signature of sanctioning authority and also looking into the contents of Ex.P11 which reveals the application of mind by the sanctioning authority. This Court do not find any reason in the contention of the Accused Officer.

29. The learned counsel for Accused Officer also relied upon the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed’s case and contended that there is no material in the instant case to show that there was any application of mind. In the light of above observations, this Court is of the opinion that there is authenticity of sanction under Ex.P11 and on plain reading of the same, itself shows that all the relevant documents have been verified which amounts to application of mind. Therefore, the observations of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed’s case would not help the contention of the Accused

Officer. Further, in the very same judgment and also in a case in between State of Rajasthan Vs. Dr. A.K. Datta reported in AIR 1981 SC held that:

“requirement of proving the sanction can be done in

any two ways either by producing the original sanction

which itself contains the facts constituting the offence

and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing

evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed

before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction

arrived at by it.”

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

30. In a case of CBI, Hyderabad Vs. P.Muthu Raman reported in 1996 Crl.L.J. 3638 it was held that signature on the sanction should be either by sanctioning authority or by his subordinate officer or clerk who has seen the sanctioning authority or who is acquainted with the signature of the sanctioning authority. Once the signature is proved and if the sanction order is a speaking order then, the matter ends there.”

31. To the instant case, nothing is disputed that PW8 is not competent to identify the signature of the sanctioning authority. Ex.P11 is a speaking order with all particulars of the material referred for issuing of sanction order.

32. In a case of Babar Ali Ahmed Ali Sayed Vs. State of Gujarath reported in 1991 Crl.L.J. 1269 Gujarath, it was held that “if facts appear on face of sanction, there is no question of proving it by leading evidence of authority who has accorded sanction to prosecute. If the facts are not appearing on the face of sanction, then it can be proved by independent evidence that sanction was accorded after those facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority.”

33. In a case of State Vs. K.Narasimhachary reported in 2006

Crl.L.J. 518 SC, the Apex Court has held that the prosecution sanction order being a public document there may not be a need to summon sanctioning authority as prosecution witness provided the prosecution proves that all the relevant material was placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the sanction was accorded thereafter.

34. To the instant case, Ex.P11 itself is very clear that all the relevant documents were referred and verified for sanction order. However, if the prosecution sanction is challenged by Accused Officer on the ground of competence of the sanctioning authority or non application of mind and if a prima facie case of suspension arises, the Court can exercise its powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C to summon the sanctioning or signing authority. To the instant case, nothing is disputed in the evidence of PW8 except stating that PW8 is not

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 competent to depose. Noting is disputed with regard to competency of sanctioning authority nor application of mind so as to take any steps nor any steps have been initiated by the Accused Officer. No doubt, it is the burden cast upon the prosecution but when the prosecution discharged its burden by examining PW8 and also brought on record Ex.P11 which is apparently disclosing all the facts with regard to verifying of material and application of mind.

It is for the Accused Officer to disprove the same.

35. Only for the reason that there is no evidence by PW8 that the sanctioning authority the Principal Secretary herein issued Ex.P11 on application of mind of which PW8 is certainly not competent to speak about it cannot be the reason to discard the evidence of PW8.

36. Further, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer relied upon a decision in between State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan reported in 2007

Lawsuit SC 1025 wherein it is observed that:

Undisputedly application of mind on part of sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on part of the sanctioning authority.

37. In the above said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the sanction order does not indicate application of mind as the materials placed

before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed. It is also

observed that:

“Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority.”

38. To the instant case, all the material relevant has been placed

before the sanctioning authority which is clearly mentioned in Ex.P11 – Sanction

order itself and also deposed by PW8 basing on the record. Therefore, the above said decision has no application to the contention of accused officer.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

39. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there was a valid sanction under section 19 of P.C.Act to prosecute the Accused Officer for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.

40. POINTS 2 to 4:

PW1 is the defacto complainant who in accordance with his case deposed that he being a registered Civil Contractor since 2008 and also that he is aware of the Accused Officer working as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Irrigation

Department at Singarayakonda. He being a successful bidder for the development work with regard to public tank in Chowtapalem village, Ponnalur mandal in the year 2008. The estimated cost for the work was Rs.28 lakhs. But he quoted it for Rs.21.9 lakhs. Towards deposit, he paid 2 ½ % of the cost of the work under the agreement. Thereby, an amount of Rs.1,60,140/- was due to

PW1 from the Department including 2 ½ % of deposit made by him. He completed the work by 31.08.2009. In spite of lapse of 2 years of defect liability, no defects were found during the said period. He received bills for the work done by him and only Rs.1,60,140/- was due to him. The ‘M’ books disclose the work done by him. The Section Officer in the Office of Assistant Executive

Engineer, Irrigation Department, Singarayakonda maintains that ‘M’ book.

The said ‘M’ Books will be verified by Assistant Engineer and his superior officers. The Accused Officer has to certify the works done by him to get the amounts.

41. It is further deposed that within two or three days after 31.08.2011, he applied to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department,

Singarayakonda for an amount of Rs.1,60,140/- which was due to him. By then, the Accused Officer was transferred to Kandukur. One Poornachandra Rao/PW7 was successor of the Accused Officer. When he enquired with him for the return of the said amount, he informed that the said ‘M’ books were not available in the

Office. Thereafter, on enquiry, PW1 came to know that ‘M’ Book was with the

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

Accused Officer. About 3 or 4 days prior to the complaint of PW1, he approached the Accused Officer and asked about ‘M’ Books.

42. Then, the Accused Officer demanded PW1 for a bribe of

Rs.20,000/- when he said that he cannot pay the said amount, the Accused

Officer asked to pay atleast Rs.7,500/-. As PW1 was not willing to pay bribe to the Accused Officer, he gave a complaint to DSP, ACB, Nellore on 24.03.2012 under Ex.P1. The DSP instructed PW1 to come as and when required by him along with bribe amount. On 25.03.2012 in the evening hours, PW1 was asked to come to the Office of DSP, ACB, Nellore on the next day morning along with the bribe amount. Accordingly, PW1 went to the Office of DSP, ACB, Nellore at 8-00 a.m. on 26.03.2012. Later, the DSP called him to his Chambers and introduced two mediators who were from Sericulture Department. The mediators ascertained genuineness of the complaint from PW1 and also enquired PW1 about the contents of the complaint. PW1 affirmed the contents as true and correct and on the instructions of DSP, he handed over Rs.7,500/- which were 1000 rupee denominations 7 notes in number and one currency note of 500 rupee denomination. The mediator counted and the other mediator noted down the serial numbers. Thereafter, on the instructions of DSP, the amount was handed over to the Constable by the mediator.

43. Thereafter, the Constable prepared the solution in two separate glasses. Then the Constable applied some powder on the currency notes and dipped his hands in the solution and there was no change in the colour of solution. Again the constable applied some powder on the notes and when he dipped his hands in the glass of solution, the colour of the solution turned into pink colour. On the instructions of DSP, the Constable has put the tainted currency notes in his shirt pocket. The DSP instructed to handover the currency notes to the Accused Officer only on demand and not otherwise and also directed not to touch the currency notes until need arises.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

44. PW1 further stated that then they proceeded to Kandukur along with DSP, staff and two mediators and reached at 12-00 Noon. There, they stopped their vehicles at TVS Office near the office of Accused Officer. DSP instructed PW1 to go to the Office of Accused Officer and to collect ‘M’ Book from

Accused Officer and only on demand to pay the money and also to give signal by wiping his face thrice with kerchief in case of Accused Officer receives the bribe amount. Two Inspectors followed PW1. PW1 went inside the Office of Accused

Officer at 12-15 P.M., and the Inspectors were waiting outside. PW1 asked

Accused Officer for the ‘M’ Book and he enquired whether he brought the bribe amount demanded by him. Then PW1 took the said amount from his shirt pocket and handed over the same to Accused Officer. Then Accused Officer received

it with his right hand, counted the same and kept it in his shirt pocket on

the left side. When PW1 asked Accused Officer about ‘M’ book, he told that he would send the ‘M’ Book to Singarayakonda Office and asked him to go to

Singarayakonda. Thereafter, PW1 came outside and gave signal by wiping his face with kerchief. Immediately, two inspectors came and caught hold of the

Accused. DSP, his staff and other two mediators also came. DSP asked PW1 to wait outside and he went inside the office of Accused Officer and confronted with the version of Accused Officer with PW1 after PW1 was asked to come inside the office. Then PW1 informed that Accused Officer voluntarily received the bribe amount. Thereafter, PW1 was asked to wait outside. At about 7-00 p.m., DSP and his staff came out of the Office of Accused Officer. It is further stated by

PW1 that his work done is entered in ‘M’ Book at page 40 and 41. His statement was recorded by DSP and also his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

45. PW2 is one of the mediators in whose presence the Pre-Trap

Proceedings were drafted. It is also deposed by him that on 26.03.2012 at 8-30 a.m., he and also Anjaneyulu, the other mediator went to the office of DSP, ACB,

Nellore. They were introduced to DSP, ACB and his staff and also with the complainant after he came. The copy of complaint was given to the mediators

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 wherein they made enquiries with the complainant. The complainant affirmed the same. The copy of complaint is Ex.P2.

46. It is further stated by PW2 with regard to the currency notes brought by complainant, its denomination and counting of the amount, noting down of the currency notes numbers in the Pre-Trap proceedings. It is further stated by PW2 with regard to chemical test conducted by one of the constables in their presence by using Sodium Carbonate Solution and Phenolphthalein powder in two glasses and its change of colour into pink colour. The instructions given by the DSP to the complainant with regard to meeting of him and also to pay the bribe tainted amount only on demand. It is further stated by PW2 that samples of Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein powders were collected, packed, sealed and affixed with their signatures on those covers. M.Os.1 and 2 are the said sealed covers. The Pre-Trap proceedings under Ex.P3 were drafted. It is also stated that they all proceeded to the Office of Accused Officer at Kandukur and reached office by 12-10 p.m. The vehicles were stopped at

TVS Office near the office of Accused Officer. The DSP again reiterated the instructions with regard to payment of tainted amount only on demand and giving signal by wiping his face thrice with hand kerchief. Accordingly, PW1 went inside the office of Accused Officer at about 12-15 P.M. and at 12-20 P.M., complainant gave signal. Then, they all rushed to the Office of Accused Officer and found him in his Office, introduced themselves and the chemical test was again conducted now over the Accused Officer’s hand fingers which turned into pink colour. Then, the said amount recovered from Accused Officer was verified and tallied with the numbers of pre-trap proceedings. The inner linings of the shirt pocket was also subjected to Chemical test which turned into pink colour. PW2 further stated that

Accused Officer given explanation. The said explanation is incorporated in the

Post-Trap proceedings. The DSP seized the ‘M’ Books from the Office table drawer of Accused Officer. The Casual Leave Register, the Charge-list of the

Accused Officer were also seized. Later, DSP secured the staff of Accused

Officer and enquired them. PW2 is the Scribe of Post-Trap proceedings to the

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 dictation of DSP. Ex.P7 is the Post-Trap Proceedings which is marked subject to objection as it hits Section 162 Cr.P.C.

47. The contention of the Accused Officer that the prosecution failed to establish that there was any demand. It is emphasized in the written arguments of the Accused Officer that in Ex.P1-Report, there is a specific date of demand allegedly made by Accused Officer i.e., on 17.03.2012 whereas in chief examination before the Court PW1 failed to give any such date of demand. On the other hand, he deposed that it was 3 or 4 days prior to the complaint. The date of complaint under Ex.P1 is 24.03.2012. When such is the case, it would be 21.03.2012 or 20.03.2012. But it cannot be on 17.03.2012. Thus, there is a variation in the dates alleged as a date of demand which gives every suspicion over the case of prosecution. PW1 is not an illiterate person to justify such variation.

48. On perusal and scrutiny of Ex.P1 with that of the evidence of PW1 with regard to demand, there is a clear evidence by PW1 with regard to such demand, but for the reason that there is no specific date mentioned, the total evidence which is in consistent with that of Ex.P1 cannot be set aside.

Moreover, he spoke that it was about 3 or 4 days only. For the difference of 3 or 4 days, the case of PW1 that there was a prior demand cannot be disbelieved.

Nothing material could be elicited so as to suspect that there was no such demand at all.

49. The further contention of Accused Officer that under Ex.P1, PW1 states that Accused Officer for the last six months requesting for his work. But the same is not deposed before the Court which is inconsistent. Thereby, his evidence is not legal nor trustworthy.

50. The said argument also does not stand as it is the evidence of PW1 that after completion of his work i.e., from 31.08.2011 he applied for return of the due amount to him which amounts to request made by PW1 for his work since that time. The other aspect with regard to whether such an application is made or not is for further scrutiny. PW1 has been pursuing for his work since long time

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 at Singarayakonda and also after transfer of Accused Officer at Kandukuru.

PW1 evidence also reveals that he also met the successor of Accused Officer

Poornachandra Rao for his work which shows that he was pursuing his work with the Accused Officer as well with his successor.

51. The other contention of the Accused Officer is that there is no corroborative evidence for the allegation of demand allegedly made by Accused

Officer. The evidence of PW1 is alone available. PW2 is the mediator. PW9 is the Officer who conducted trap. Apart from their evidence, there is no other evidence to believe the case of PW1. The evidence of PW2 and PW9 is only hearsay from PW1. It is the contention of Accused Officer that he never demanded PW1 the bribe amount. The Trap Officer PW9 did not take steps to send PW2 also along with PW1 to know the truth in the demand of bribe by

Accused Officer.

52. In the light of above contention, only for the reason that the evidence of PW1 alone is available, the statement given by PW1 before PW9 and also Ex.P1 verified by PW2 and other mediator and also the verification made by the other endorsing Officer with regard to conduct of Accused Officer cannot be simply be ignored. There was ample evidence to believe the case of

PW1. The animosity and the grudge contended by Accused Officer and the evidence with regard to same is for further scrutiny. There is a prima facie evidence and circumstances to believe the version of PW1 in this regard.

53. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in between C.M.Sharma Vs. State of A.P.

reported in 2011 (Crl.) Law Journal SC 975 wherein the contention of the defence that there was a strained relationship, thereby the demand of bribe is improbable was not considered. The evidence of Inspector was also taken into consideration and held that for such demand corroboration is not necessary.

54. The aspect of strained relationship if established separately the case of Accused Officer can be accepted. The learned counsel for Accused

Officer also relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 between “Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharastra 1979 LawSuit (SC) 61 wherein it is held that the evidence of complainant should be corroborated in material particulars after introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice.

55. To the instant case, the case of PW1 is that he had no intention to give bribe thereby he approached ACB officials. When such is the case, presuming the complainant as an abettor or an accomplice does not arise.

56. Further, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer also relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Kishan

Chandar Vs. State of Delhi reported in 2006 LawSuit SC 1185 and also

Judgment rendered by Hon’ble State of Telangana in between G.Ramulu

Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2023 LawSuit T.S. 487 wherein the evidence of the other witness was disbelieved in the Judgment of G.Ramulu. It was the evidence of PW2 that the complainant PW1 asked him to wait outside and PW1 alone went inside the Bank. At that time, the demand of bribe was made. When such is the discrepancy and inconsistency, there is every possibility of disbelieving the evidence. To the instant case, it is the very case of prosecution that PW1 being direct witness he is best witness and direct witness to speak about the fact. There is no inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 with that of

Ex.P1 nor the evidence of PW2 with regard to aspect of demand learnt by him.

57. Further, to the instant case, this Court also refers to a decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Vinod Kumar Garg Vs. State (NCT Delhi)

Judgment, dated 27.11.2019 wherein it is observed that “ the corroboration need not be by direct oral evidence and can be gathered from circumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of the complainant is sufficient to convict a person, if it is reliable, acceptable and trustworthy”.

58. To the instant case, evidence of PW1 is trustworthy and reliable.

With regard to the evidence of other witnesses examined and wherein they became hostile does not reflect adverse to the case of prosecution with regard

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 to the aspect of demand. Thereby, it is for further scrutiny of the case of prosecution.

59. Further, with regard to whether there was no official favour pending with the Accused Officer and that the bribe was accepted, the evidence of other witnesses is also for scrutiny. The case of prosecution is that there was a demand of bribe by Accused Officer for returning of ‘M’ books Ex.P4 relating to the contract work executed by PW1 belonging to Singarayakonda

Office and that the same was taken away by Accused Officer on his transfer from

Singarayakonda Office to Kandukur Office.

60. PW3 the Senior Assistant in Irrigation Department, Kandukuru deposed that all the works done by the Contractors will be recorded in ‘M’ Books.

‘M’ Books are maintained separately for Kandukur Section and Singarayakonda

Section. On receipt of ‘M’ Books after verification, their office disburses those ‘M’

Books to all the Circle Offices in their Sub Division. It is in particular deposed by

PW3 that Ex.P4 ‘M’ Books (pertaining to PW1) allotted to Kandukur Section on 19.08.1998. On 19.01.2012 PW3 handed over 44 ‘M’ Books to the Accused officer. He also handed over Ex.P4 ‘M’ Book to the Accused Officer on 19.01.2012 based on the endorsement made on it.

61. Similarly, PW6 also deposed that after making payment , the ‘M’

Books will be returned to Divisional Office and then to Sub Divisional Office and finally to the concerned Section. It is in particular deposed as PW3 that Ex.P4 ‘M’ Books were originally issued to Kandukur Section and the same was returned by Kandukur Section. It is also stated by PW6 that the said ‘M’ Book was not sent to Singarayakonda section till the date of trap.

62. In the light of evidence of PW3 and PW6, it is understood and is clear that originally Ex.P4 ‘M’ Book was allotted to Kandukur Section and the same was not sent to Singarayakonda for verification of the work of PW1. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW3 that ‘M’ Book has to be maintained by

Kandukur Section since it is allotted to it. The Contractor has to apply for return of the deposit amount and only on receipt of such requisition, the said ‘M’ Book

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 will be sent to Singarayakonda. Similarly, PW6 also deposed that they did not receive any requisition from Singarayakonda office to return of ‘M’ Book. It is not undisputed fact that the work pertaining to Singarayakonda is to be verified with

Ex.P4 ‘M’ Book. The said Ex.P4 ‘M’ Book is to be sent to Singarayakonda for verification. It goes to show that the said ‘M’ Books will also be available with

Singarayakonda Office for verification.

63. The evidence of PW7 reveals that he obtained charge from

Accused Officer at Singarayakonda on transfer of Accused Officer. It is stated by him that the ‘M’ Book was not handed over to him by Accused Officer as per the charge list. Admittedly, the said charge was received by PW7 on 31.12.2010. It is also elicited from the evidence of PW7 that since there was no application for return of deposit amount, he did not send any requisition for returning of ‘M’ book to him.

64. At the same time, the Accused Officer got examined DW3, the

Deputy Executive Engineer who produced the charge list handed over by

Accused Officer to his successor Poornachandra Rao on 31.12.2010. It is elicited by the learned counsel for Accused Officer from DW3 that as per records

PW7 took the charge from Accused and he has no personal knowledge and also does not know that whether as per the charge list, all the documents were physically handed over. At the same time, it is to be looked into that as per

Ex.X3, the relevant entry with regard to ‘M’ Book in the charge list, there is a clear mention of handing over the ‘M’ Book to the Successor PW7 herein from

Accused Officer. But PW7 denies that he received the ‘M’ Book from Accused

Officer as per the charge list.

65. Admittedly, the ‘M’ Book was recovered from Accused Officer in the instant case. The evidence of PW3, PW6 goes to show that as the ‘M’ Book was originally handed over to Kandukur Section, it will be with Kandukur Section. The evidence of PW7 as well PW3 and PW6 also goes to show that as there was no requisition from Singarayakonda, the ‘M’ Book was not sent to Singarayakonda.

PW7 is the Officer from Singarayakonda who did not receive any requisition from

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

PW1, thereby he did not make any requisition to Kandukur for ‘M’ Book. No doubt, PW7 in spite of mention of ‘M’ Book in the charge list, without any verification, he kept quiet and did not demand for ‘M’ Book.

66. But for the said reason, the case of the prosecution that Accused

Officer has taken away the ‘M’ Books along with him to Kandukur will not falsify.

The evidence of Prosecution witnesses nor the contention of the accused is that the ‘M’ Books will remain at Singarayakonda or Kandukur without any shuffling.

Thereby, the presence of the said ‘M’ books with Accused Officer at Kandukur clearly establishes custody of the same. But for the reason that the prosecution case is that the Accused Officer has taken away the said ‘M’ Books along with him. If not established totally, the same is to be considered as lack of knowledge of PW1 in explaining the proper custody of ‘M’ Book. Moreover, when there is a possibility of keeping ‘M’ Books at Singarayakonda as well Kandukur for want of verification and record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no material discrepancy in the projection of the case by the prosecution with regard to custody of the document. Further, when PW7 himself failed to ask for ‘M’ Book mentioned in charge list, the said confusion PW1 cannot be expected to state proper custody. Undisputedly, the custody of ‘M’ Book was with Accused Officer on the date of Trap, thereby, only for the reason that there is a mention of ‘M’

Book in the charge list, it does not reflect adverse to the case of prosecution.

67. Further, with regard to the actual trap, conducted, the evidence of

PW1, PW2 supported by the evidence of Investigating Officer who lead the trap party PW9 is sufficient. All the material facts deposed by PW1 and PW2 with regard to the demand of bribe of Rs.20,000/- by the Accused Officer and reducing the amount to Rs.7500/- and also preferring of Ex.P1 complaint before

PW9, thereafter, registering of the F.I.R. in Crime No.7/RCT-NPK/2012 of ACB,

Prakasam District under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act could well be deposed by PW9. It is also stated by PW9 with regard to all pre trap proceedings and post trap proceedings. Conducting of chemical test and also instructing

PW1 for giving signals after payment of bribe amount could also be well deposed

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 by him. He also examined the witnesses present at the office of Accused Officer and recorded their statements. He got recorded the statement of PW1 u/s 164

Cr.P.C. through Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Ongole.

68. To the instant case, PW3 the Senior Assistant at the Office of

Accused Officer, PW4 Attender, PW5 the staff at the office of Accused Officer to speak with regard to their presence at the office of Accused Officer at Kandukur on 26.03.2012 and their coming to know about the trap and the facts of the case.

PW3 admits that he was present in the office from 10-00 a.m. to 6-30 p.m., on 26.03.2012 and he is aware of PW1. It is deposed by him that at 12-00 Noon

ACB trap party brought the accused officer to their office in a Car. Similarly,

PW4 deposed that some persons brought the Accused Officer to their office at about 11-00 am., on 26.03.2012. PW5 deposed that Accused Officer came to office at 12-00 Noon and that some people brought Accused Officer in a Car to their office at about 12-00 Noon and they were in the Office along with Accused

Officer till 5-30 P.M.

69. P.Ws.3 to 5 failed to state anything about the trap and knowledge of the trap proceedings and its facts. They have taken a different version inconsonance with the contention of the Accused Officer that the Accused Officer was brought in a Car by the ACB Officials.

70. It is the contention of Accused Officer that PW2 met him at the main gate when he was going in a motor cycle to his office, PW1 stopped him and thrusted the alleged bribe amount into his shirt pocket and when Accused

Officer trying to remove the amount from the pocket, the ACB Officials caught hold of him and brought him in a Car to his Office. The same has been reiterated by P.Ws.3 to 5 that Accused Officer was brought in a Car to the Office at the alleged time of trap so as to presume that in fact there was no demand nor acceptance of the bribe amount.

71. P.Ws.3 to 5 were permitted to be declared as hostile by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor. Nothing could be elicited in support of case of prosecution from P.Ws.3 to 5. The evidence of PW3 with regard to handing over

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 of ‘M’ Books and maintenance of ‘M’ Books at Kandukur also and procedure of verification of ‘M’ books could well be stated by him.

72. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Accused Officer argued upon that the hostile statements of the witnesses P.Ws.3 to 5 were not confronted with the Investigating Officer to prove that in fact they stated under their Sec.162 Cr.P.C. statements and also relied upon a decision reported in 2016 LawSuit SC 12 in between Krishna Chandar Vs. State of Delhi wherein the duty of the prosecution is observed as “during cross examination with respect to contents of police statement denied by the witnesses, the prosecution is required to prove the said statements at the time of investigation so as to discard the evidential value of examination of chief of PW2. When the Investigating

Officer has not spoken the statement of PW2 regarding contradiction, the evidence of PW2 can be discarded to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, the evidence of said witness was held as has no evidential value.”

73. On careful perusal of the above judgment, there is a clear observation that such evidence cannot be relied upon by the prosecution with regard to payment of bribe or receive of the same to convict the accused. But to the instant case, their evidence is only with regard to their knowledge of the trap conducted at the Office of Accused Officer. P.Ws.3 to 5 turned hostile. But for the said reason, the case of prosecution cannot be set aside. No doubt, their evidence is not helpful.

74. On further scrutiny of the contention of Accused Officer, he relied upon the evidence of the witnesses examined on his behalf. DW1 is said to be a person running Cool drink shop situated near to the Taluk Office and the

Irrigation office situated opposite to RDO Office. He knows the Accused Officer and he specifically mentioned that on 28.03.2012 at about 11-30 a.m., or 12-00

Noon while he was returning from other place, he sought one person offering some amount to Accused Officer while he was coming on a motor cycle.

Accused Officer objected, but the said person kept the money into pocket of

Accused Officer. The Accused Officer took out the amount and tried to return the

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 amount to the said person. Meanwhile, 3 or 4 persons came and caught hold of the accused and took him in a Car. Later, he came to know that ACB officials arrested the accused.

75. In his cross examination, it is admitted by him that since 1993 he is running a Cool drink shop in the name and style of Khader Hussain Cool Drink

Shop and he is paying municipal tax regularly and the tax receipts are available with him. He does not know since how long the Accused Officer is working at

Kandukur. It is also elicited that the distance between Accused Officer Office and entrance gate is 50 Feet.

76. On scrutiny of evidence of DW1 in absence of any particulars as to since how long Accused Officer is working at Kandukur and as to how he is acquainted with Accused Officer, his evidence as such cannot be believed.

Moreover, the date of the alleged incident stated by DW1 is 28.03.2012. In fact, the trap in the instant case took place on 26.03.2012. Thereby, the evidence of

DW1 cannot be connected to the instant case. Further, DW1 failed to place any of his identity with regard to having a Cool Drink Shop near the office of Accused

Officer, so as to presume witnessing the alleged incident. Therefore, the evidence of DW1 is not at all helpful to the contention of Accused Officer.

77. Further, DW4, Retired Attender is also examined to support his contention. It is deposed by DW4 that on 26.03.2012 when he was going to

Xerox shop situated opposite to their office, he noticed Accused Officer coming on his motor cycle from outside their office. At that time, one person stopped the motor cycle of the accused and thrusted some amount into his pocket. When the

Accused was trying to remove that amount, two persons came and caught hold of him and took him to their office. It is also stated that they were asked to disburse. Thereafter, he came to know that the accused officer was apprehended by ACB Officials.

78. Only because DW1 and DW4 deposed that PW1 thrusted some amount into the pocket of Accused Officer, the total trap proceedings cannot be disbelieved. It is also the argument of the learned counsel for accused that it is

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

PW1 himself in his cross examination admitted that “it is true that on

26.03.2012 at Noon time I talk to Accused Officer near main gate of his

office premises for about one minute when he was coming to his office on

motor cycle”.

79. In the light of evidence of PW1, the complainant himself it strengthens the contention of Accused Officer that PW1 met Accused Officer at the main gate of the office during noon hours. When such is the case, there is no possibility of conducting of trap in the office of Accused Officer. It is also argued upon and emphasized in the written arguments that the said statement is not a stray statement and it is to be looked into with all suspicion and also believe the contention of Accused Officer.

80. On scrutiny of evidence of PW1 except the above statement, no where it is elicited nor stated that he met Accused Officer on 26.03.2012 near the main gate and its premises. There is a clear consistent evidence of PW1 with regard to preferring of complaint, conducting of pre-trap proceedings and post trap proceedings as per the case of prosecution. Nothing is elicited in the re- examination with regard to said ambiguity. If at all the truth in contention of

Accused Officer is scrutinized and looked into the explanation of Accused Officer to the notice given by the Investigating Officer, it is clearly mentioned by Accused

Officer that the complainant never met him as alleged prior to trap at his office, in particular in the explanation, dt.14.6.2012 which is the part of record in the instant case. There is a specific mention by Accused that “ on the date of trap,

he came to my office and told him that he has yet to get the EMD etc.,

relating to the work in question and asked him to help him.”

81. In the above admitted fact in the explanation, it can clearly be observed that Accused Officer had knowledge of the work pending with regard to

EMD of PW1 with him. Moreover, the question of meeting PW1 at main gate

near the office and thrusting of amount at main gate does not arise as the

same was not explained at the first instance. If at all such thrusting of amount into the pocket of Accused Officer, incident took place, no prudent person would

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 keep quiet without mentioning the same in his explanation. Only that he placed the evidence of DW1, DW4 and elicited a stray statement, the same cannot be believed upon. The said stray statement cannot be looked into in isolation

with the abandoned material and evidence with regard to trap at the office

of Accused Officer.

82. In this regard, even if the complainant becomes hostile to the case of prosecution, the conviction is sustainable even basing on the other evidence.

This has been clarified ultimately in case of M.Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P.

83. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of Hon’ble

High Court of A.P. in Criminal Appeal No.1020 of 2007, dated 27.04.2023

wherein it is observed that at this juncture, it is pertinent to look into a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of

Delhi reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724 in Criminal Appeal No.1669 of 2009, which is a Constitutional Bench decision. In fact, Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the question of law framed to be decided by a Bench of appropriate strength. Therefore, the matter was referred to the

Constitutional Bench to see as to whether there was any conflict between B.

Jayaraj’s case (4 supra) and P.Satyanarayana Murthy’s case (6 supra) and

M.Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691, regarding the nature and quality of proof when the primary evidence of the complainant is unavailable.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e., Constitutional Bench elaborately dealt with the above three decisions and held that in case of B.Jayaraj’s case (4 supra), the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution. In P. Satyanarayana

Murthy’s case (6 supra), the complainant had died prior to letting in his evidence in the case. In M.Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P., the question was where a legal presumption could be based on a factual presumption. Ultimately, the

Hon’be Supreme Court issued series of clarifications and one of the clarifications

which is appropriate to refer here is that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sin qua non in order to establish the guilt of the Public servant, under Sections 7

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and further Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further in the event that the complainant turned hostile or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during the trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting of any other evidence in the evidence of any other witness wither orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

84. Therefore, to the instant case, the evidence of PW1 other than the stray statement without any reasons as to how he was present there and the purpose of the said stray statement of PW1 cannot be believed and set aside the case of prosecution. Moreover, as above discussed, Accused Officer has not placed his contention in his explanation at first instance which shows that there is every possibility to create story by Accused Officer in the instant case and place the witnesses in support of him like DW1 and DW4. Accused Officer failed to explain as to how he could not mention the place of alleged incident of thrusting of amount as at main gate of office of Accused Officer.

85. Further, only for the reason that PW7 the Successor of Accused

Officer at Singarayakonda deposed that the said ‘M’ Book was not handed over to him itself also shows that it is kept with Accused Officer. The custody of ‘M’

Book Ex.P4 is to be substantiated by Accused Officer for its custody. No doubt,

Ex.X3 the relevant entry with regard to ‘M’ Book in the charge list contains that the said ‘M’ Book was handed over to the Successor PW7. At the same time, it is to be looked into as to how the custody is found with Accused Officer at the time of trap. Without any sufficient explanation, Ex.X3 is not useful to the contention of Accused Officer.

86. Further, but for the reason that PW1 deposed that long back, the total bills were received by him does not show that he received such amount prior to the instant case. If at all such is the case and contention of the Accused

Officer, the record ought to have called for. In this regard, there is a clear

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 mention by PW1 that “after the trap, I received the amount due to me except the insurance amount at the instance of DSP” which directly goes to show that by the time of trap, he did not receive the amount. The evidence of PW1 is also very clear that the original bills were passed by Accused Officer i.e., with regard to execution of work done by him. PW1 made enquiries with Poornachandra

Rao, Successor of Accused Officer with regard to ‘M’ Book. He searched for some time and informed that it was not available in his Office. PW1 being a

Private Contractor might not be knowing the procedure of custody as to whom the ‘M’ books will originally be allotted. His case is for return of EMD, ‘M’ Books are to be verified. If at all the ‘M’ Books are originally allotted with Kandukur

Office, obviously, they have to be called for by Singarayakonda Office.

Admittedly, the ‘M’ Books will not be handed over to PW1. When such is the case, in the said confused state of affairs, if PW1 approached the ACB Officials, the small discrepancies with regard to his case about custody of ‘M’ book, it will not shatter the root of the case.

87. Further, evidently, there is no application made to Singarayakonda

Office for return of deposit amount two days after 31.08.2011 by PW1.

Admittedly, he did not state the said fact to DSP. The said statement appears to be in anxiety, but for the said reason, the total case of PW1cannot be set aside.

Only for the reason that there is no application made by PW1, it cannot be presumed that there is no official favour. The evidence of PW1 clearly shows that several times he approached Singarayakonda Office as well Kandukur Office , it itself goes to show that he was pursuing for return of his EMD amount.

88. Apart from Ex.P4 – ‘M’ Book, there were many other ‘M’ Books with

Kandukur Office. But the ‘M’ Book concerned with the work of PW1 was found in custody of Accused Officer which cannot be disputed. Only for the reason that the evidence of PW6, DW3 reveals that the ‘M’ Book was allotted to Kandukur

Section and that has to be maintained in Kandukur Section. It does not mean that for the work done by PW1 the said ‘M’ Book is to be verified only by call for the said ‘M’ Book. Therefore, nothing discrepancy appears in the case of

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 prosecution in this regard. Therefore, it is to observe that there was every official favour pending with Kandukur Section in the Office of Accused Officer as the ‘M’

Book was within his custody.

89. With regard to acceptance of the alleged bribe, it is observed above that thrusting of amount by PW1 into the pocket of Accused Officer at main gate appears to be created. There is no mention of the said alleged incident if any occurred in the explanation of Accused Officer. In absence of the same and in the light of evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also that the ACB Officials were present in the Office from 12-00 Noon to evening hours deposed by PW3, PW4 and PW5 can be inferred that in fact the ACB Officials went to the Office of

Accused Officer. Further, in the light of evidence of PW2 and PW1 coupled with evidence of the Investigating Officer PW9 clearly establishes that PW1 entered the Office of Accused Officer and on demand of bribe amount, he paid the same and thereafter he gave signal as per the instructions of PW9 and the post trap proceedings were also prepared. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of Accused Officer and the chemical test of hand fingers of

Accused Officer and inner linings of his shirt pocket were subjected to

Phenolphthalein test which turned into pink colour. Nothing could be explained in this regard except the story put up by Accused Officer that the amount was thrusted into his pocket at the main gate which proved to be false. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 could not be shaken nor shatter the credibility of their evidence.

Only for the reason that there is no written instructions to PW2 from his superior

Officers to act as mediator, the case of prosecution and the credibility of PW2 cannot be suspected. Admittedly, the instant case is the first case wherein PW2 acted as mediator. In this regard, nothing could be disputed. Moreover, the evidence of DW1, the witness on behalf of Accused Officer reveals that the distance between the Office of Accused Officer and entrance gate is 50 feet.

When such is the case, there cannot be any possibility to go to Office of

Accused Officer in a Car. Thereby, the contention of Accused Officer cannot be believed upon.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

90. Further, only for the reason that PW2 attempts that at the scene of trap there were good number of public moving on the road, seeking for other person to act as mediator from the local area needs no consideration when already pre-trap proceedings were conducted. In these type of cases, seeking of local inhabitants to act as mediators cannot be taken to pre-trap proceedings and verification of the complaint, F.I.R. and all other facts related to be enquired by the mediators to their satisfaction that in fact Accused Officer demanded bribe.

91. It is clearly deposed by PW2 that he did not notice whether the

Accused Officer passed on through the main gate at Noon time on his motor cycle. The said contention of Accused Officer has been pleaded by PW2 as false. It is further very clearly stated in his cross examination by PW2 that before going to Kandukur, PW1 did not contact the Accused Officer on phone. It is reiterated by PW2 that mediators report were drafted after conclusion of the proceedings, but not simultaneously which does not reflect adversely.

92. The other aspect of genuinety of Ex.P7 it is contended by Accused

Officer that it is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and as Ex.P7 is made on the dictation of DSP PW9 herein, it cannot be believed upon and Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act is hit. Ex.P7 is admissible only to the extent of recovery and it was made before police during investigation and hence it is a statement recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C. The said argument is not at all acceptable. It is very evident and could well establish in the light of evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW9 and that currency notes noted in Mediator Report –I were recovered from the possession of the Accused Officer. In the lengthy cross examination, nothing has really been elicited to doubt the presence and veracity of the testimony of

PW2. To the instant case, the prosecution could well establish that there was a demand and in the Post-Trap proceedings, there was acceptance which is very clear from recovery of currency notes and on chemical test. It at all the chemical test and recovery is false, PW3 to PW5 ought to have spoken with regard to false implication and creation of Ex.P7. They did not speak anything about Ex.P7.

Their evidence appears to be supporting the contention of Accused Officer which

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 is a story created by Accused Officer. The defence plea of the accused that the currency notes were thrusted into his pocket. If such is the case, Accused

Officer ought to have retaliated to the circumstances immediately and those circumstances would have been brought on record through the evidence. In absence of the same, the case of prosecution can safely be accepted. There is a recovery of currency and chemical test could well be established beyond reasonable doubt in the light of evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW9. Therefore, only for the reason that Ex.P7 is written on the dictation of PW9, it would not lose its sanctity.

93. Further, it is also the contention of Accused Officer that due to the disputes and differences in between the Accused Officer and PW1 with regard to the work, PW1 bore grudge and got created this case and implicated Accused

Officer. In the evidence of PW1, it is elicited that it is the first contract work of

PW1 after he became Civil Contractor in the year 2008. Admittedly, PW1 sustained loss in the work allotted to him in the instant case. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, it is not in dispute that the cost of the work was Rs.28 lakhs.

PW1 quoted the cost of the work by him as Rs.21.9 lakhs which itself shows that for less amount he quoted and there will obviously be some loss. It is elicited from PW1 that Accused Officer used to give instructions to him and the manner in which work should be executed. The Accused Officer used to ask PW1 to execute the work in the presence of Work Inspector. Accused Officer used to give instructions to do the work in a better way and in that process, the Proclainer and Tippers were stopped twice. Admittedly, he did not get co-operation of local villagers for work done by him. He sustained loss for the above reasons. The said Work Inspector was by name Ankaiah for some time.

94. Accused Officer got examined the said alleged Ankaiah as DW5. It is deposed by him that due to instructions of Accused Officer relating to work,

PW1 used to stop operation of JCB whenever the work was not done properly. It is also stated by DW5 that PW1 used to utter the words that he would see the end of J.E. the Accused Officer herein. DW5 and others did not inform the said

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 fact and only in the year 2012 he informed the said fact to Accused Officer stating that PW1 abused him and he will see the end. By that time, Accused

Officer was suspended from service. It is elicited from the evidence of DW5 that he sent a report against PW1 to Accused Officer informing that PW1 was not doing the work properly. Admittedly, no enquiry was held against PW1 with regard to not doing work properly. He did not give any report to any one against

PW1 for abusing the Accused Officer.

95. DW5 being the Retired Work Inspector deposing in support of

Accused Officer about the abusive language used by PW1 and informing the same to Accused Officer after his suspension appears to be unbelievable and strange. If at all PW1 did not do the work properly, obviously some enquiry ought to have been ordered. Only for the reason that PW1 admitted that on the instructions of Accused Officer, he used to work and also due to instructions he used to stop work and sustained loss, nothing can be presumed about any grudge. The work taken up by PW1 is in the year 2008. He completed the work by 31.08.2009. When such is the case, if at all there is any grudge with regard to alleged supervision of Accused Officer over the work of PW1, he ought not to have kept quiet till 26.03.2012 much earlier PW1 ought to have planned for implication of Accused Officer in this type of traps. Thereby, only for the reason that there was a supervision made by Accused Officer over the work of PW1 and also through DW5. Nothing can be inferred as PW1 developed any grudge.

96. The learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1998 SC 1474 in between State of U.P. Vs. Zakrullah wherein it is held that:

(a) Animosity theory not accepted.

(b) Acquittance of independent witness with Police are fact that he helped police action – would not by itself discredit evidence said independent witness.

(c) Evidence of trap officer – can be relied on even without corroboration.

(d) Trap case accused caught red handed with tainted currency notes – Non sending of samples solution use for conducting

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 phenolphthalein test to chemical examiner – would not vitiate trap.

97. Further, in a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

between B.Nagul Sharief Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2011 SCC (Crl) (1)

214.

(a) Discrepancy regarding party of the prosecution story itself does not go to the root of the case.

(b) Failure to inform superior officers of A.O. demand of bribe absolutely un-natural- contention rejected-corruption flows from top.

(c ) False implication by complainant as he quarreled with A.O. few days back – not acceptable.

Therefore, in the light of above observations, this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case also, the animosity theory and failure to inform superior officers of Accused Officer with regard to demand of bribe and other small discrepancies needs no consideration. At the same time, when it was so serious about demand made by Accused Officer towards bribe informing higher authorities of Accused Officer is not mandatory.

98. The learned counsel for Accused Officer relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi

Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725 and Banarsidas Vs State of Haryana

(2010) 4 SCC 450 wherein it is observed that “mere recovery of bribe money divorced from the

circumstances under which it was paid, held, is

not sufficient.”

To the instant case, there are no such circumstances showing any differences in the evidence and divorced from the circumstances. Further, in

Banarsidas case, wherein it is observed:

“mere recovery of money from the accused by

itself is not enough in absence of substantive

evidence of demand and acceptance.”

Similarly, the cases relied upon by learned counsel for Accused Officer in between:

1. P.Parusuramireddy Vs State of A.P. (2011) 12 SCC 294

2. Addala Subramanyam Vs State 2013 (1) ALD (Crl) 934 AP

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

3. V.Sejappa Vs State by Lokayukta (2016) 12 SCC 150

Wherein it is observed that mere recovery of currency and in Parusuramireddy case no panchas were present. But to the instant case, two mediators were present and the evidence of PW2 is very much in consistent with Ex.P7 and also pre-trap proceedings.

99. To the instant case, the demand and acceptance has been fully established beyond reasonable doubt in the light of evidence of PW1, PW2 and

PW9. Moreover, it is above discussed with regard to sole testimony of the complainant evidence in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs State (NCT Delhi). Therefore, minor discrepancies cannot completely discredit the evidence of prosecution witnesses which is observed in State of Birbal nath Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1396.

100. This Court already observed that the animosity theory and rivalry contended by Accused Officer is disbelieved. On perusal of the case facts in a decision relied upon by learned counsel for Accused Officer reported in AIR 2011

SC (Crl.) 2041 in between N.Rajakantham Vs State, Inspector of Police has no application to the instant case facts.

101. Similarly, with regard to demand in the instant case, there was a continuous demand. Only for the reason that PW1 failed to give the date of demand mentioned in Ex.P1, his total case and evidence cannot be disbelieved.

Thereby, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for Accused Officer reported in 2005 (12) SCC 576 in between Union of India Vs. Poornandu

Biswas also needs no consideration.

102. Further, with regard to the contention that Ex.P7 is nothing but the statement recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and no other wage needs to be given also needs no consideration as the prosecution could well establish the recovery of currency notes. The chemical test and also the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by Accused Officer. Therefore, the decision in between Mohd. Aman Vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 Law Suit (SC) 811 relied upon by the learned counsel for Accused Officer also needs no consideration.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

103. The learned counsel for Accused Officer argued upon and relied upon a case rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and A.P. at

Hyderabad in between Karri Venkata Rama Reddy Vs. State of AP reported

in 2015 (1) ALD (Crl) 833 wherein it is observed with regard to demand aspect that except PW1 no others were present who have witnessed Accused Officer demanding bribe from Accused Officer. Therefore, the proof of demand mainly pivots on the veracity of evidence of PW1. To the instant case, it is already observed that sole evidence of the complainant is sufficient to believe the case of complainant. Except a stray statement above observed in the evidence of PW1, the total evidence clearly establishes the demand and acceptance of bribe by

Accused Officer. Therefore, it is also to observe that there was official favour and the evidence of PW1 is believable. The other decisions relied upon by learned counsel for Accused Officer:

(1) T.S.Lakshmana Rao Vs. State of A.P. 2012(2) ALD (Crl) 185 AP (2) G.Govinda Rao Vs State of A.P. 2020 Law Suit (TS) 381 (3) E.K. Annamalai Vs State of AP 2020 Law Suit (AP) 848 (4) V.Lakshmaiah Vs State of A.P. 2020 Law Suit (TS) 379

The above said decisions are not helpful to the case of Accused

Officer.

104. Further, with regard to verification of the complaint by ACB, it is argued upon by the learned counsel for Accused Officer and emphasized in the written arguments that as per ACB manual, it is mandatory for verification. The complaint is dated 24.03.2012 and the same was entrusted to one Ch.

Chandramouli, Inspector, ACB for enquiry and verification about the antecedents of the complainant and Accused Officer. The endorsement of said Inspector

Chandramouli is made on the complaint on 26.03.2012 as verified the antecedents of the complainant and Accused Officer. It is found that Accused

Officer was ill-reputed. In this regard, two issues emerge out of the above endorsements.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

DSP directed to conduct verification with regard to antecedents of both of them and second, Inspector made verification on the antecedents of both of them. Thereby, it shows that the Inspector did not verify whether any official favour is pending.

105. The endorsement of said Inspector Chandramouli reads as:

“Sir, submitted. I have verified the antecedents of both the complainant and the accused officer and my enquiries disclosed that the accused officer is ill reputed as corrupt and the complainant has no ill motive to implicate the Accused Officer in a false case.”

106. On perusal of the above said endorsement, there is a clear mention by the verifying Officer, the Inspector Chandramouli that on his enquiry, it disclosed that the Accused Officer is an ill reputed as corrupt and complainant has no ill motive to implicate. Therefore, the said endorsement is not with regard to verifying of the conduct and antecedents. The antecedents verified by the said

Inspector is with regard to any mal-intention of PW1 and ill motives and corrupt practices of Accused Officer which has been clearly mentioned. No doubt, there is no verification with regard to any application is submitted by PW1. But for the said reason, his endorsement cannot be set aside. It is the further argument of the learned counsel for the Accused Officer that the said Chandramouli, the

Inspector is not examined to speak about verification which strengthens the defence of the Accused Officer. The said argument is not at all valid nor appreciable only for the reason that the said Officer is not examined, the verification spoken by PW9 made by the said Inspector cannot simply be ignored. The crime was registered only on such verification. Nothing can be presumed that PW1 has got the benefit and the patronage of the ACB in filing a complaint against Accused Officer. To the instant case facts, nothing of such sort of circumstances have been contended by Accused Officer nor elicited that the DSP, ACB had any special interest over PW1 so as to implicate the Accused

Officer. Therefore, the said contentions of Accused Officer are to be considered as the contentions for the sake of contentions.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

107. To the instant case, the evidence of PW1 to 10 clearly establishes that Accused Officer demanded and accepted the bribe and also that there was an official favour pending with Accused Officer by the time of trap. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 5 is not helpful to the contention of Accused Officer. Thereby, this

Court is of the opinion that there are no two views formed in this case so as to give benefit to Accused Officer.

108. The further contention of Accused Officer is that the explanation given by him on receiving of notice is not brought on record nor marked. But for the said reason, the said document which is a part of record cannot be ignored.

It is already observed that the said explanation does not contain the exact contention made by the Accused Officer in this case. A different story has been put up during the trial proceedings than found in the explanation.

109. Section 20 of the Act runs as follows:

20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration – (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the

Court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub- sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn. Therefore, in a prosecution under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, prosecution has the benefit of presumption under

Section 20 of the Act. The story projected by the Accused Officer during the trial proceedings proved to be false as he did not stick on to his own explanation given by him, dated 14.06.2012 wherein it is stated that thrusting of the amount into his pocket by PW1 was made in his Office room whereas he got examined the witnesses and also the witnesses who were permitted to be declared as hostile who are DW1, DW4 and PWs.3 to 5 deposed that the said incident occurred at main gate of their office which goes to show that a false contention has been made by Accused Officer. Hence, Accused Officer miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.

110. To the instant case, the evidence of the Investigating Officers PW9 and PW10 is much helpful and the same cannot be brushed aside in the light of a decision in between State of U.P. Vs. Dr. G.K.Ghosh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1453 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it is held:

“The evidence of a Police Officer cannot be brushed aside as that of an interested witness. That he has an interest is true only to an extend a very limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to ensure that a citizen who complains of harassment by a government officer making a demand for illegal gratification, is protected and the role of his department in the protection of such citizens is vindicated”.

111. Further, to the instant type of cases eradication of corruption to be made which is observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subramanya Swamy

Vs P.V.Narasimha Rao (2012) 3 SCC 64, wherein it is held that:

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023 “Today corruption in our country not only poses a great danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy & Rule of law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins, all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it.”

POINT No.5:

112. In the light of above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution categorically established beyond reasonable doubt about the pendency of the official favour. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta’s case above referred clearly held when the fact in issue is proved, the prosecution is entitled to have the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.

113. Therefore, in the light of above observation, this Court is of the opinion that the Accused Officer is liable for conviction for the offences under

Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Dictation given in part to Stenographer Grade I, transcribed and typed by her and partly directly typed to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of December, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. C.Satya Vani,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

114. When the Accused Officer is examined and questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C., he stated that his family is depending upon him. His wife and mother are suffering from ill-health. His children are not yet settled. His brother recently expired and he has to look after the family of his brother also. Kindly show mercy and reduce the sentence.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

115. Corruption is a serious offence which affects entire economy of nation, as such, accused cannot escape from compulsory imprisonment provided under the Act, for the offences proved against him which are classified as socio- economic offences/white collar offences and considered to be grave in nature and also when there is a separate legislation enacted to curb such activities, committing of the same deliberately cannot be excused. Therefore, there is no scope to take lenient view in this type of serious offences. Benevolent provisions under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and Secs.3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act are not extended to convicts in this type of cases as observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in various Judgments.

116. In the result, the Accused Officer is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default, to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 7 of P.C.Act, 1988. He shall also undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988. Total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The period of remand of the accused in judicial custody i.e., from 27.03.2012 to 29.03.2012 (3 days) shall be given set off under Section 428

Cr.P.C. M.O.7 – Currency notes Rs.7,500/- kept in FDR vide CPR No.7 of 2014 is confiscated to State and shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and

M.Os.1 to 6 and 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

The Accused Officer is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and in that connection he can avail the services of District Legal

Services Authority, Nellore for legal aid if necessary. Free copy of Judgment is furnished to the Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

Copy of the Judgment shall be marked to the District Collector, SPSR

Nellore District as per Rule-73 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29th day of December, 2023.

Sd/- Smt. C.Satya Vani,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Prosecution:

PW1 : A. Niranjan Reddy, defacto-complainant PW2 : K.Durga Prasad, PW3 : P.Venkateswara Rao PW4 : Shaik Moulali PW5 : K.Chandrasekhar PW6 : P. Venkata Rathnam. PW7 : N.Purnachandra Rao PW8 : T.Venkateswarlu PW9 : J.Bhaskar Rao, the then Dy. S.P., ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore. PW10 : K.Venkateswarlu, the then Inspector, ACB, Nellore.

For Defence:

DW1 : Shaik Khaja Hussain, DW2 : G.Venkata Ramana, the then Assistant Executive Engineer DW3 : K.N.Ramesh, the then Deputy Executive Engineer DW4 : P.Swamulu, the then Attender DW5 : R.Ankaiah, the then Work Inspector.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Complaint of PW1, dated 24.03.2012. Ex.P2 : F.I.R. in Crime No.07/RCT-NPK/2012 of Prakasam District, Nellore Range. Ex.P3 : Mediator Report-I, dated 26.03.2012 drafted at the office of DSP, ACB, Nellore. Ex.P4 : Relevant Page Nos.41 and 42 in ‘M’ Book. Ex.P5 : Tour Diary of the Accused Officer. Ex.P6 : C.L. Register -2012, O/o the Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Sub Division, Kandukuru, one book written up to 20 sheets. Ex.P7 : Mediator Report-II, dated 26.03.2012 drafted at the office room of A.E.E., Irrigation situated in the premises of D.E.E., Office, Kandukur. Ex.P8 : Marked portion of PW4. Ex.P9 : Marked portion of PW5. Ex.P10 : Marked portion of PW3. Ex.P11 : Sanction Order, dated 23.06.2014 in G.O.Ms.No.34. Ex.P12 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Judgment in CC No.11 of 2014 Dated 29.12.2023

Ex.P13 : Memo dated 26.03.2012 in RC.No.53/RCT-NLR/2012 issued by D.G., ACB, AP, Hyderabad. Ex.P14 : Service Register of the Accused Officer. Ex.P15 : Memo, dated 11.04.2012 issued by D.G., ACB, AP, Hyderabad in

RC.No.53/RCT-NPK/2012.

Ex.P16 : Memo, dated 25.07.2014 issued by D.G., ACB, AP, Hyderabad in

RC.No.53/RCT-NPK/2012.

For Defence:

Ex.X1 : M-Book relating to Mopadu Tank from Veeraraghavuni kota, Anicut, Lingasamudram. Ex.X2 : M-Book relating to Mopadu Tank relevant entry with regard to the M book. Ex.X3 : Relevant entry with regard to the M-Book in charge list of Irrigation Section, Singarayakonda, handed over by the Accused Officer and Poornachandra Rao.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 : Sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder preserved at the time of drafting pre-trap proceedings. MO2 : Sealed cover containing sample of Phenolphthalein powder preserved at the time of drafting Pre-trap proceedings. MO3 : Sealed bottle containing wash of right hand fingers of Accused Officer. MO4 : Sealed bottle containing wash of left hand fingers of Accused Officer. MO5 : Sealed bottle containing wash of inner linings of left side shirt pocket of Accused Officer. MO6 : Shirt of Accused Officer. MO7 : Cash of Rs.7500/-. MO8 : Sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder preserved at the time of drafting Post-trap proceedings.

Sd/- Smt. C.Satya Vani,

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

Wednesday, the 24 th day of January, 2024.

Present: Smt. C. SATYA VANI,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE No.04 of 2015

(Cr.No.21/RCT-NLR/2013of Nellore Range, Nellore)

1.Name of the Complainant: State: Represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore Range.

2.Name of the Accused : Sri Kukati Sivaramaiah, S/o Pullaiah, Aged 60 years, Senior Assistant/Store Keeper, The Kovuru Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, Nellore-5, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Offence &Section of Law: Charge No.1: U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988. Charge No.2:U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988.

4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court : Accused is found guilty.

6.Result (Sentence or :In the result, the Accused Officer is found guilty order) for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 7 of P.C.Act, 1988. He shall also undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988. Total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The period of remand of the accused in judicial custody i.e., from 08.09.2013 to 12.09.2013 (5 days) shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O.5 – Currency notes Rs.2,000/- kept in FDR vide CPR No.5 of 2015 is confiscated to State and shall be remitted in the Government Treasury and M.Os.1 to 4, 6 to 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

7. Prosecution conducted by : Smt. Ch. Thriveni, Special Public Prosecutor

8. Defence conducted by : Sri Sk. Mahaboob Basha and Sri K.Madan Mohan, Advocates.

9. Date of hearing : 10.01.2024

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer in Crime No.Cr.No.21/RCT-

NLR/2013of Nellore Range, Nellore for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The accused worked as Senior Assistant/Store Keeper, The Kovuru

Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, Nellore-5, SPSR Nellore District from 10.03.2011. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of P.C.Act.

3. The case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is as follows:-

PW1/Smt. Sk. Husnara Begum, W/o Siraj Ahmed came to the Office of

PW11/Sri J.Bhaskara Rao, DSP, ACB, Nellore and presented a written report stating that they are living by running Tea Stall for 40 years. Her brother namely

Shaik Eliyaj Basha was working in Kovuru Sugar Factory since 1984. In the year 2005, he got voluntary retirement. He is having one son and two daughters. On 25.04.2012 her brother was expired due to ill-health. He had membership in

Employee Pension scheme vide Account No.376. In March, 2013 PW1 filed an application for ‘Widow and children pensionary benefits’ through her sister-in-law

PW7. In the month of April, PW1 went to Accused Officer who was authorized to look after Employee Pension Scheme and enquired about that application. On that, Accused Officer replied that after supplying of the Family Member

Certificate, Death Certificate, Bank Account Books and family photos, he would send the proposals. PW1 supplied required documents to Accused Officer within ten days. After approaching Accused Officer nearly ten or fifteen times for that work, finally one day, Accused Officer replied that the papers were sent to

Kadapa Office. Later, PW1 went to Kadapa Office and enquired about the delay.

They replied that it was returned due to non filing of `10-D’ in that file. On 26.06.2013 PW1 met the Accused Officer and questioned about the delay and requested as PW7 and her children were suffering with hungry. On that Accused

Officer suggested her that the works were how completed freely and demanded

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

Rs.5,000/- as bribe to send that file. After PW1’s request that PW7 and her children were in critical situation due to death of her brother. The Accused

Officer finally agreed to received Rs.2,000/- as bribe and if PW1 pays the amount only, the work would be completed otherwise the file would not be sent. On 04.09.2013 PW1 and her nephew PW8 met Accused Officer and enquired about that work. Accused Officer once again demanded bribe. As there was no other option, PW1 accepted for that and she informed that she would come and met him by borrowing the amount. PW1 was not interested to pay the bribe amount to the Accused Officer actually and approached the ACB Officials and requested to take necessary action against Accused Officer who was harassing PW7 and her children in that critical situation by demanding bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- for sending the file.

4. After following due procedure, PW11/the then Dy. S.P., ACB,

Nellore Range, Nellore after due verification of this report and on preliminary inquiry, registered the said report against the accused as a case in Crime

No.21/RCT-NLR/2013 u/s 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 on 07.09.2013. He arranged trap of the accused, organized and successfully it was laid against the accused, when he was trapped on 07.09.2013 in the office of Head Accounts Officer, the

Kovuru Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Nellore, SPSR Nellore District at about 12-40 hours. The accused turned positive to Sodium Carbonate Solution Colour

Test conducted by PW11. On the request of PW11, Accused Officer produced a wad of currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and LW3/Sri Kandukuri

Markandeya Sarma received the said currency notes and counted the same to be of Rs.2,000/-. On verification, the serial numbers of said Rs.2,000/- currency tallied with the serial numbers of currency notes noted in the pre-trap proceedings drafted in the office of PW11, Dy. S.P., ACB, Nellore Range,

Nellore. PW11 seized the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/- recovered from the possession of Accused Officer for further investigation. PW11 organized the chemical test on the inner linings of the left side shirt pocket of the Accused

Officer while doing so, the colour of the solution turned into pink colour. PW11

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 organized the chemical test on the inner linings of the left side shirt pocket of the

Accused Officer and seized blue coloured polyester full hands shirt having strips and labeled as “Travel” tailors, Big Bazaar, Nellore of Accused Officer for further proceedings after duly attested by PW2 and LW3/Sri Kandukuri Markandeya

Sarma. PW11 seized the file relating to official favour pending with the Accused

Officer under the cover of mediatornama. PW11 observed the scene of offence in the presence of PW2 and LW3/Sri Kandukuri Markandeya Sarma and prepared a rough sketch which was attested by PW2 and LW3. PW11 examined the de-facto complainant/PW1 and recorded her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and later arrested the Accused Officer on 07.09.2013 at 19.05 hours and produced him

before this Hon’ble Court and he was remanded to Judicial custody and later the

Accused Officer was released on bail as per Orders in Crl.M.P.No.297 of 2013,

dated 12.09.2013. Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 was recorded by the

learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore on 03.10.2013.

The Government of A.P., being competent authority to remove the accused from service, accorded sanction to prosecute him in this case.

Accordingly, the Government issued sanction orders for his prosecution in a

Court of Law vide No.KCSF/Esst/admin/221/2014, dated 25.04.2015.

Thus, the prosecution has set out that the accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from PW1/Smt. Sk. Husnara Begum to show an official favour of sendingemployee pension scheme file of Shaik Eliyaz Basha to

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, O/o Sub-Regional Provident Fund

Office, Kadapa and thus made himself liable for punishment for the offence set out against him.

5. The case was taken on file under section 7 of P.C Act and process was directed to be issued against the accused, for appearance in this Court.

6. After appearance of the accused in this Court, he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C in respect of the allegations of the prosecution. The accused denied these allegations. Upon consideration of the material and upon hearing the prosecution, as well as the accused, at first, Charge under Section 7

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 of PC Act was framed and subsequently an additional charge under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act was framed, read over and explained in Telugu. The plea of the accused is one of denial and not guilty.

7. In order to prove these charges at the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18, apart from M.Os.1 to 8.

On behalf of accused, the Accused Officer himself was examined as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D4.

8. PW1 is the de-facto-complainant in this case. She supported the version of the prosecution relating to official favour pending with the accused, of sending employee pension scheme file of Shaik Eliyaz Basha to Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner, O/o Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office,

Kadapa. She further deposed in respect of the demand for bribe of Rs.5,000/- by the accused and subsequently reduced the same to Rs.2,000/- including 05.09.2013, presenting Ex.P1 report against the accused to PW11, the then Dy.

S.P., ACB, Nellore, in respect of these demands of the accused and further deposed relating to pre-trap as well as trap proceedings covered by Exs.P5 and

P10 Mediator reports.

PW2/Sub Registrar, Vinjamur and LW3/Kandukuri Markandeyasarma,

Sub Registrar, Naidupet appeared as mediators in the course of pre-trap and trap proceedings covered by Exs.P5 and P10 mediator reports respectively.

PW2 deposed in respect of the same, supporting the prosecution version.

PW6/Smt. B.Sudha Bharathi, District Co-operative Officer, Nellore and In- charge of Managing Director of Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, deposed in respect of receiving a copy of FIR, Statements of Witnesses,

Mediators Report, Final Report and other relevant documents pertaining to this case from the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad for according sanction proceedings to launch prosecution against the Accused and accordingly

Ex.P11 Sanction proceedings were issued against the Accused vide Proceedings

No.KCSF/EST/Admin/221/2014, dt.25.04.2015.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

PW11 was then Dy.S.P., ACB, Nellore. PW9 was then Inspector, ACB,

Nellore. PW10 was the then Inspector, ACB, Nellore Range. PW12 was

Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore. PW11 deposed in respect of receiving Ex.P1 written report from PW1 against the accused, preliminary inquiry directed by him thereon, that was conducted by PW9 and PW10 assisted the Dy.S.P. in conducting the Pre-trap and Post-trap proceedings, registering Ex.P15-F.I.R thereon against the accused and in respect of pre-trap as well as trap proceedings covered by Ex.P5 and P10 mediator reports respectively. PW11 deposed in respect of his further investigation in this case. PW12 Inspector of

Police, ACB, Nellore deposed about filing of charge sheet, after completion of investigation done by his earlier officers. Thus, all of them deposed in respect of investigative aspects.

Thus, the prosecution has let-in evidence in this case.

9. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., basing on the incriminating evidence appearing from the prosecution evidence. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.

DW1/the Accused Officer deposed about his suspension from service and stated about the statement of employees under VRS package compensation issued by Managing Director and that the Provident Fund of VRS was settled on 06.06.2005.

10. The accused officer stated that he did not demand any bribe nor receive it from PW1 nor he had any work relating to PW1 pending with him. PW1 falsely implicated him in this case. He further stated that he did not commit any offence.

11. Written submissions are filed on behalf of prosecution as well as defence.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

12. Now, the following points arise for determination are:

(1) Whether the prosecution established that Accused Officer was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c ) of Prevention of Corruption Act and as to whether the prosecution obtained a valid sanction under Section 19 of P.C.Act to prosecute the Accused Officer for the offences alleged under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act?

(2) Whether the prosecution established the pendency of official favour of PW1 with Accused Officer prior to trap and on the date of trap?

(3) Whether the prosecution established that Accused Officer demanded PW1 to pay bribe of Rs.2,000/- and accepted the same from PW1 for doing official favour in the manner as alleged?

(4) Whether the prosecution established the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act against the Accused Officer beyond reasonable doubt?

(5) To what finding?

13. POINT No.1:-

To the instant case, the Accused Officer Kukati Sivaramaiah was working as Senior Assistant/Store Keeper, Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited,

Nellore-5, SPS Nellore District, which is not in dispute. The very contention of

Accused Officer is that he does not come under the definition of Section 2(c ) of

P.C.Act and that he is not a public servant. It is argued upon that when it is clearly deposed by P.Ws.3 to 5 that “the salaries will be paid to the employees of the Sugar Factory if the said Sugar Factory is functioning” thereby Accused

Officer is not a public servant. Moreover, the said witnesses also admitted that they were not given any retirement benefits from the said Sugar factory.

14. On perusal of evidence of PWs.3 to 5, no doubt they stated as such contended by Accused Officer. At the same time, the said evidence shall not be looked in isolation with the other evidence of the said witnesses. It is also deposed by PW3 that the deceased Eliyaz Basha who was also working in the said Sugar factory retired from his duties by taking VRS and that he has knowledge that after retirement the said Sugar Factory paid all the retirement benefits to the said Eliyaz Basha. When such is the case, the reasons for not

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 getting retirement benefits by the witnesses is up to them to give the reasons.

Only for the reason that they did not get any such benefits, it does not mean that the Sugar Factory was not paying any retirement benefits nor salaries. Further, the salaries were being paid through the Sugar Factory by the Government. It is not in dispute that all the service rules and the Managing Director and

Commissioner were supervising the said factories. When such is the case, the

Accused Officer is to be called as Public Servant and would come under Section 2(c ) of P.C.Act.

15. With regard to the contention that the prosecution failed to establish sanction proceedings and failed to prove the same in the light of evidence of

PW6. PW6 is not competent and her evidence is not sufficient to establish the sanction proceedings. In this regard, on perusal of evidence of PW6, she clearly deposed that their Office received a copy of F.I.R., Statement of witnesses, mediators reports, final report and other relevant document pertaining to this case from the Director General, ACB. Thereupon, the sanction proceedings were issued by Narsi Reddy, Managing Director of Kovur Co-operative Sugar

Factory Limited. PW6 identified the signature of said Sri Narsi Reddy under

Ex.P11 Sanction proceedings. It is also clearly stated that the Managing Director after verifying the entire material and after his satisfaction, he issued the sanction proceedings to launch the prosecution against the accused vide proceedings No.

No.KCSF/EST/Admin/221/2014, dt.25.04.2015.

16. The evidence of PW6 clearly establishes that the entire case file was in fact perused and thereupon only the sanction was directed. It is apparent on face of Ex.P11 that the entire record was gone through and only on satisfaction, the sanction was ordered. It is also clearly stated that she can identify the signature of sanctioning authority.

17. Only for the reason that it is deposed by PW6 that she is working as District Co-operative Officer, Nellore from 25.05.2017 and was also incharge of Managing Director of Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, it does not mean that she admitted that she had not worked in that section during the

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 relevant time as emphasized in the written arguments. On scrutiny of the evidence of PW6, nothing is elicited as to how she could identify the signature of the sanctioning authority. Nothing is elicited with regard to period of herself being in-charge of Managing Director of Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory. The evidence of PW6 clearly shows that she was in-charge of the office of sanctioning authority and also worked as District Co-operative Officer. When such is the case, nothing can be inferred that she cannot identify the signature of the sanctioning authority Ch. Narsi Reddy herein.

18. The learned counsel for Accused Officer relied upon several decisions reported in 2013(8) SCC 119 in between State of Maharashtra

through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mahesh G.Jain and also in

between Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1979

(4) 172. In another Judgment in between Superintendent of Police C.B.I.

Vs. Deepak Chowdary reported in 1995 (6) SCC 225, C.S.Krishnamurthy v.

State of Karnataka (2005) 4 SCC 81, R.Sundararajan v. State (2006) 12 SCC

749, State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan (2007) 11 SCC 273, Kootha Perumal v.

State (2011) 1 SCC (491)wherein it is held that:

“Grant of sanction is irrefragably a sacrosanct act and

is intended to provide safeguard to a public servant

against frivolous and vexatious litigations. Satisfaction

of the sanctioning authority is essential to validate an

order granting sanction.”

19. In the light of above Judgments, it is contended that Ex.P11

Sanction proceedings is not valid. Therefore, cognizance taken is bad and he is entitled to be discharged.

20. The question of discharge does not arise at this stage. At the same time, in the light of a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Mohd. Iqbal

Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh which is also relied by learned counsel for

Accused Officer. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1979 (4) SCC 172, it is also held in the said Judgment that:

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 “an order of valid sanction can be proved by the

Sanctioning Authority in two ways: either (1) by

producing the original sanction which itself

contains the facts constituting the offence and the

grounds of satisfaction; or (2) by adducing

evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed

before the Sanctioning Authority and the

satisfaction arrived at by it.”

Therefore, it is a case where the prosecution examined PW6 who was acquainted with the signature of Sanctioning Authority to prove the valid sanction.

Apparently, the Sanction order shows the application of mind. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for Accused Officer is not helpful to the contention of Accused Officer. Thereby, it cannot be held that Ex.P11 the

Sanction Order is invalid. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

21. POINT Nos.2 to 4:

It is the case of prosecution and also deposed by PW1 in accordance with her case that her elder brother Eliyaz Basha is no more as he died in the year 2012. During his life time, he was working as employee in Kovur Co-operative

Sugar Factory Limited till his death. Eliyaz Basha got three children; two daughters and one son. PW1 is aware of the accused who is also an employee in Kovur C-operative Sugar Factory Limited, who was looking after the Provident

Fund claims of employees/family members. The deceased Eliyaz Basha while working in the said Sugar factory was regularly paying Provident fund to his employer. After the death of her elder brother Eliyaz Basha, on 23.03.2013

PW1 got filed an application to the Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited through her sister-in-law, namely Zakeera Begum, PW7 herein, for release of

Provident Fund in the Account of deceased elder brother in order to enable the survivorship of the family of the deceased.

22. Since PW1’s sister-in-law PW7 is unable to pursue the matter, as such, on her behalf, PW1 pursued the aforesaid claim. In that regard, she used to meet the accused who is the concerned and was looking after Provident fund claims. The accused used to inform PW1 that the Provident Fund claim of her

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 elder brother was forwarded to the Regional Office, Kadapa and they are awaiting of the orders from the Regional Office, Kadapa. The accused used to inform as such till 26.06.2013. Thereafter, PW1 went to Regional Office, Kadapa and came to know that the Provident fund claim file was returned about two months back due to non-filing of 10-D form in that claim. PW1 obtained 10-D form and handed over the same to the Accused with a request to forward the same to Regional Office, Kadapa for release of Provident Fund claim. After handing over 10-D form to the Accused, PW1 met the accused several times and requested him to process the file and the accused assured PW1 that he would process the same and see that amount is paid to the family of the deceased.

23. PW1 further deposed that on 04.09.2013 she again met the

Accused in his office room at Sugar factory and enquired about the provident fund claim of PW7, for which, the accused informed that she has to pay

Rs.5,000/- towards bribe for processing the said file. Then, she expressed her inability as the family of the deceased is unable to pay the said amount due to financial position of PW7 is very bad. Then, the accused asked to pay atleast

Rs.2000/- to forward the file to Regional Office, Kadapa, otherwise it would not be processed. On that her son-in-law PW8 Sk. Nadimuddin accompanied her to the Accused to his factory.

24. Further, on 5.9.2013 she went to ACB Office, Nellore and lodged written report narrating the bribe demanded by the Accused for processing the

Provident Fund file of PW7. Ex.P1 report is dated 5.9.2013 lodged by PW1

before ACB police. PW1 also enclosed the relevant documents to the application

of PW7 for release of the Provident Fund amount. DSP after perusal of Ex.P1 verified the same with PW1 and PW1 affirmed the same as true and correct.

Ex.P2 is Form-D10 submitted by PW7, Ex.P3 is the application submitted by

PW7. Exs.P2 and P3 bears the signature of PW7. Thereafter, on confirming the contents of Ex.P1, DSP asked PW1 to leave his Office and to attend the Office as and when send the message. Accordingly, on 6.9.2013 during evening time, one ACB Official went to PW1and asked to attend the ACB Office, Nellore.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

Accordingly, on the next day by 10-00 a.m., PW1 attended along with the intended bribe amount.

25. Further, on 7.9.2013 at about 10-00 a.m., she attended the ACB

Office and met the DSP. He asked her to wait for some time outside. After 10 minutes, she was called inside the Office room of ACB DSP, Nellore. She was introduced to two mediators who were in his office room and she was also introduced to them. DSP also introduced his staff to PW1 and vice-versa. DSP furnished copy of F.I.R to the mediators and asked them to verify the contents.

The mediators read over the contents of the report. Upon which, PW1 affirmed the same as true and correct. Then, the mediators signed on the copy of F.I.R.

Then, the DSP enquired PW1 whether she brought the intended bribe amount.

PW1 replied positively and produced cash of Rs.2,000/- consisting of three 500 rupee notes and five 100 rupee notes. On the instructions of the DSP, one of the mediator received the amount from PW1, verified the serial numbers and denomination of the currency notes and on his dictation, another mediator typed in pre-trap proceedings in the Computer available in the Office. Further, PW1 states that on the instructions of DSP, one of the Constable brought two glass tumblers with water and mixed some white powder and prepared the solution.

The said Constable taken the currency notes and rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solution. It remained unchanged. Thereafter, on the instructions of

DSP, the said Constable applied another white powder on the currency notes by using cotton swabs and kept the said currency notes in the hand purse of PW1 after making it empty. Then the said Constable rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions. They turned into pink colour. The DSP instructed PW1 not to touch the said currency notes and give the said amount to the accused only on further demand, but not otherwise and further instructed that if the Accused accepted the bribe amount, PW1 should come out from the room of the accused and give a signal to two constables, who would follow PW1, by wiping her face with handkerchief thrice. The DSP demonstrated the significance of colour test to PW1 and the mediators. Then, the DSP got prepared fresh solution in a glass

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 tumbler and asked PW1, mediators and all the trap party members to rinse their hands in the solution. While doing so, there was no change in the colour of the solution. The Pre-trap proceedings was concluded by 11-00 a.m., which was commenced at 10-00 a.m. PW1, mediators and others signed in the said Pre- trap proceedings. PW1 further deposed that on the same day at about 11-30 a.m., PW1, mediators, DSP, Inspectors and other ACB Staff started from ACB

Office, Nellore in three vehicles in order to go to Kovur Co-operative Sugar

Factory Limited and at about 12-00 Noon they reached nearby the said Sugar

Factory and the DSP got stopped the vehicles there and asked PW1 to get down from the vehicle and to proceed to the said Sugar factory in order to meet the accused. The DSP instructed two constables to closely follow PW1 upto the

Sugar factory. Accordingly, PW1 proceeded to the Sugar factory and the two

Constables closely followed her till the entrance of the factory and then PW1 entered into the Sugar factory and found the accused in Accounts Section.

Then, she enquired the accused about the Provident Fund claim of her sister-in- law, for which, the accused enquired about her whether she brought demanded bribe amount, for which, PW1 replied positively and picked out the tainted amount of Rs.2000/- from her hand purse and handed over the same to the

Accused. The accused received the said amount from PW1 with his right hand, counted the said amount with his both hands and kept the said amount in his left side upper shirt pocket. After receiving the said amount, the accused assured

PW1 that he would send the file on the same day itself after getting the signature of Managing Director. Then, PW1 came out from the Sugar Factory and gave the pre-arranged signal of wiping her face with her handkerchief thrice to the

Constables and in-turn they gave signal to the DSP, Mediators and other ACB

Staff.

26. Thereafter, DSP, Mediators and other ACB staff rushed towards the

Sugar Factory and met PW1 at the entrance of the room of Accounts Section of the said factory and DSP asked PW1 to wait outside of the room till he calls her.

After half-an-hour, PW1 was called inside to the Accounts Section of Sugar

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

Factory where the accused was present and the DSP enquired PW1 as to what happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till the signal.

27. PW1 stated as to what all happened which was incorporated in the

Post trap proceedings by the mediators. The version of the accused that he denied the version of PW1 was also recorded by DSP. On the next day, a detailed statement of PW1 was recorded by the DSP at ACB Office, Nellore.

Thereafter, statement of PW1 was also recorded by Judicial Magistrate at IV

Additional J.M.F.C Court, Nellore under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

28. PW8 is the son of the deceased Eliyaz Basha. PW1 is the

Paternal Aunt of PW8. PW7 is the mother of PW8. It is also deposed by PW8 that his father died on 25.04.2012 and by the said time, he was 16 or 17 years old. After the death of his father, his mother applied for family pension in Kovur

Sugar Factory. PW1 looked after the said affairs and met the accused in that regard wherein accused informed that their file was forwarded to the Regional

Office, Kadapa and then PW1 went to Regional Office, Kadapa and enquired about their file wherein she was informed that the file was returned due to non- submitting of 10-D form. Subsequently, PW1 obtained 10-D form and handed over to the accused. It is further stated by PW8 that on 4.9.2013, he accompanied PW1 to the Sugar factory and met the accused and enquired about pensionary benefits file. Then, the accused informed them that he would send the said file to the Regional Office soon and then PW1 told the accused that much delay was caused by that time for sending the file. Then, the accused demanded her to pay Rs.5,000/- as bribe for forwarding their file to the Regional

Office, Kadapa. Then, PW1 expressed inability to pay such amount. Then, the accused asked PW1 to pay atleast Rs.2,000/- for forwarding the file to the

Regional Office, Kadapa and then PW1 and PW8 asked two days time for arranging the said amount of Rs.2,000/- and on the next day PW1 lodged a report in ACB Office, Nellore for taking action against the Accused.

29. On 7.9.2013 PW8 came to know that accused was trapped by ACB

Police as he received Rs.2,000/- from PW1.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

30. PW2 is a mediator who worked as Sub Registrar in the Office of

Sub Registrar, Vinjamur. He deposed that he know another mediator

LW3/Kandukuri Markandeyasharma, worked as Sub Registrar, Naidupet Sub

Registrar Office. On 06.09.2013 at about 06-00 p.m., the District Registrar,

Nellore informed him over phone to attend ACB Office, Nellore on 07.09.2013 by 10-00 a.m. Accordingly, on 07.09.2013 he went to ACB Office, Nellore at about 10-00 a.m. and by that time the 2nd mediator Kandukuri Markandeyasharma/LW3 was already there. Then, PW2 and LW3 met the DSP ACB, Nellore and introduced themselves with the DSP and vice versa and later the DSP introduced them to the Inspectors and his staff. Then, the DSP called PW1 inside his room and introduced PW1 to the mediators and vice versa. Then, the pre trap proceedings was commenced at 10-00 a.m., in the Chamber of DSP, ACB,

Nellore wherein the DSP furnished copy of F.I.R. to the mediators and asked them to confirm the contents of the report with PW1 and accordingly, they read over the contents of the report to PW1. PW1 affirmed the contents of the report are true and correct and then they endorsed on Ex.P4, copy of F.I.R. as ‘seen’ and put their signatures. Then, the DSP enquired PW1 as to whether she brought the intended bribe amount, for which, PW1 replied positively and produced cash of Rs.2,000/- consisting of three 500 rupee currency notes and five 100 rupee currency notes and on the instructions of D.S.P., the 2nd mediator received the said amount from PW1, counted it, verified the denominations and numbers of the currency notes and incorporated in pre-trap proceedings. Then, on the instructions of D.S.P., one Police Constable prepared Sodium Carbonate

Solution in two glass tumblers and the said constable handled the currency notes by receiving from 2nd mediator and rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions, they remained unchanged. Then, on the instructions of DSP, the said constable applied phenolphthalein powder on both sides of currency notes by using cotton swab and kept the said amount in the hand purse of P.W1 after making it empty. Then, the D.S.P. instructed PW1 not to touch those currency notes and she has to give the said amount to the accused on his further demand

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 but not otherwise. In case the accused demanded and accepted the said tainted amount, she should come out and give a signal by wiping her face with her handkerchief thrice and the Inspector namely Krupanandam and one Constable would receive the said signal from her and they will relay the same to the other trap party members. The Dy.S.P. demonstrated the significance of chemical tests to the mediators and PW1.

31. PW2 further deposed that on the instructions of Dy.S.P., the constable rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions and they turned into pink colour. The Dy.S.P. has drawn the samples of Sodium Carbonate Powder and phenolphthalein powder used in pre trap proceedings, got them sealed, labelled and affixed identity slips duly signed by the mediators and Dy.S.P. The sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder used in Pre-trap proceedings is marked as MO1. The sealed cover containing sample of

Phenolphthalein powder used in pre trap proceedings is marked as MO2. The

Dy.S.P. got prepared fresh sodium carbonate solution in glass tumbler and asked all the trap party members to rinse their hand fingers in the said solution and while doing so, it remained unchanged. The pre trap proceedings was completed by 11.10 a.m. and PW2 typed pre trap proceedings in the Computer available in the Office of ACB, Nellore. Pre trap proceedings, dated 07.09.2013 in Mediators Report-I is marked as Ex.P5. The mediators, DSP and others including PW1 signed in Ex.P5.

32. PW2 further deposed that at about 11-30 a.m., the mediators,

Dy.S.P., Inspectors, PW1 and other ACB Staff started from ACB Office, Nellore in three vehicles in order to go to Sugar factory, Kovur and at about 12-05 p.m., they reached nearby the said Sugar factory. The Dy.S.P. got stopped the vehicles there and then the Dy.S.P. asked PW1 to proceed to the Sugar factory to meet the accused and he reiterated his earlier instructions to PW1 and the

Dy.S.P. instructed one Inspector namely Krupanandam and one Police

Constable to closely follow PW1 up to Sugar factory and to take vantage positions there and relay the signal after receiving pre-arranged signal from PW1

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 by raising their both hands. Accordingly, PW1 proceeded to the Sugar factory and the Inspector and Police Constable followed PW1 up to the gate of Sugar factory and at about 12.40 p.m., the Inspector and Police Constable relayed the signal by raising up their both hands. Then, on receipt of the said signal, they rushed to the Sugar factory and on their way, they found PW1 at the varandah of

Administrative Block of the said factory and PW1 informed about the accused received the bribe amount. Then, the DSP asked PW1 to wait outside till she was called inside. Then, they proceeded to the Accounts Office room and found one person sitting in the chair and except the said person no others were in the said room. Then, the DSP approached the person and disclosed his identity and the identity of other trap party members and ascertained the identity of the said person as the accused. On hearing the identity of the ACB Officials, the accused started shivered and tried to rub his and to his clothes and on seeing the same, the DSP warned the accused not to do so. The accused stated that he is working as Senior Assistant cum Store Keeper in the Accounts Section in the said Sugar factory.

33. PW2 further deposed that the Dy.S.P. got prepared Sodium

Carbonate Solution in two glass tumblers and asked the accused to rinse his both hand fingers in the said solutions separately and accordingly the accused rinsed his both hand fingers in the said solutions separately and the solutions of both hand fingers were rinsed and they were turned into pink colour. The resultant solutions were transferred into two separate clean bottles, got them sealed, labelled and affixed identity slips duly signed by them and DSP. Sealed bottle containing wash of right hand fingers of the accused is marked as MO3.

Sealed bottle containing wash left hand fingers of the accused is marked as

MO4. Then, the DSP enquired the accused about the bribe amount, for which, the accused replied that he kept the said amount of Rs.2,000/- in his left side upper shirt pocket and the accused voluntarily produced the said amount by picking out from his left side upper shirt pocket and on the instructions of DSP, the accused handed over the said amount to the 2nd mediator namely

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

Markandeyasharma and he counted the said amount as Rs.2,000/- and he verified denominations and numbers of the currency notes which were tallied with the currency notes noted in Ex.P5 Pre trap proceedings. Then, the DSP seized the cash of Rs.2,000/- which is marked as MO5. The inner linings of the left side shirt pocket was subjected to Sodium Carbonate Solution test which yielded positive result. The resultant solution was transferred in to a clean bottle got it sealed, labelled and affixed identity slip duly signed by them and DSP.

Sealed bottle containing wash of inner linings of left side upper shirt pocket of the accused is marked as MO6. The DSP seized MO7, shirt of the accused. Then, the DSP drawn the sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder used in post trap proceedings. MO8 is the sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate

Powder used in Post trap proceedings. Then, the DSP enquired the accused as to what happened just before their entering into his room. The version of accused was incorporated in post trap proceedings. Then, the DSP called PW1 inside the Accounts section of the accused and enquired her as to what was happened from the time of leaving the trap party members till relaying of the signal. The version of PW1 was incorporated in Post trap proceedings. The

DSP confronted the version of accused with PW1 who denied the said version and stuck to her earlier version. PW2 typed the post trap proceedings on the laptop carried from ACB Office, Nellore. Then, the DSP asked the accused about the file of the sister-in-law of PW1. Then, the accused collected the said file from his table and handed over the same to the DSP. The mediators and the DSP attested the said file and the DSP seized the said file. Ex.P6 is the made up file pertaining to Ex.P3 application and other particulars of Shaik

Zakeera Begum.

34. PW2 further deposed that the DSP also secured the presence of the employees in the said factory and their brief versions were incorporated in post trap proceedings. The accused also produced two attendance registers and they were duly verified and seized by the DSP. Ex.P7 is the Attendance Register relating to Administrative Section of Sugar Factory and relevant page at page

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

No.4. Ex.P8 is the Attendance Register relating to Administrative Section of

Sugar Factory which was maintained from January, 2012 to July, 2013 and the relevant entry is at page No.36. The DSP drawn the rough sketch for the scene of offence. Ex.P9 is the rough sketch for the scene of offence. PW2 and 2nd mediator attested Ex.P10. Then, the DSP arrested the accused at about 07.05 p.m. after informing the grounds of arrest. The Post trap proceedings was concluded by 07-10 p.m. marked as Ex.P10, dated 07.09.2013 in Mediators

Report-II. Copy of Ex.P10 was furnished to the accused and obtained his acknowledgement on it. The DSP also obtained the signatures of the staff available on Ex.P10 and so also PW1. Thereafter, they returned to ACB Office,

Nellore.

35. PW3 is examined to speak with regard to that the Accused Officer was processing the employees Provident Fund issue and also that he came to know through other employees gathered at Administrative block on 7.9.2013 that the Accused was trapped by the ACB Officials. It is deposed by PW3 that he worked as Senior Assistant/Store Keeper in the said Sugar Factory and he retired as Accountant/Cashier from the said Sugar Factory. It is further stated that due to shortage of staff, the accused was allotted additional duty of Store

Keeper and also Accounts Section in respect of Provident Fund and stores work in the Sugar factory. PW3 is aware that elder brother of PW1 Eliyaz Basha worked in their Sugar factory till 2004 and later he has taken voluntary retirement. The said Eliyaz Basha died in the year 2012. The accused was the person who processed the files relating to employees for the benefit of Provident fund and other death benefits. It is further deposed that on 7.9.2013, the accused attended his duties in the Office at 9-30 a.m. and he also came to the

Office at 9-30 a.m., on that day and at about 10-15 he left his seat and came to know through other employees that the accused was trapped by ACB Officials.

36. PW4 and PW5 C.V.Ramana Reddy and Vemula Chiranjeevi,

Advocates of Nellore Bar Association who previously worked in the said Sugar

Factory also deposed that the said Eliyaz Basha worked in the Sugar Factory

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 and his death benefits and Provident Fund file was pending with the Sugar

Factory Office and also that it is the Accused who processed the said file. It is further deposed by PWs.4 and 5 that on 7.9.2013, they came to know that the accused was trapped by ACB Police.

37. It is elicited from the evidence of PWs.3 to 5 with regard to Eliyaz

Basha being elected as Union President in CITU-II and also that tried to elicit that the said Eliyaz Basha and his two brothers used to provoke the other employees for payment of arrears of advances and allowances by the management of the factory and in that regard they quarreled with the Managing

Director of the said factory. P.Ws.3 to 5 pleaded ignorance about the said contentions. Nothing adverse could be elicited nor could dispute that the accused was not the person who processed the file relating to the deceased

Eliyaz Basha in this case and also that the accused was trapped by ACB

Officials on 7.9.2013, thereby without any hesitation it can be held that on 7.9.2013, the Accused Officer was trapped in his office and that he was processing the file of the deceased.

38. The contention of the accused that Ex.P1 itself is created and is not voluntarily made by PW1. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that PW1 collected white papers from ACB Office, Nellore and scribed Ex.P1 report and lodged the same with ACB Office, Nellore. But for the said reason, it cannot be held that Ex.P1 is created at the instance of ACB Officials. Nothing adverse is elicited nor any displeasure is alleged against the ACB Police so as to lodge the report through PW1. The contents of Ex.P1 could well be stated by PW1 before the Court and also under Section 164 Cr.P.C Statement which is a part of record.

No doubt, the said document is not marked. But nothing is disputed in this regard having stated the case of PW1 before the Judicial Magistrate. No material discrepancies or contradictions could be placed before this Court so as to believe that Ex.P1 is not made voluntarily by PW1.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

39. Further, it is the case of prosecution that PW8 accompanied PW1 on 4.9.2013 to the Office of Accused Officer. The said fact has been spoken by

PW1 also that on 4.9.2013 her son-in-law by name Nadimuddin PW8 herein accompanied her to the said factory. Similarly, PW8 also deposed that on 4.9.2013 he accompanied PW1 to the Sugar factory and met the Accused and enquired about pensionary benefits file. At that time, PW1 told the accused with regard to the delay caused in sending the file. Then, the accused demanded

PW1 to pay Rs.5,000/- as bribe. When PW1 expressed her inability, accused reduced the said amount to pay Rs.2,000/- for forwarding her file.

40. Admittedly, there is no mention of the said fact in the statement of

PW8 before ACB police under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. But for the said reason, the case of prosecution mentioned in Ex.P1 at first instance and also deposed by PW1 and PW8 non-mention of the said fact in the statement under 161 Cr.P.C is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

41. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for Accused Officer is that there was no preliminary enquiry in the present case. As per the case of prosecution, PW11 ACB DSP, Nellore Range received the report from PW1 under Ex.P1 on 5.9.2013 at 5-00 p.m. PW11 made endorsement on Ex.P1 to

PW9 for verification of antecedents on the same day. But for the reason that there is no mention of time of verification for antecedents, nothing can be suspected with regard to genuinety of said endorsement as both of them were on the said day and is after 5-00 p.m and the case file was received for verification at 7-00 p.m. and submitted back on the same day. Nothing can be suspected with regard to the time taken for verification. It is the capacities and caliber of the

Officer in securing information about antecedents of the persons. It is not the case of Accused Officer that any such adverse antecedents against him or against PW1 or PW7. Thereby, nothing needs to be suspected in that regard.

Moreover, it is testified by PW9 that he made preliminary enquiry and endorsed on the same. He found that Accused Officer herein had a bad reputation. It is also affirmed by PW9 that the enquiries made against PW1 are true and correct

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 to state that the complaint is genuine. No further details need to be furnished on confidential enquiries.

42. The other contention of Accused Officer that when it is the case of

PW1 that she submitted Ex.P1 report at 10-00 a.m., how come it is received at 5-00 p.m., it is unexplained by the prosecution. On perusal of evidence of PW1, nowhere in her chief examination she stated the time of submission of Ex.P1 as 10-00 a.m. It is elicited in her cross examination that on 5.9.2013 she scribed

Ex.P1 report at her house and handed over the same in ACB Office on 5.9.2013 at about 10-00 a.m. It is pleaded ignorance by PW1 that she ever stated that she collected white papers from ACB Office, Nellore for preparing Ex.P1 report. Only because she handed over Ex.P1 at 10-00 a.m., and she does not remember whether she stated before the Magistrate that she collected white papers from

ACB office, it does not cut the roots of the case only because the delay if any caused by the police officials or lack of remembrance with regard to time of submitting the total case of PW1 cannot be set aside.

43. No doubt, it is mandatory for conducting of preliminary enquiry

before registration of F.I.R. under the Prevention of Corruption Act as contended

by learned counsel for Accused Officer and also emphasized in the written arguments and also relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 13 SCC 305 in between V.Venkata Subbarao Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police and also in a case in between State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 wherein it is held:

“Before a Public Servant is charged with an act of

dishonestly which amounts to serious Mis-demeanor

and an FIR is lodged against him, there must be

some suitable preliminary enquiry into the

allegations by a responsible officer.”

44. In another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for Accused

Officer rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1363 in between Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim wherein it is held

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

“The necessity for holding a preliminary enquiry

has become part of the law and failure to observe

the same would be violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India”.

In all the above Judgments, the requirement of preliminary enquiry is made mandatory which is not in dispute and is binding over. Accordingly, in the instant case, preliminary enquiry has been conducted by PW9. Nothing adverse could be elicited to suspect the preliminary enquiry made by PW9 with regard to bad reputation of Accused Officer and genuinety of the complaint.

45. In a decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari

Vs. Government of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (2) SCC (1) wherein it is observed that where a preliminary enquiry is to be conducted, the instances have been given.

(a) Matrimonial disputes/Family disputes.

(b) Commercial Offences.

(c ) Medical negligence cases.

(d) Corruption cases.

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example for 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

46. The instant case falls under Corruption cases. Evidently, there is no delay in lodging Ex.P1 report. The fact remained in this case that according to the evidence of PW9, on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint from DSP, ACB and instructions to verify the contents of the report and verify the antecedents of accused and PW1 he accordingly made preliminary enquiry and endorsed the same on Ex.P1 on the same day, endorsing that Accused Officer is ill-reputed for his corrupt practices and the complaint is genuine and also that the complainant has no ill motive to implicate the Accused Officer in this case falsely. Thereby,

PW11 ACB DSP J.Bhaskar Rao registered the F.I.R. It is to be noted that

antecedents verification to be done by ACB Officials before registration of

F.I.R. has to be confidential. It is not that mode of enquiry by Investigating

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

Officer is to be revealed considering the evidence of PW9 and PW11.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the mode of conducting antecedents enquiry has to be confidential, the Court has to testify itself as to whether there was an antecedents enquiry or not.

47. Under the guise of preliminary enquiry, Investigating Officer is not supposed to come to conclusion about the truth or otherwise of the contents of report and is not expected to make a detailed enquiry. Thereby, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution is able to establish that there was a preliminary enquiry.

48. Further, the contention of Accused Officer is that not maintaining of

General Diary is against the mandatory instructions and is fatal to the case of prosecution. On perusal of Ex.P15 F.I.R., no doubt there is no mention with regard to General Diary entries. The complaint in the instant case was submitted on 5.9.2013 and on the same day the antecedents were verified thereupon. On 7.9.2013 the F.I.R. was registered. Only on verification of antecedents and satisfaction for registration of F.I.R., will be made, thereby there cannot be any

G.D entry in this instant type of cases under corruption as the Government employee is involved.

49. No doubt, the Officer in-charge of the Police Station is directed to make a General Diary entry by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a landmark

Judgment of Lalitha Kumari above mentioned. But when there is no possibility of making General Diary entries in view of conducting of preliminary enquiry and registration of F.I.R. and wherein on the same date of registration of F.I.R., proceeding for trap, entry of General Diary cannot be expected. Therefore, only for the said reason, nothing adverse needs to be presumed against the case of prosecution. No such instances of any grudge or animosity is pleaded with regard to not making of General Diary entry. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the contention of Accused Officer needs no consideration.

50. Further, with regard to whether prosecution proved pendency of official favour in respect of the work alleged in Ex.P1 as pending with Accused

Officer by the date of Trap. It is not in dispute that husband of PW7 and brother

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 of PW1 Eliyaz Basha was working in Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited and he died. An application is filed by PW7 under Ex.P3. Ex.P2 is the form 10-D submitted by PW7. It is deposed accordingly by PW7 before the Court that her husband died after taking VRS in the year 2012. She has three children and she made an application for pensionary benefits. It is also stated by her that she accompanied PW1 to the Sugar factory for making application under Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3. PW1 was looking after the said affairs. When she came to know that the application was returned, the documents concerned were also submitted by

PW1.

51. PW7 does not know the name of the Accused Officer nor his designation. She does not remember any other particulars with regard to visiting of Office of Accused Officer by PW1 and PW8. But the date could be stated by

PW7 as it was 4th day of the said month. When the accused demanded rupees 5,000/- for processing her application and which was reduced to rupees 2,000/- when PW1 expressed the inability, thereafter, PW1 lodged the complaint and proceeded with the case.

52. Admittedly by PW1, there is no date mentioned underneath Ex.P3.

But it is contended by Accused Officer in his written arguments that the date of

Ex.P3 is on 8.4.2013 and immediately on the same day the application of PW7 was forwarded to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Officer, Sub

Regional P.F. Office 1/30, Railway Station road, Kadapa for sanction of Widow and children pensionary benefits under a covering letter Ex.D3 which is obtained under Right to Information Act. On perusal of Ex.D3, no doubt the same is dated 8.4.2013 wherein it appears that the application of PW7 was forwarded to

Kadapa Office for sanction. At the same time, in the evidence of PW1 it is clearly deposed that on 23.3.2013 she got filed an application through PW7 which is

Ex.P3 herein. There is a reference in Ex.P1 that in March, 2013 the said application was made. Thereby it clearly appears that a false statement and a false contention is made by Accused officer by stating that on the same day i.e., on 8.4.2013, the application of PW7 was forwarded. Therefore, only for the

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 reason that under Ex.D3 the application was forwarded, it does not mean that

Accused Officer had no ill motive in and that there was no delay and also that there was no official favour pending by the said date.

53. Thereafter, also it is the evidence of PW1 in consistency with Ex.P1 supported by the evidence of PW7, PW8 that for many times they approached

Accused Officer with regard to their application and its process. It is denied by

PW1 that on 27.06.2013 PW1 and PW7 met the Accused Officer in Sugar

Factory and the Accused officer gave 10-D form and PW7 put her signatures on the 10-D form by filling up the columns. Later, Accused Officer obtained the signatures of Managing Director on the evening of 27.06.2013 and the same was dispatched. Admittedly and evidently Ex.P6 file was addressed to PW7. At the same time, it is to understand that for compliance again the applicant has to approach the Accused Officer. In that process Accused Officer demanding bribe for processing her application clearly shows that there was an official favour pending with Accused Officer. Therefore, only for the reason that Ex.P6 file was returned and addressed to PW7 it cannot be held that there was no official favour pending with Accused Officer. On perusal of Ex.P6 which contains the copies of affidavits of PW7 also dated 4.9.2013 it does not show that there was any bonafides in favour of Accused Officer wherein the said signatures have been denied by PW7 and pleaded ignorance by PW1. Further, it is contended that

PW11 who led the trap ACB DSP also deposed that on 27.06.2013 Ex.P6 file was forwarded by the Accused to the Regional Office, Kadapa. The said fact may be true, but for the said reason, it cannot be held that prior to 04.09.2013, there was no demand of bribe. It is not in dispute that Accused Officer forwarded

Ex.P6 file. But on return of the same and to further process the file, he demanded for bribe.

54. On perusal of evidence of PW1, it is clearly stated by PW1 that accused used to inform her till 26.06.2013 to presume that she referred with regard to Ex.P6 file. No doubt, there is no mention in her chief examination that she met Accused Officer on 26.06.2013. At the same time, in her cross

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 examination it clearly goes to show that on 26.06.2013, she met Accused Officer.

The evidence reads as such, “on 26.06.2013 I handed over the affidavit-cum- indemnity bond of Zakeera Begum to the Accused.” Only for the reason that she could not state that on the said day Accused Officer demanded bribe, her total case cannot be set aside. She could clearly state that on 04.09.2013 Accused

Officer demanded for bribe of Rs.5,000/- and it was reduced to Rs.2,000/-.

Further, Ex.P1 also contains the fact that Accused Officer demanded bribe on 26.06.2013. Ex.P1 is owned by her. No contents of the same are disputed by her. Therefore, it cannot be held that PW1 failed to substantiate her case.

55. The contention of Accused Officer that on 27.06.2013 he forwarded

Ex.P6 file also shows that on 26.06.2013, there was an official favour pending with Accused Officer. Similarly, on 04.09.2013 also only for the reason that there was some record created to show that the Ex.P6 file was under process, it cannot be held that there was no official favour pending with Accused Officer.

Admittedly, Ex.P6 file and the duty to process the same was with Accused

Officer. Thereby, there was official favour pending with Accused Officer. In this regard, Accused Officer failed to substantiate his contention that there was no official favour and in fact he extended his helping hand even on 4.9.2013 and 05.09.2013 and also that on 07.09.2013 he got prepared covering letters with his initials on 07.09.2013 and placed the same on the table of Managing Director for his signatures.

56. Further, the contention of Accused Officer there was no demand of bribe either on 26.06.2013 nor 04.09.2013 appears to be absolutely false. In furtherance of above observations with regard to demand of bribe on both the days, Accused Officer failed to substantiate his contention with any reliable and trustworthy material.

57. The contention of the learned counsel for Accused Officer that PW8 evidence is not believable nor trustworthy as no such statement is given by him to the police under 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he accompanied PW1 on 04.09.2013 needs no consideration in the light of observations already made.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

There is a clear mention in Ex.P1 that PW8 accompanied PW1. The said fact has been spoken by PW1 also. PW8 also deposed the said fact. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and PW8 clearly goes to show that Accused Officer demanded for bribe on both the days which is an illegal gratification by the public servant.

58. The very contention of Accused Officer that the alleged bribe amount was thrusted into his left side shirt pocket in his office appears to be unbelievable. The arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that it is unbelievable to expect a Muslim woman having habit of wearing burka takes steps to thrust the amount in the pocket of a male person. The said argument appears to be believable.

59. In the instant case, Accused Officer failed to place any material to show that PW1 had any animosity or grudge to falsely implicate Accused Officer in the instant case. PW2 the mediator no doubt deposed that Accused Officer gave explanation that the amount was thrusted into his pocket by some lady and it does not amount to admission as contended by learned counsel for Accused

Officer.

60. No doubt, the explanation of Accused Officer is incorporated in

Post trap proceedings Ex.P10. The spontaneous version of Accused Officer

in giving such statement was with an intention to exculpate himself though

such version also contained some inculpatory statement. However,

Accused Officer did not adhere to such a defence. There is no basis for Accused

Officer to put forth this type of defence that PW1 thrusted the tainted amount into his left side shirt pocket. No animosity is pleaded with any material. The natural reaction of a person like Accused Officer, a Government employee when a person thrusts the amount into his left side shirt pocket would be to react immediately by raising hue and cry and to chase that person. No such conduct has been witnessed by the mediators nor by the ACB Officials. There cannot be any animosity against Accused Officer to the mediators and the ACB Officials.

Therefore, the defence of Accused Officer suffers with any amount of unreasonableness and improbabilities. Further, in the instant case, there is no

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 dispute that Accused Officer dealt with tainted amount and it was recovered from his physical possession. The chemical test that was conducted to the right hand fingers and inner linings of left side shirt pocket of Accused Officer lead to positive results. The mediator PW2 and the Investigating Officer PW11 testified about conducting of phenolphthalein test and recovery of the tainted amount from the possession of Accused Officer. The defence of Accused Officer in the Post trap as well as during the course of cross examination of PW1 could not be substantiated by any reliable material. Therefore, having regard to the above, the fact that the tainted amount was recovered from the possession of Accused

Officer warrants this Court to draw presumption under Section 20 of P.C.Act, which runs as follows:

“20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration - (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or

Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.”

61. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of

NCT of Delhi) reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1724, presided over by a

Constitutional Bench elaborately dealt with the essential ingredients of Sections 7, 13(1)(d) R/w. 13(2) and 20 of the PC Act and held that when the prosecution has proved the foundational facts, it has the benefit of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. In my considered view, the prosecution categorically proved the foundational facts as such it has the benefit of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. AO failed to prove the contrary. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution categorically proved the pendency of official favour as on the date of trap and prior to the trap and further AO demanded PW1 to pay bribe of Rs.5,000/- and reduced to Rs.2,000/- prior to the date of trap and on the date of trap and accepted the said bribe amount. The conduct of AO squarely proves an act of obtainment of pecuniary advantage by corrupt and illegal means. Therefore, in the light of above observations, the following decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for Accused Officer does not attract to the case facts.

1. In a decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in B.Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P. reported in (2014) CriLJ 2433,

2. In a decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in M.Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2001 CRI.L.J.515.

3. In a decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2004) SCC (Cri) 1130.

4. In a decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra through C.B.I. Vs. Mahesh G. Jain reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

62. To the instant case, the evidence of the Investigating Officers PW9 to PW12 is much helpful and the same cannot be brushed aside in the light of a decision in between State of U.P. Vs. Dr. G.K.Ghosh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1453 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it is held:

“The evidence of a Police Officer cannot be brushed aside as that of an interested witness. That he has an interest is true only to an extend a very limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to ensure that a citizen who complains of harassment by a government officer making a demand for illegal gratification, is protected and the role of his department in the protection of such citizens is vindicated”.

63. Further, to the instant type of cases eradication of corruption to be made which is observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subramanya Swamy

Vs P.V.Narasimha Rao (2012) 3 SCC 64, wherein it is held that:

“Today corruption in our country not only poses a great danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy & Rule of law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins, all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it.”

Accordingly, Points 2 to 4 are answered.

64. POINT No.5:

In the light of above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution categorically established beyond reasonable doubt about the pendency of the official favour. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta’s case above referred clearly held when the fact in issue is proved, the prosecution is entitled to have the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

65. Therefore, in the light of above observation, this Court is of the opinion that the Accused Officer is liable for conviction for the offences under

Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Dictation given in part to Stenographer Grade I, transcribed and typed by her and partly directly typed to the dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of January, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. C.Satya Vani,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

66. When the Accused Officer is examined and questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence u/s 248(2) Cr.P.C., he stated that his both hands are not working. His children are studying. Since ten years, he is not working in the

Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited. His family is depending upon him and requested to show mercy.

When the Court asked to take out some papers from his shirt pocket, the

Accused Officer with difficulty has taken out some papers from his shirt pocket and also disability certificate from his pocket today with his right hand. A copy of disability certificate is filed with a memo.

67. Corruption is a serious offence which affects entire economy of nation, as such, accused cannot escape from compulsory imprisonment provided under the Act, for the offences proved against him which are classified as socio- economic offences/white collar offences and considered to be grave in nature and also when there is a separate legislation enacted to curb such activities, committing of the same deliberately cannot be excused. Further, disability does not appear much so that he cannot lift his hand and take out material from his shirt pocket. Therefore, there is no scope to take lenient view in this type of serious offences. Benevolent provisions under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. and

Secs.3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act are not extended to convicts in this type of cases as observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in various Judgments.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

68. In the result, the Accused Officer is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and he is convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay fine of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default, to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 7 of P.C.Act, 1988.

He shall also undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988.

Total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). Both the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The period of remand of the accused in judicial custody i.e., from 08.09.2013 to 12.09.2013 (5 days) shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O.5 – Currency notes Rs.2,000/- kept in FDR vide CPR No.5 of 2015 is confiscated to State and shall be remitted in the

Government Treasury and M.Os.1 to 4, 6 to 8 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

The Accused Officer is informed about his right to prefer an appeal against the Judgment and in that connection he can avail the services of District Legal

Services Authority, Nellore for legal aid if necessary. Free copy of Judgment is furnished to the Accused Officer.

Copy of the Judgment shall be marked to the District Collector, SPSR

Nellore District as per Rule-73 of Criminal Rules of Practice.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of January, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. C.Satya Vani,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Prosecution:

PW1 : Shaik Husnara Begum, De-facto complainant.

PW2 : Katlaguntla Srinivasa Rao, the then Sub Registrar, Vinjamur

PW3 : Kurapati Subbaramaiah, the then Accountant/Cashier in Kovuru Co- operative Sugar Factory Limited.

PW4 : C.V.Ramana Reddy, the then Accounts Grade-III Clerk, Kovuru Co- operative Sugar Factory Limited.

PW5 : Vemula Chiranjeevi, the then Head time Keeper in Kovuru Co- operative Sugar Factory Limited.

PW6 : B. Sudha Bharathi, District Co-operative Officer, Nellore.

PW7 : Sk. Zakeera Begum, wife of deceased Eliyaz Basha.

PW8 : Sk. Nadimuddin, son of deceased Eliyaz Basha.

PW9 : Ch. Chandramouli, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore.

PW10 : K.Venkateswarlu, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore.

PW11 : J.Bhaskar Rao, the then Dy. S.P., ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore.

PW12 : N.Sivakumar Reddy, Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore.

For Defence:

DW1 : Kukati Sivaramaiah

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report, dated 05.09.2013.

Ex.P2 : Form 10-D submitted by Zakeera Begum.

Ex.P3 : Application submitted by Zakeera Begum.

Ex.P4 : Copy of F.I.R.

Ex.P5 : Pre-trap proceedings, dated 07.09.2013.

Ex.P6 : Made up file pertaining to Ex.P3 application and other particulars of Shaik Zakeera Begum.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

Ex.P7 : Attendance Register relating to Administrative Section of Sugar Factory and relevant page at Page No.4.

Ex.P8 : Attendance Register relating to Administrative Section of Sugar Factory which was maintained from January, 2012 to July, 2013 and the relevant entry is at page No.36.

Ex.P9 : Rough sketch for the scene of offence

Ex.P10 : Post-Trap Proceedings, dated 07.09.2013 in Mediators Report-II

Ex.P11 : Proceedings of Managing Director of Kovur Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited vide No.KCSF/EST/Admin/221/2014, dated 25.04.2015.

Ex.P12 : Show cause notice, dated 04.03.2014 issued to the accused.

Ex.P13 : Explanation submitted by the accused.

Ex.P14 : Memo, dated 09.10.2013 issued by DSP, ACB, Nellore by name J.Bhaskar Rao.

Ex.P15 : Original F.I.R.

Ex.P16 : Memo, dated 12.09.2013 issued by Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad.

Ex.P17 : Service particulars and Job chart of the Accused Officer along with covering letter, dated 16.09.2013.

Ex.P18 : Memo, dated 14.05.2015 issued by the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad.

For Defence:

Ex.D1 : Attested copy of letter, dated 14.11.2023 issued by Managing Director, Co-operative Sugar Factory, Nellore.

Ex.D2 : Statement of employees under VRS package compensation issued by Managing Director, dated 06.06.2023.

Ex.D3 : Attested copy of letter, dated 08.04.2013 issued by Managing Director, Co-operative Sugar Factory, Nellore.

Ex.D4 : Attested copy of letter, dated 17.06.2013 issued by Provident Fund Commissioner Office, Yerramukkapalli, Kadapa.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 : Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in pre-trap proceedings.

MO2 : Sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder used in pre-trap proceedings.

MO3 : Sealed bottle containing wash of right hand fingers of the Accused.

MO4 : Sealed bottle containing wash of left hand fingers of accused.

MO5 : Cash of Rs.2,000/-.

MO6 : Sealed bottle containing wash of inner linings of left side upper shirt pocket of the accused.

MO7 : Shirt of the accused.

MO8 : Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder used in post trap proceedings.

Sd/- Smt. C.Satya Vani,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Judgment in CC No.04 of 2015 Dated 24.01.2024

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

AGAINST WOMEN, NELLORE

Wednesday, this the 28th day of July, 2021

Present:- Dr. B. Satyanarayana, VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of Offences against Women, Nellore

SESSIONS CASE No.4/2017

(Crime No.47/2015 of Nellore Rural Police Station)

(P.R.C.No.12/2016 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District)

-- 1 Name of the Complainant:State – Sub-Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station, Nellore.

2 Name of the accused:Shaik Khuddus, S/o Kalesha, 29 years, caste by Muslim, r/o Rama Kotaiah Nagar, Kothur, Nellore Rural, native of Yallaya- palem village, Kodavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3 Charges:Charge No.1:Sec.498-A of IPC for subjected the deceased/ Shaik Dilshad @ Sameera to cruelty and harassment.

Charge No.2: Sec.306 of IPC for abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

4 Plea of Accused:Not guilty 5 Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6 Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s.498-A and u/s.306 of IPC and is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused and his sureties bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from the date of this Judgment as contemplated u/s437-A Cr.P.C. The non- valuable case property i.e., MO1, shall be 28.7.2021 2 SC 4 of 2017 destroyed after expiry of appeal time.(CPR No.7/2020) 7 Prosecution conducted by:Sri S.V.L.N.S.R.V.Prasad, Addl.Public Prosecutor, Nellore. .

8 Defence conducted by:Sri I.Raja, Advocate for Accused

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused stands charged under section 498-A of IPC for subjected the deceased, Shaik Dilshad @ Sameera, to cruelty and harassment and under section 306 of IPC for abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

2. It is the case of the prosecution, as per the charge-sheet, that the accused is the husband of the deceased, Shaik Dilshad @ Sameera and they got one male child namely Arshad and the accused used to attend masonry works and addicted to bad vices like consuming liquor and used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally and further demanded for additional dowry from

P.Ws.1 ,Sk.Gulzar and pw 2 Sk.Shahul and at about 7 months back the accused has shifted his family to Ramakotaiah Nagar, in the house of PW7/Sk.Shaheena, as a tenant, but, the accused continued his harassment towards the deceased for extracting additional dowry from her parents and the deceased beared the harassment of accused with patience for the future of her son and on 15.2.2015 the accused picked up a quarrel with Sk.Dilshad @ Sameera/deceased and abused her by saying to commit suicide and the accused abetted her to commit suicide and on that she vexed with his harassment and committed suicide by hanging to the hook of the ceiling fan at her house on 16.2.2015 at 10-00 hours and then, she was shifted to DSR Government hospital, Nellore, where the duty doctor examined and declared brought dead and on the report given by PW1/Sk.Gulzar, 28.7.2021 3 SC 4 of 2017

PW9/V.Giri Babu, SI of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station registered the same as a case in Cr.No.47/2015 for the offences U/ss.498-A and 306 of IPC on 16.2.2015 at 12-30 hours and investigated into and during investigation, he visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and drafted scene observation report and prepared rough sketch and got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and PW8/Dr.Z.Sasikanth, Assistant Professor conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued postmortem certificate of deceased and opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia due to hanging and PW9 arrested the accused on 19.2.2015 and sent him to remand for judicial custody and after completion of investigation, LW13/K.Sekhar Babu, SI of Police, Nellore Rural

Police Station laid chargesheet against the accused for the offences U/s.498-A and U/s.306 of IPC.

3. The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore had taken cognizance of the offences U/ss.498-A and 306 of IPC against the accused and numbered it as P.R.C.No.12/2016 and after appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nellore. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge,

Nellore has numbered the same as Sessions Case No.4/2017 and made over the same to II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Nellore.

4. When the Sessions case is coming for appearance of the accused, the

Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Nellore has withdrawn the said case

from the file of II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Nellore and transferred to this Court on the point of jurisdiction as this Court is newly 28.7.2021 4 SC 4 of 2017 established Court for the trial of offences against Women.

5.After appearance of the accused before the court and after hearing both sides under section 228 of Cr.P.C, charges under sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To Prove the case, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 9 and marked

Exs.P1 to P10 are marked. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 and D2 are marked.

The learned additional public prosecutor has given up the evidence of

LW5/J.Vara Lakshmi, LW9/Sk.Shanwaz, LW10/Sk.Roshan Bee and

LW13/K.Sekhar babu, SI of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining to him in Telugu, the incriminating evidence and the circumstances appearing against him, for which, the accused denied the same and he has no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides, on the points of facts and law.

9.The accused has complied with section 437-A Cr.P.C for his appearance

before the Appellate Court, if any.

10.Now, the points for determination are:

(1) whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has subjected the deceased ,Shaik Dilshad @ Sameera to cruelty and harassment?

(2) whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has

abetted the deceased to commit suicide?

28.7.2021 5 SC 4 of 2017

POINTS 1 and 2:-

11.For the sake of convenience, points 1 and 2 are discussed together.

12.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is the husband of the deceased, Shaik Dilshad @ Sameera and they got one male child namely Arshad and the accused used to attend masonry works and addicted to bad vices like consuming liquor and used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally and further demanded for additional dowry from P.W.1/Sk.Gulzar and PW2/

Sk.Shahul and at about 7 months back the accused has shifted his family to

Ramakotaiah Nagar, in the house of PW7/Sk.Shaheena, as a tenant, but, the accused continued his harassment towards the deceased for extracting additional dowry from her parents and though, the deceased beared the harassment of accused with patience for the future of her son and on 15.2.2015 the accused picked up a quarrel with Sk.Dilshad @ Sameera/deceased and abused her by saying to commit suicide and the accused abetted her to commit suicide and on that she vexed with his harassment and committed suicide by hanging to the hook of the ceiling fan at her house on 16.2.2015 at 10-00 hours and then, she was shifted to DSR Government hospital, Nellore, where the duty doctor examined and declared brought dead.

13. Coming to the evidence on record, PW1/Shaik Gulzar, mother of deceased/Dilshad has deposed that about 15 years back the marriage of her daughter was performed with the accused and they were blessed with a son namely Arshad, aged about 7 years by that time and now Arshad is with accused and nearly 5 years back her daughter died and from the beginning of the 28.7.2021 6 SC 4 of 2017 marriage, there were disputes between the deceased and accused as accused used to come to the house in drunken state of mind and used to beat her daughter and also demanded for additional dowry and also demanded that if she would not bring the additional dowry she has to die so that “Peeda Virugudu

Ipothondi” and she came to know about the about things from her daughter over phone and the accused and deceased were resided at Kothuru Ramakota Nagar and she is an illiterate.

14.PW1 has further deposed that on the Sunday, prior to her death, at noon hours the deceased informed her over phone that the accused has demanded to bring dowry and harassed her and if she would not bring dowry she has to die so that “Peeda Virugudu Ipothondi” and in the evening on the same day, she tried to contact the deceased over phone, but she did not respond and she intended to go to her daughter and on the next day, the neighborers of accused informed her over phone about the death of her daughter by committing suicide by hanging and she informed the said fact to her husband and others and then, she proceeded to

Government hospital Nellore and saw the dead body of deceased in mortuary and then, she went to police station and gave report to police in Ex.P1 and after inquest and postmortem the dead body of deceased was handed over to her.

15.In the cross-examination, PW1 has deposed that on her dictation somebody prepared Ex.P1 outside the police station, that she spent one hour in the mortuary, that she reached the mortuary at about 11.30am., that no police come to her at mortuary, that she reached the police station at about 12.00 noon along with her husband and her son and other neighborers, that she spent one hour in the police station after Ex.P1 report, that police examined her on the same day, that one 28.7.2021 7 SC 4 of 2017

Jamal Sa was the mediator to the marriage between the accused and deceased, that the couple lived at Yellayapalem for one year after the marriage, that thereafter, they shifted their residence to Kovur and resided there for one or two months, that the deceased and accused lived in Bujabuja Nellore for 9 or 10 years, but again deposed that they lived in Buja Buja Nellore for 5 or 6 years, that she got four daughters and one son, that the deceased is her second daughter, that the accused used to attend the marriage function in her house, that in Buja

Buja Nellore her relatives are there near the house of accused, that she has no relatives at Ramakotaiah Nagar, that she did not mention in Ex.P1 that from the beginning of the marriage the accused demanded for dowry, that she did not mention in Ex.P1 and also did not state before police that for 8 years there were disputes between deceased and accused, that Yellayapalem village is within the

Kodavalur Mandal, that she gave instruction to prepare Ex.P1, that it is mentioned Ex.P1 that Yellayapalem is in Kovur Mandal, that she did not mention in Ex.P1 and so also in her statement before police regarding the specific dates, place, time of harassment and nature of harassment, that the neighborers informed her over phone that the deceased died at 6.00am., and that she never visited the house of accused where the deceased committed suicide.

16.In the cross-examination, PW1 has denied the suggestion that there is no mention in Ex.P1 and also in his statement before police that the deceased informed about the harassment over phone, that she did not mention in Ex.P1 and so also in her statement before police that on the Sunday prior to her death at noon hours the deceased informed her over phone that the accused had demanded to bring dowry and harassed her and if she would not bring dowry 28.7.2021 8 SC 4 of 2017 she has to die so that “Peeda Virugudu Ipothondi”, that she did not state before police and so also in the statement that in the evening on the same day she tried to contact the deceased over phone, but she did not respond, that she did not state

before police that she came to know about the death of deceased through

neighborers, that accused purchased 9 Ankanam site on the name of the deceased in Buja Buja Nellore, that after death of the deceased she went to the house of accused and taken away the sale agreement document pertaining to 9 Ankanams, that when accused was in jail she has taken away all house hold articles including the golden articles from the house of accused, that the deceased did not properly look after her son, that after birth the son of deceased stayed with mother of the accused, that accused and deceased lived happily, that the deceased had no visiting terms with her till her death, that accused is not in habit of taking alcohol and never beat the deceased and never demanded additional dowry, that the accused never abetted the deceased to commit suicide, that no disputes came between accused and deceased prior her death and deceased never contacted her over phone and that police did not examine her.

17.In the further cross-examination, PW1 has deposed that she did not specifically mention the name of the person before police from whom she came to know about the harassment, that she did not state before police as in Ex.D1 to the effect that she harassed her, that she did not state before police that since beginning of marriage the disputes were there between accused and deceased, that she might have stated before police that Yellayapallem is in Kovur mandal and that she did not give any earlier report against accused prior to this incident.

28.7.2021 9 SC 4 of 2017

18.In the further cross-examination, PW1 has denied the suggestion that accused did not come to the house in drunken state of mind and did not beat the deceased and no disputes were there between them, that the accused did not demand for additional dowry and if she dies Peeda veragadai Pothundi, that she did not come to know about the information over phone, that the deceased did not tell to her over phone that the accused demanded for additional dowry, that on

Sunday prior to her death at noon hours the deceased informed her over phone that accused has demanded to bring dowry and harassed her and if she would not bring dowry she has to die by saying Peeda Veragada Ipotthodi and that in the evening she try to contact the deceased over phone but deceased could not respond.

19.PW2/Shaik Shavul, father of deceased and husband of PW1 has deposed in the similar lines of PW1. PW2 has further deposed that the deceased and accused put up family at Ramkota Nagar, Nellore and the accused used to beat the deceased and used to abuse her and harassed her and demanded for additional dowry and he kept the dispute before the elders and at that time the accused and his father gave a letter undertaking to safe guard the interest of his daughter and taken away his daughter to the house of accused. PW2 has further deposed that the villagers of Ramkotaiah Nagar informed him over phone stating that his daughter died and asked him to come to the Government Hospital, Nellore and he reached that hospital at about 11.30 am., and he saw the dead body of deceased in the mortuary room and his wife P.W.1 gave report to police and he also went to the police station and he did not see any visible injuries on the body of deceased and the villagers informed him that the deceased committed suicide by hanging 28.7.2021 10 SC 4 of 2017 and Ex.P2 is the undertaking letter given by accused and others and Ex.P.2 is marked as per orders in Crl.MP.No.810/2019, dated 11-10-2019.

20.In the cross-examination, PW2 has deposed that police examined him on the next day of the incident, that himself and P.W.1 only went to the police station, that on the dictation of his wife somebody prepared Ex.P.01 at police station, that police did not prepared the Ex.P1 report, that he received death intimation of deceased at 11.00am., that police were present in the hospital, that police might have recorded the statement of his wife, that he went to the police station at about 11.45 am., that no relatives resided near the house of accused at

Ramkoti Nagar, that Ex.P2 was dated 20-07-2014, that he did not state before police that he kept the dispute before the elders and at that time the accused and his father gave a letter undertaking to safe guard the interest of his daughter and taken away his daughter to the house of accused, that no signatures of elders in

Ex.P2, that he can read the contents in Ex.P2, that he cannot say entire contents in Ex.P2, but, they gave undertaking regarding his daughter, that the name of his daughter is not mentioned in Ex.P2, that he did not state before police that his daughter came to his house from the house of accused, that after execution of

Ex.P.2 the accused put up family at Ramkotaiah Nagar, that himself and his wife did not visit the house of accused at Ramkotaiah Nagar, that he did not state

before police that from whom he came to know the dispute between accused and

deceased, that he brought the cloths of accused only and that no crime was registered against the accused prior to her death.

21.In the cross-examination, PW2 has denied the suggestion that he engaged a private advocate in this case, that Ex.P.2 is the created document on the advice of 28.7.2021 11 SC 4 of 2017 his private advocate by committing forgery of the signature of accused and others, that police did not examine him, that one year prior to the death of the deceased the accused purchased house site of 9 Ankanams on the name of the deceased, that after death of his daughter himself his wife and others went to the house of accused and brought the documents and house hold articles of accused, that the accused did not beat and harass the deceased and did not demand for

additional dowry, that he has no talking terms with deceased and hence, he did

not go to Ramkotaiah Nagar, that as he was not visiting the house of deceased she committed suicide.

22.PW3/Shaik Shamshad, daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 has deposed in the similar lines of P.Ws.1 and 2.

23. In the cross-examination, PW3 has deposed that she reached the hospital between 12.00 Noon and 12.30pm., that police recorded her statement at

Government Hospital between 12.00 to 12.30p.m., that police also examined her brother at that time, that her parents went to the police station for giving report and came back to the hospital between 1.00 pm., and 1.30pm., that she did not state before police regarding the bad habits of the accused and disputes within 8 years of their marriage, that she did not state before police that after 8 years the accused used to consume more liquor, that she did not state before police that the accused demanded additional dowry and subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally, that she does not remember whether she did not state before police that the accused asked the deceased to die so that he would marry another lady, that she did not state before police that the accused asked the deceased to die for several times, that she does not remember whether she did not state before police 28.7.2021 12 SC 4 of 2017 that accused demanded for additional dowry and if she dies he would marry again, that police did not examine her again after examination at mortuary, that nearly 6 or 7 persons went to the house of accused after death of deceased and brought the cloths of deceased, but she did not accompany them.

24.In the cross-examination, PW3 has denied the suggestion that she stated

before police as in Ex.D.2 to the effect that her mother informed her over phone

that yesterday ie., on 15-02-2015 at noon hours husband of deceased came to the house in drunken condition, picked up a quarrel with deceased, abused her and beat her and asked her to die,’’ that accused is not in habit of consuming liquor and he never beat and abused the deceased and never demanded for

additional dowry and never asked her to die, that police did not examine her, that

the deceased died as her parents did not visit the house of deceased.

25.PW4/Sk.Jasheed, son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and brother of deceased/Dilshad has deposed in the similar lines of P.Ws.1 to 3.

26.In the cross-examination, PW4 has deposed that police examined him at about 11-30am., that he does not know at what time the deceased died, that he did not state before police that after marriage there was small disputes between them, that he did not state before police that for three times mediations were held and he sent the deceased to the house of accused, that he did not state before police that in the police station also there was a settlement and he sent the deceased to the accused, that he did not state before police that one month thereafter the accused continued the harassment and as such the deceased came to the parents and he approached police for 2nd time, that he did not state before 28.7.2021 13 SC 4 of 2017 police that one month thereafter accused continued the harassment and as such his sister reached the parents house, that he did not state before police that again mediation was held in the police station and accused gave undertaking that he would look after the deceased in good manner and would discharge the debts, that he did not state before police that the father of accused and his sisters and others gave assurance to him and on that he again sent the deceased to the house of accused, that he did not state before police that on what date the accused stated to the deceased that he does not want to live with her and picked up a quarrel with her and asked her to die so that her hurdle will be removed, that he did not state before police that the accused stated to the deceased that he does not want to live with her and picked up a quarrel with her and asked her to die so that her hurdle will be removed, that he did not state before police that on 15.2.2015 the deceased informed to his mother over phone stating that the accused beat her and he was by the side of his mother at that time, that he did not state before police that due to harassment of the accused the deceased came to her parents house, that he did not state before police from whom he came to know about the disputes between deceased and accused, that police constable examined him, that he knew the difference between police constable and SI of Police, that he got a private advocate, that himself and his brother-in-law went to the house of accused after death of his sister and he did not bring anything from there, that the house of accused consists hall, varanda and kitchen, that the place of hanging is varanda, that varanda is a open place without doors, that varanda is not visible to the persons who are moving on the road, that for two times his mother visited the house of deceased at Ramakotaiah Nagar and that 7 months prior to the death of the deceased, accused shifted his family to Ramakotaiah Nagar.

28.7.2021 14 SC 4 of 2017

27.In the cross-examination, PW4 has denied the suggestion that OP PS police examined him, that he did not state before police that two years thereafter the accused demanded for additional dowry and harassed her, that his relatives are there in the village of Kothur Ramakotaiah Nagar, Nellore, that police constable did not examined him, that on the advice of private advocate he is giving false evidence, that after death of deceased himself went to the house of accused and taken all the household articles and documents from his house and that accused purchased 9 ankanams of house site purchased on the name of deceased one year prior to the death of the deceased.

28.PW5/Shaik Umar, relative of the deceased/Dilshab , has deposed that himself and L.W.9/Shaik Shanwaz acted as mediators on the request of police and in their presence police observed the scene of offence and seized saree from the place of occurrence and he can identify the said saree and Ex.P3 is the scene of observation report dated 16-02-2015 at about 1-30 pm., in which he signed. PW5 has further deposed that on 16-02-2015 they were also present at the time of inquest held over the dead body of the deceased/Dilshad and at that time himself,

L.W.9/Shanwaz and L.W.10/Shaik Roshan Bee were present and signed on it and he saw injuries on her neck and he suspected that she was hanged by somebody and murdered and Ex.P4 is the inquest report of the deceased.

29. PW5 has further deposed that the S.I. of police taken photos at the scene of offence and two colour photos are relating to scene of offence and police also taken photograph at the mortuary regarding the deceased and 3 photos are relating to the dead body of the deceased and Ex.P.5 is the five colour photos with C.D and M.O.1 is the silk Saree seized at the scene of offence and he was 28.7.2021 15 SC 4 of 2017 also present at the time of inquest of the deceased in Ex.P4 and he signed in

Ex.P4.

30.In the cross-examination, PW5 has deposed that the parents of the deceased came to the court along with him, that he received a phone call at about 1.00pm., from police asking him to come to the Nellore Rural Police Station

Nellore, that his phone number is available with police, that at the time of giving report to police pertaining to this case he also went to the police station and at that time police obtained his phone number from the relatives of the deceased, that Ex.P3, Ex.P4 are not in his hand writings, that he studied Degree course, that he received summons from the police, that he went to the police station at 1.00 pm., and he spent there for 15 minutes, that there is a distance of 10 to 15 kms between police station and place of occurrence, that S.I of Police and two constables also accompanied him, that he reached the place of occurrence at about 1.30pm., that police prepared Ex.P3 on the dictation given by the persons there ( neighborers), that he does not remember whether separate seizurenama was prepared for M.O.1, that there is no slip on M.O.1 with his signature, that

Ex.P3 was commenced at 1.30pm., and concluded at 2.30pm., that he does not know the advocate of the parents of the deceased, that he does not remember who drafted Ex.P3, that he cannot say all the neighboring houses persons at the scene of offence, that the current meter number is 1622, that he reached the

Government hospital, Nellore at about 2.45 and 2.50pm., that he does not know the all the contents in Ex.P4, that the contents in Ex.P4 were read over to him at that time, that as per Ex.P.04 the deceased died by strangulation, that his address is not there in Ex.P3 in its first para, that he signed twice, that Ramanaiah, Abdul 28.7.2021 16 SC 4 of 2017

Gaffor houses are there at the scene of offence, that house of Ramanaiah is on

Northern side, that police issued summons to neighborers at the place of occurrence, that they also came to the place of occurrence and signed, that

Varalakshmi, Aruna and Shahina signed on it, that 7 persons signed in Ex.P3 other than police, that neighborers of the deceased were present at the hospital, but police did not call them for signing in Ex.P4 and that the blood relatives were not present at the time of Ex.P3.

31.In the cross-examination, PW5 has denied that as he is related to the deceased he is giving false evidence that the accused murdered her, that Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were not prepared in his presence and M.O.1 was not seized in his presence, that photos were not taken in his presence, that before coming to this court he was taken to the advocate for the parents of the deceased and he was tutored.

32.PW6/Siddam Aruna, neighbor of the accused, has not fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is her evidence that she knew the deceased/Sameera and accused as they resided opposite to her house and the deceased died about 5 years back and she saw that the deceased was hanging in the Varanda of her house as she committed suicide and they lived together happily. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her with the permission of the

court, however, could not elicit anything against the accused except marking her section 161 Cr.P.C statement in Ex.P6.

33.In the cross-examination, PW6 has deposed that at present herself and accused were not residing in that locality, that accused has no habit of consuming 28.7.2021 17 SC 4 of 2017 liquor, that one day prior to the incident accused and deceased went to Cinema

Hall and saw a movie, that at about 9.00am., on the date of the incident she was in front of her house, that on that day the deceased sent the accused to bring

Vegetables and Tiffin, that accused and his son left the house by Bike to bring the same, that within half an hour they brought one watermelon and handed over the same to the deceased and again left the house and came back to the house within half an hour, that son of accused got down from the Bike and went into the house, that he came back by crying and stated that his mother committed suicide by hanging, that then they all including the accused went inside of the house, that accused and others took the deceased to the hospital, that to her knowledge accused is not responsible for the death of deceased and that she stated before police what she has stated before this court.

34.In the re-examination by Addl. P.P, PW6 has deposed that she does not know what movie they saw and she does not know at what time they returned from Cinema hall and she does not know what disputes came between them in the night time and her husband was working in Current office and she is doing coolie work and they resided for a period 7 months in that area and she does not know how many houses the accused has changed for his residence and she does not know the disputes between accused and deceased and she does not know when accused was consuming liquor and when he was coming to the house and she does not know how accused behaved with the deceased, but, when they come out they were good and it appears to her they got good relationship, but deceased never stated anything to her.

28.7.2021 18 SC 4 of 2017

35.In the cross-examination, PW6 has deposed that to her knowledge accused is not the habit of taking liquor, that she never heard the cries of any body from the house of accused, that parents of deceased never come to the house of deceased and that accused and deceased used to move together when they used to go to Cinema and functions.

36.PW7/Shaik Shaheena, has not fully supported the case of the prosecution.

It is her evidence that she knew the accused and deceased and they resided in a rented house at distance of 6 houses and on the date of incident she saw that the accused brought one Watermelon and handed over same to deceased and the deceased sent out the accused to bring the vegetables along with his son and within half an hour the accused and his son reached the house with Vegetables and by that time the deceased committed suicide by hanging and police did not examine her. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined him with the permission of the court, however, could not elicit anything against the accused except marking her section 161 Cr.P.C statement in Ex.P7.

37. In the cross-examination, PW7 has deposed that she was working at distance of 30 feet and is preparing Beedies, that the deceased used to work along with her, that there were no disputes between accused and deceased, that the accused is not in habit of consuming liquor, that on the previous night they went to Cinema, that the deceased used to say before her that her parents are not coming to her house and were not talking, that the accused is not responsible for the death of deceased, that the deceased asked the accused to bring Mangos and

Drum sticks from the market and there was a dispute at that time.

28.7.2021 19 SC 4 of 2017

38.In the re-examination by Addl. P.P, PW7 has deposed that she does not know what movie they saw and she does not know at what time they returned to home and she does not know the disputes between accused and deceased and her husband discarded her and later died.

39.In the re-examination, PW7 has denied the suggestion that the accused used to bring vegetables to her and helping her and that to help the accused she is giving false evidence.

40.PW8/Dr.Z.Sasikanth, Associate Professor at ACSR Medical College,

Nellore has deposed that on 17-02-2015, he received requisition from SHO,

Nellore Rural Police Station to conducted postmortem examination of over the dead body of deceased/Shaik Dilshad @ Sameera and found the following external injuries: a ligature mark present on upper part of neck above the

Thyroid cartilage from right to left 22X1 c.m. extending upwards and back words to back of neck and neck structures congested and all other internal organs congested and approximate time of death 12 to 24 hours prior to his examination and cause of death Asphyxia due to hanging and Ex.P8 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. There is no cross-examination on the evidence of PW8.

41.PW9/V.Giri Babu, the then S.I. of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station has deposed that on 16.2.2015, he received report in Ex.P1 from PW.1 and based on the Ex.P1, he registered the same as case in Cr.No.47/2015, U/ss.498-A and 306

IPC of Nellore Rural P.S and submitted FIR copies to the Hon’ble court and he left the police station along with complainant and visited the scene of offence and 28.7.2021 20 SC 4 of 2017 he secured the mediators PW.4 and PW.5 and LW.9/Shanawaz and inspected the scene of offence from 13.30 to 14.30 hours and the scene of offence is a rented house of the accused, which is situated at 6th line, Ramakotaiah Nagar, Kothur and one saree having light blue and wheat colour lines hanging from the hook and he prepared scene of observation report-cum-seizor report in Ex.P3 and he got photographed the scene of offence in Ex.P5 and he also prepared rough sketch in Ex.P10 and then, he left the scene of offence and visited the mortuary,

Govt. Hospital, Nellore and secured the panchayatdars PW.5, LW.9/Shanawaz,

LW.10/Roshan in their presence and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also examined the witnesses and recorded the statements and he got sent the dead body for postmortem examination.

42.PW9 has further deposed that on 17.2.2015, he obtained Ex.P8 from PW.8 and on 19.2.2015, he arrested the accused at his house at about 10.00am., and after completing the formalities the accused was produced before the concerned

Magistrate court for remand and after completion of investigation and after

receipt of material documents LW.13/ K.Sekhar Babu, S.I. of Police laid charge sheet against the accused U/ss.498-A IPC and 306 IPC.

43.In the cross-examination, PW9 has deposed that subsequent to the report of

PW.1, he received hospital intimation, that generally in MLC cases the concerned hospital persons inform the incident to the police over phone, that in this case police received information over phone, that he did not mention time of receipt of land phone call from the hospital, that he mentioned the same in the general diary, that as per FIR column No.3(c) the time is mentioned as 12.30 hours, that mother and father of deceased came to the police station, that deceased mother 28.7.2021 21 SC 4 of 2017 gave oral statement to police and same was reduced into writing, but, a perusal of the same it is a report, that he did not obtain the signature of the informant in

Col. No.14, that he visited the scene of offence at about 13.30 hours, that he took more than one hour at that place, that thereafter, he rushed to the Got Hospital,

Nellore and O.P. police did not record any statement in this case and was at the hospital at 15.00 hours that he examined PW.1 and 2 in the police station, that

PW.1 did not state before him that she received information over phone from the deceased, that PW.1 did not state before him that on Sunday at Noon hours the deceased informed her over phone that the accused has demanded to bring dowry and harassed her and if she would not bring dowry she has to die so that “Peeda virugudu aipotundi”, that PW.1 did not specifically mention the name from whom she received information, that PW.1 did not state before him from whom she received death intimation of the deceased, that as per the statement of PW.1 she came to know over phone one day prior to the incident, that PW.1 stated before him as in Ex.D1, that it is mentioned in the statement of PW.1 “Na kumarthe ame pette badhalu bharinchaleka”, that PW.1 did not state before him that she tried to contact the deceased on the evening of the same day, but the deceased did not respond, that he did not visit the places where the deceased and accused lived and he did not examine the neighbours, that as per his investigation two years prior to the incident the disputes came between the deceased and accused and prior to that there were no disputes between them, that he did not state before him that the deceased came to her parents house and after mediation she was sent back to the accused, that Photostat copy of undertaking letter given by the accused and others was given to him during investigation, that none of the witnesses stated before him about the said undertaking letter, that he examined Pws 3 and 4 in the 28.7.2021 22 SC 4 of 2017 hospital, that PW.3 did not state before him that accused demanded for additional dowry and if she would die he would marry again, that PW.3 stated before him as in Ex.D2, thatPW.3 did not state before him regarding the additional dowry, that

PW.3 did not state before him that if the deceased dies, accused would marry again, that PW.1 did not state before him that from the next day of the marriage the accused consuming liquor and used to beat the deceased and demanded for

additional dowry, that there is no specific mention about the name of the person

or relative of the person from whom PW.2 and PW.4 received information about the harassment, that PW.4 did not state before him that accused discarded the deceased, that he secured PW.5/Umar through his staff, that he has no personal knowledge about PW.5, that one constable decided himself and brought PW.5, that PW.5 did not come to the police station, that he did not prepare separate seizure list apart from mahazar, that he is the scribe of scene of observation report, that he photographed the scene of offence with police station instrument, that he did not specifically mention the names of elders, that he examined the elder persons i.e., PW.7 Saheena, PW.6 Aruna and witnesses did not state before him about the specific amount of dowry and specific amount of additional dowry.

44.In the cross-examination, PW9 has denied the suggestion that he prepared entire record in the police station, that he did not seize any material objects in this case, that he did not secure local persons in respect of mahazar witnesses that he did not examine the witnesses and that he did not arrest the accused as stated by him.

45.The learned additional public prosecutor has contended that Pws.1 and 2 are natural witnesses and their evidence has to be taken into consideration and on 28.7.2021 23 SC 4 of 2017 the other hand the accused gave a letter undertaking to look after the deceased and since the natural witnesses are illiterates there were some improvements and omissions in the case of the prosecution, however, they are not fatal to the case of the prosecution and since the prosecution could able to establish and proved the ingredients of the offences punishable under sections 498-A IPC and 306 IPC the accused is deserved for punishment in accordance with law.

46.Per contra, the learned advocate for the accused contended:

i) that there was no allegation regarding giving of dowry at the time of marriage and as such the demand for additional dowry does not arise, ii) that the alleged abetment was known through the neighbours of the deceased, however, there are no names of such neighbours who allegedly informed about the incident to the mother of the deceased over phone and there is an omission on this aspect, iii) that there is an inconsistency in respect of Ex.P1 report and though it is a written report there is evidence that the said report was prepared on the dictation of mother of the victim, iv) that the prosecution did not examine any mediators though the prosecution has alleged that three meditations were held,

v) that the alleged letter in Ex.P2 was brought into the record during trial and it is a concocted one on the advice of a private lawyer engaged by the blood relatives of the deceased, vi) that though it is a medico legal case the outpost police station suppressed the earlier contention of the parents of the deceased and brought into existence Ex.P1 report with the work of legal mind to 28.7.2021 24 SC 4 of 2017 attract the offence under section 306 of IPC and mere alleged cruelty is not sufficient and every suicide case would not come under section 306 IPC as the instigation must be with mens rea and there is no proximate cause to connect the death of deceased with the accused, vii) that the omnibus statements of parents of the deceased regarding the allegations of physical and mental cruelty would not sufficient as there were no visible injuries on the body of the deceased, viii) that there were material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidences of prosecution witnesses and since the deceased herself committed suicide as the parents of the deceased are not visiting her house the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the both the charges and relied upon several decisions in respect of legal aspects pertaining to sec.306 and 498-A IPC.

47.It is not in dispute that the deceased is the wife of the accused and there were no disputes for a period of 8 years and disputes came 2 years prior to the date of incident. Admittedly, there was no earlier report against the accused pertaining to the alleged disputes between the deceased and accused.

48.Ex.P1 is a written report and according to Ex.P1 the marriage between the deceased and accused was happened about 10 years and they were blessed with a son and for the last 2 years the accused has been demanding for additional dowry for several times and mediations were held and at about 7 months back the accused has shifted his residence, along with his wife (deceased) and son, to

Ramakotaiah Nagar by taking a house for rent and continued the harassment for dowry and used to beat her by saying that if she did not bring dowry he does not 28.7.2021 25 SC 4 of 2017 want the deceased and if she dies the hurdle would be removed and while so, on 15.2.2015 at noon hours the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and stated that if she dies his bad will goes (peeeda veragada avutundi) and due to the said harassment the deceased could not tolerate the same and on 16.2.2015 in the early hours the deceased had committed suicide in her house and she was shifted to Nellore big hospital and at about 11-00am., the information was received by the mother of the deceased over phone and on that she went to the said hospital along with her relatives and saw the dead body of the deceased and on that she requested the police to take action against the accused.

49. The L.T.I of the mother of the deceased is in Ex.P1 and the said report was registered as a case in Cr.No.47/2015 at 12-30 pm. There is no thumb mark of the complainant/informant at col.No.14 of the registered FIR in Ex.P9. There is no specific time of the occurrence at col.No.3 in Ex.P9.

50.Coming to the evidence of PW1/Sk.Gulzar, mother of the deceased, she has deposed that on her dictation somebody prepared Ex.P1 outside the police station and she spent one hour in the mortuary and she reached the mortuary of the hospital at about 11-30am., and reached the police station at about 12-00 noon along with her husband and son and other neighbours and they spent one hour in the police station after Ex.P1 report. She has admitted that she never visited the house of the accused where the deceased had committed suicide.

51.PW2/Sk.Shahul, husband of PW1 and father of deceased, has admitted in his cross-examination that police might have recorded the statement of his wife and himself and PW1 went to the police station and on the dictation of his wife 28.7.2021 26 SC 4 of 2017

Ex.P1 was prepared in the police station.

52.PW3/Sk.Shamshad, sister of the deceased, has deposed in her cross- examination that police recorded her statement in the government hospital between 12-00 to 12-30 pm., and her parents went to the police station for giving the report and came back to the hospital between 1-00 and 1-30pm.

53.PW4/Sk.Jasheed, brother of the deceased has deposed in his cross- examination that police examined him at 11-30am., and he did not state before police that on 15.2.2015 the deceased informed to his mother over phone that the accused beat her and by that time he was by the side of his mother and they got a private advocate.

54.PW9/V.Giribabu, the then SI of Police, who registered the case against the accused and investigated into case has deposed that subsequent to the report of

PW1 he received hospital intimation, but he did not mention the time of the receipt of the said information over phone from the hospital and as per col.No.3 the time is mentioned as 12-30 hours and deceased mother gave oral statement to police and the same was reduced into writing, but on a perusal, there is a written report, but he did not obtain the signature of the informant in col.No.14 of the

FIR.

55.In view of the above evidence on record it can be said that there is a discrepancy regarding the contention of P.Ws.1 to 4 and PW9 and there is no time of death of deceased and P.Ws.1 to 4 are not eyewitnesses to the incident and as such, any amount of doubt can be entertained regarding the contents in Ex.P1 and contention of the prosecution witnesses.

28.7.2021 27 SC 4 of 2017

56.PW5/Sk.Umar, relative of the deceased, has supported the case of the prosecutor regarding the scene of observation report and inquest in Exs.P3 and

P4 respectively. As per his evidence they saw injuries on the neck of the deceased and they suspected that the deceased was hanged by somebody and murdered.

57.In the cross-examination, PW5 has deposed that his phone number is available with the police and he received a phone call from police at about 1-00pm., asking him come to the rural police station, Nellore and he studied degree course, but he is not the scribe of Exs.P3 and P4. It is his further evidence that police issued summons to the neighbours of the place of occurrence and

Varalakshmi, Aruna and Shaheena signed on it and 7 persons signed in Ex.P3, scene of observation report, other than police. He has further deposed that neighbours of the deceased were present in the hospital, but police did not call them for signing in Ex.P4, inquest report.

58.The evidence of PW5 goes to show that he has gone to the extent of saying that somebody hanged the deceased and murdered her. It may be mentioned here that it is not the case of murder and hence, the evidence of PW5 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution and on the other hand, is not an eyewitness to the alleged abetment and cruelty against the deceased.

59.PW6/S.Aruna, neighbour of the deceased, has not supported the case of the prosecution, but as per her evidence the accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased and accused and others taken the deceased to the hospital.

Hence, said that the evidence of PW6 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

28.7.2021 28 SC 4 of 2017

60.PW7/Sk.Shaheena, has deposed on the similar lines of PW6. As per her evidence there were no disputes between the deceased and accused.

61.As per the evidence of blood relatives of the deceased there are contradictions in Exs.D1 and D2. Ex.D1 is marked through PW1 to the effect that she harassed the deceased and PW1 has deposed that she did not state before police as in Ex.D1 and she did not state before police that since the beginning of the marriage the disputes were there between the accused and deceased. Ex, D2 is marked through PW3 and PW3 has denied the suggestion that she stated before police as in Ex.D2 to the effect that her mother (PW1) informed her over phone that on 15.2.2015 at noon hours the husband of the deceased came to the house in drunken condition, picked up a quarrel with the deceased, abused her and beat her and asked her to die. She has admitted that after death of the deceased six or seven persons went to the house of accused and brought the clothes of the deceased and further deposed that she did not state before police that accused demanded additional dowry and subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally. As per her evidence she reached the hospital and police recorded her statement between 12-00 noon and 12-30pm., and police did not examine her again. In view of the above evidence of PW3, it can be said that the evidence of

PW3 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution in respect of the charges framed against the accused.

62.PW4, brother of the deceased, has deposed in his cross-examination that at about 11-30am., police examined him and further admitted that he did not state

before police that for 3 times meditations were held and he did not state before

28.7.2021 29 SC 4 of 2017 police that there was a settlement in the police station. He has further deposed that he did not state before police that on 15.2.2015 the deceased informed to his mother over phone that the accused beat her and he was by the side of his mother at that time and he did not state before police that from whom he came to know about the dispute between deceased and accused and his mother visited the house of deceased at Ramakotaiah Nagar for two times. It may be mentioned here that as per the evidence of PW1, mother of the deceased, she never visited the house of accused where the deceased had committed suicide. In view of the above evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of PW4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution as his evidence is full of material omissions and is not corroborating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

63.PW2, father of the deceased, has deposed that the accused and other gave

Ex.P2 undertaking letter. In the cross-examination, it is elicited from him that

Ex.P2 was dated, 20.7.2014. He has admitted that he did not state before police that they kept the dispute before elders and at that time the accused and his father gave an undertaking letter to safeguard the interest of his daughter and taken her to the house of accused. PW2 has admitted that no signatures of elders in Ex.P2 and he did not state before police that his daughter came to his house from the house of accused. He has admitted that himself and his wife did not visit the house of accused at Ramakotaiah Nagar and has further admitted that he did not state before police that from whom he came to know the disputes between the accused and deceased.

28.7.2021 30 SC 4 of 2017

64.As per the contents in Ex.P2, undertaking letter, which was signed by the accused and there were two witnesses. As per the contents therein there were three mediations and thereafter mediation was held in the police station and the accused allegedly has undertaken to discharge the debt and if anything happens to the deceased, the sister, brother-in-law, mother and father of accused are responsible. But, as per the evidence of the investigating officer (PW9), the

Photostat copy of Ex.P2 was given to him during investigation and none of the witnesses stated before him about the said undertaking letter. In view of the above evidence of the investigating officer, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution could not able to prove Ex.P2, undertaking letter by adducing legal evidence and as such Ex.P2 has no probative value in the eyes of law.

65.As per the above evidence on record, it can be said, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to say the incidents that were occurred on the date of incident. P.Ws.1 to 4 came to know the things from somebody over phone, but they could not mention any name of the person. Admittedly, the parents of the deceased did not visit the house of deceased i.e., Ramakotaiah Nagar, even though there were alleged dispute between the deceased and accused. The investigating agency has not seized the cell phone of the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 to prove that there were phone calls among them. In the absence of legal evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 is hearsay evidence and it has no probative value in the eye of law.

66.Coming to the legal aspects, the learned advocate for the accused has relied upon the following decisions:

28.7.2021 31 SC 4 of 2017

1) In Ambaipudi Parasuramudu Vs., State of Andhra Pradesh1 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, AP at Hyderabad considered section 306

IPC and observed at para 5 that:

Every incidence of suicide is not an offence u/s.306 IPC. There must be evidence that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. There must be some utterances like an inducement to the deceased that he/she should commit suicide. Unless there is abetment by way of inducement, the offence u/s.306 IPC would not be made out.

While so, there is no whisper in Ex.P.7 statement of the deceased before

PW.7 and in Ex.P.12 dying declaration of the deceased before PW.8 that there was inducement directly or indirectly from the accused. The case of the deceased herself is that the accused left the deceased at Hubli.

Thus, the accused deserted the deceased at Hubli. There was no quarrel at any point of time between the accused and the deceased. There was no occasion for the accused to express a view that the deceased should commit suicide. I, therefore, consider that the trial Court and the appellate Court erred in concluding that the offence u/s.306 IPC was made out” and further observed at para 6 that:

“The deceased stated in Ex.P.7 as well as Ex.P.12 that she committed suicide, as she could not bear the insult. Such a conduct on the part of the deceased would not be a tantamount to commission of the offence u/ s.306 IPC by the accused.”

2) In Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami Vs., State of Gujarat 2 wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered sections 498-A and 306 IPC and

observed at para 9 that:

“Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or 12012 (1) ALD (Crl.) 61 (AP) 22009 (A) ALD (Crl.) 924 (SC) 28.7.2021 32 SC 4 of 2017 intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under section 306 of IPC.” and further observed at para 12 that:

“In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact

that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough”

3) In Anand Kumar Vs., State of M.P 3wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India considered the similar provisions with reference to section 113-A and 113-B of Evidence Act and observed para 7 that:

“We are of the opinion that this excerpt from his evidence cannot be said to be proof of the document as no statement was made that he recognized the handwriting or the signature of the appellant. Moreover, this letter had not been produced before the police during the course of the initial investigation and had been handed over to the police after several months. This fact, as also a reading of the letter, indicates that this was a concocted piece of evidence and the work of a legal mind, as no person would write such a letter meeting all legal requirements for

implicating himself and his near relatives, in a claim for Dowry.”

In the above decision there is a dying declaration, which exonerated all the accused of any wrongdoing.

4) In Sohan Raj Sharma Vs., State of Haryana 4 wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India considered section 306 IPC with reference to section 107 and 109 IPC and held that the accused was impotent and he was trying to defame the deceased for having relationship with ladies.

32009 (1) ALD (Crl.) 551 (SC) 42008(1) ALD (Crl.) 941 (SC) 28.7.2021 33 SC 4 of 2017

5) In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs., State of Madhya Pradesh 5 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered section 306 of IPC with reference to a suicide note and observed at para 13 that:

“A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt.

Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not a handy work of a man with sound mind and sense.”

6) In Gurjit Singh Vs., State of Punjab 6 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India considered a sections 306 and 498-A IPC with reference sec.113-A of Evidence Act and observed para 36 that :

“It would thus be seen, that the charge does not state that the deceased was driven to commit suicide on account of the harassment meted out to the deceased. It also does not mention that the accused had abetted in commission of suicide by the deceased. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the cases wherein conversion is held to be permissible are clearly distinguishable.”

7) In Gurcharan Singh Vs., State of Punjab 7wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India considered section 306 IPC with reference to a suicide note and observed at para 22 that:

“It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative 52002 (2) ALD (Crl.) 956 (SC) 62020 (2) ALD (Crl.) 564 (SC) 7AIR 2017 Supreme Court 74 28.7.2021 34 SC 4 of 2017 factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide.”

8) In Sharadbhai Jivanlal Vaniya Vs., State of Gujarat 8wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India considered sections 498-A and 306 IPC and

relied upon a decision in Anand Kumar Vs., State of Madhya Pradesh mentioned supra.

9) In Rajesh Vs., State of Haryana 9 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered section 306 IPC and observed at para 8 that :

“Conviction under section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under section 306 IPC. ” 82012 (2) ALD (Crl.) 43 (SC) 9AIR 2019 Supreme Court 478 28.7.2021 35 SC 4 of 2017 and further observed at para 10 that:

“Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention

cannot be termed as instigation.”

10) In Mahesh Kumar Vs., State of Haryana 10 wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court considered section 304-B IPC and section 113-B IPC.

11) In Penchala Sadaiah and others Vs., State of A.P 11 wherein the

Hon’ble High Court of AP considered sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section

113-A of Evidence Act and observed para 8 that:

“It is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract

Section 498-A IPC. The cruelty must be of such nature so as to coerce the wife to meet the illegal demands or commit suicide. The evidence of demand and ill treatment must be cogent and reliable. There must be reasonable nexus between the cruelty and suicide, which must be established. Mere proof of cruelty or suicide is not enough so as to conclude the ingredients of cruelty. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not altered by the introduction of Sections 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of the Evidence Act.”

12) In Atluri Ravindra and others Vs., State of A.P and another 12 wherein the Hon’ble High Court of AP considered the relatives of the husband to quash the proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.

13) In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs., Hem Raj13wherein the Hon’ble

High Court of Himachal Pradesh considered sections 304-B IPC, 498-A IPC and 113-B Evidence Act and observed at para 27 that:

“It is a unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal

Code that the only act, the attempt of which alone will become an 10 2019 CRI.L.J.4697 11 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 332 (AP) 12 2006(2) ALD (Crl.) 285 (AP) 13 2017 CRI.L.J. 2686 28.7.2021 36 SC 4 of 2017 offence, is suicide. The person who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under Section 309 IPC, whereas the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. Section 306 renders the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that, suicide should necessarily have been committed. Thus, the crux of the offence under Section 306 itself is abetment. In other words, if there is no abetment there is no

question, the offence under Section 306 comes into play.”

14) In Gurcharan Singh Vs.,The State of Punjab 14 wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court considered sections 304-B, 498-A and 306 IPC and observed at para 15 that :

“As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability.

In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased.

The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.” and further held at para 13 that :

“In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under section 306 IPC. ” 14 Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2011 on 1st October, 2020 28.7.2021 37 SC 4 of 2017

67. In view of the above legal aspects, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case it can be said that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to say that the accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide and he facilitated her to do so with a view to eliminate her from his life. The evidence on record goes to show that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 there is no other evidence to connect the charges with the accused. After scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 vis-a-vis with the evidence of investigating officer it came to light there are material contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the contentions of the prosecution. The alleged undertaking letter in Ex.P2 has not been proved by the prosecution to say that the said undertaking letter was given by the accused. As a matter of fact no witness of Ex.P2 is examined by the prosecution and the investigating agency has obtained xerox copy of it during investigation and the prosecuting agency could able to brought on record during trial and could not refer it to the any handwriting expert to show that the accused signed on it. The accused has taken the plea of forgery in respect of Ex.P2 and hence, it is for the prosecution to prove the contents in Ex.P2. In view of the above circumstances and material evidence on record, I have no hesitation to come to a just conclusion of the case that the prosecution could not able to prove the charges framed against the accused and as such, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Hence, these points are decided against the prosecution.

68.In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s.498-A and u/s.306 of IPC and is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds of the accused and his sureties bonds shall stand cancelled after 28.7.2021 38 SC 4 of 2017 expiry of six months from the date of this Judgment as contemplated u/s437-A

Cr.P.C. The non-valuable case property i.e., MO1, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. (CPR No.7/2020)

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, through phone, corrected and

pronounced by me, through video conference, at my residence. Given under my

hand and the seal of this court, this the 28 th day of July, 2021.

Sd/-Dr.B.Satyanarayana,

Fair Copy: VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Court for trial of offences against Women, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: Shaik Gulzar

PW2: Shaik Shahul

PW3: Shaik Shamshad

PW4: Shaik Jasheed

PW5: Shaik Umar

PW6: Siddam Aruna

PW7: Shaik Shaheena

PW8: Dr.Z.Sasikanth, Assistant Professor.

PW9: V.Giri Babu, SI of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station.

For Defence: Nil.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Report of PW1.

Ex.P2: Undertaking letter given by accused and others, dt.20.7.2014.

Ex.P3: Scene of observation-cum-seizurenama, dt.16.2.2015 at 13-30 hours.

Ex.P4: Inquest report, dt.16.2.2015.

Ex.P5: Five colour photos with C.D.

Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6.

Ex.P7: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7.

28.7.2021 39 SC 4 of 2017

Ex.P8: Postmortem certificate of deceased.

Ex.P9: FIR in Cr.No.47/2015 of Nellore Rural Police Station.

Ex.P10: Rough sketch.

For Defence:

Ex.D1: A portion of section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.D2: A portion of section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1: One silk saree with yellow and blue designed.

Id/- Dr.B.S., VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against Women, Nellore.

Copy submitted to: -

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2.The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Copies to: -

3. The IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

4. The Add. Public Prosecutor, Nellore.

// True Copy //

VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for trial of offences against Women, Nellore.

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

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: NELLORE

Thursday, the 22 nd day of February, 2024.

Present: Smt. C. SATYA VANI,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum –

II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nellore.

CALENDAR CASE No.18 of 2014

(Cr.No.14/RCT-NLR/2011 of Nellore Range, Nellore)

1.Name of the Complainant: State: Represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore.

2.Name of the Accused : Sri Mannepalli Rama Krishna, Aged 40 years, Mandal Revenue Inspector, O/o Tahsildar, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District.

3.Offence &Section of Law: Charge No.1: U/Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988. Charge No.2:U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988.

4.Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court : Accused is found not guilty.

6.Result (Sentence or : In the result, Accused Officer is found order) not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 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 Officer shall stand cancelled after appeal time and the same shall be in force for a period of six 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.7, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property, cash of Rs.10,000/- marked under MO.8 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

7. Prosecution conducted by : Smt. Ch. Thriveni, Special Public Prosecutor

8. Defence conducted by : Sri P.Vijaya Kumara Reddy, Sri P.Sri Harsha and Sri Md. Fazil Ahamad, Advocates.

9. Date of hearing : 03.02.2024

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

JUDGMENT

The Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, Nellore filed charge sheet against the Accused Officer in Crime No.14/RCT-NLR/2011 of

Nellore Range, Nellore for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The accused worked as Mandal Revenue Inspector, Kovur Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District from 25.05.2005 to 21.11.2011. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The case of the prosecution against the accused, in brief, is as follows:-

On 19.11.2011 at 8-00 p.m., PW1/Putheti Ravichandra, Technical

Assistant (Outsourcing), O/o MPDO, Indukurpet, N/o Kovur, SPSR Nellore

District who is De-facto complainant came to the Office of DSP, ACB, Nellore and gave a report stating that he has ancestral property to an extent of Ac.1.03 cents wet land in Sy.No.992/1A/2A of Kovur village. He applied for land conversion for constructing an Ice Factory in Ac.0.45 cents of the said land and paid Challan for Rs.45,000/- as conversion charges to the RDO, Kavali, SPSR

Nellore District on 18.10.2011. The RDO, Kavali endorsed the same to the

Tahsildar, Kovur for enquiry and report on 27.10.2011. He met the Tahsildar,

Kovur at the O/o Tahsildar, Kovur in the 1st week of November and enquired about his file. The Tahsildar asked him to meet Accused Officer. On that, PW1 met Accused Officer at his Office and enquired about his file and Accused Officer replied that he was busy and he would submit his enquiry report in few days.

PW1 further met the Accused Officer two or three times and Accused Officer postponed the matter stating that he was busy in works. Finally, PW1 met

Accused Officer on the evening of 19.11.2011 at the O/o Tahsildar, Kovur and enquired about his work. On that, Accused Officer told PW1 that he persuade the file with VRO and the Surveyor and demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe for

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 completion of processing his file, otherwise his work would not be processed.

PW1 expressed his inability to pay the demanded bribe amount. On that

Accused Officer asked him to pay Rs.10,000/- advance as part of bribe payments and adjust the remaining bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- after completion of his work. As there was no other go, PW1 agreed to pay Rs.10,000/- as bribe in advance within two days and came back. As he was not interested to pay bribe to Accused Officer, requested to take necessary action against the Accused

Officer.

4. After following due procedure, PW11/Sri B.Sarath Babu, the then

D.S.P., ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore after due verification of this report and on preliminary inquiry, registered the report as a case in Crime No.14/RCT-

NLR/2011 u/s 7 of P.C.Act, 1988 of ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore on 21.11.2011 at 12-00 hours and took up investigation. He arranged trap of the accused, organized and successfully it was laid against the accused, when he was trapped on 21.11.2011 in the office of Tahsildar, Kovur at about 06-05 p.m., the accused turned positive to Sodium Carbonate Solution Colour Test conducted by PW11.

On the request of PW11, Accused Officer produced a wad of currency notes from his trousers left hip pocket before the mediators. The 1st mediator received the same and counted and verified the numbers of amount of Rs.10,000/- which numbers are tallied with the numbers of the notes noted in pre-trap proceedings.

PW11 seized the tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- for the purpose of investigation.

PW11 got removed the wearing trousers and subjected the inner linings of left hip pocket in Sodium Carbonate solution prepared afresh. On doing so, the test yielded positive result. PW11 also seized the trousers of Accused Officer. Then,

PW11 asked the Accused Officer to produce the pending file and papers related to the subject of land conversion of PW1 then Accused Officer produced a file bearing No.RCB/582/2011 regarding NALA from the iron Almyrah under his control at his seat and the said relevant documents are seized. The Accused

Officer was arrested by PW11 after explaining the grounds of his arrest. The above proceedings were reduced into writing in the form of Mediator Report No.2

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 in detail. The Accused Officer was remained to Judicial Custody and later he was enlarged on bail.PW11 examined the de-facto complainant/PW1 and other witnesses and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 was recorded by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore on 17.12.2011.

The District Collector, S.P.S.R. Nellore District being competent authority to remove the accused from service, accorded sanction to prosecute the

Accused Officer in this case. Accordingly, issued sanction orders for his prosecution in a Court of Law vide No.Rc.A1/5882/2011, dated 20.10.2013.

Thus, the prosecution has set out that the accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- and out of which an advance of Rs.10,000/- from

PW1/Putheti Ravichandra was accepted to show an official favour of submitting his enquiry report to the Tahsildar for the land conversion in respect of the complainant to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.992/1A/2A of Kovur village for construction of Ice Factory and thus made himself liable for punishment for the offence set out against him.

5. The case was taken on file under section 7 of P.C Act and process was directed to be issued against the accused, for appearance in this Court.

6. After appearance of the accused in this Court, he was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C in respect of the allegations of the prosecution. The accused denied these allegations. Upon consideration of the material and upon hearing the prosecution, as well as the accused, at first, Charge under Section 7 of PC Act was framed and subsequently an additional charge under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act was framed, read over and explained in Telugu. The plea of the accused is one of denial and not guilty.

7. In order to prove these charges at the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10, apart from M.Os.1 to 8.

On behalf of accused, DW1 was examined, but no documents are marked.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

8. PW1 is the de-facto-complainant in this case. He supported the version of the prosecution relating to official favour pending with the accused, of submitting his enquiry report to the Tahsildar for the land conversion in respect of the complainant to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.992/1A/2A of Kovur village for construction of Ice Factory. He further deposed in respect of the demand for bribe of Rs.50,000/- by the accused and when he expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, the Accused Officer asked to pay an advance of Rs.10,000/- and to pay the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- after completion of his work. He also deposed about presenting of Ex.P1 report on 19.11.2011 against the accused to PW11, the then Dy. S.P., ACB, Nellore, in respect of the demands of the accused.

PW2/Sri P.Venkata Anil Kumar, Deputy Executive Engineer, Nellore

Municipal Corporation and LW3/Dabbugunta Bala Krishna, Junior Assistant in

Nellore Municipal Corporation appeared as mediators in the course of pre-trap and trap proceedings covered by Exs.P3 and P4 mediator reports respectively.

PW2 deposed in respect of the same, supporting the prosecution version.

PW4/Sri B.Venkateswarlu, the then Tahsildar, Kovur deposed about application of PW1, dt.27.10.2011 forwarded by the R.D.O., to him enclosing necessary documents for conversion of PW1’s land into non-agricultural land and he in turn forwarded the file to Smt. E.Ramadevi, Senior Assistant and issued memo to R.I. and the V.R.O. to enquire into the matter and submit a report to him.

PW9/Sri V.H.Ramaprasad, Superintendent in Collectorate at Nellore deposed in respect of receiving copies of FIR, statements of witnesses and documents, Mediator Reports and Final report and other documents sent by

D.G., ACB, Hyderabad and after thorough satisfaction, the then District Collector

Sri N.Srikanth, accorded sanction to prosecute the accused and accordingly

Ex.P7 Sanction proceedings, dt.20.10.2013 were issued against the Accused.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

PW11/Sri B.Sarathbabu was then Dy.S.P., ACB, Nellore. PW10 was then

Inspector, ACB, Nellore. PW11 deposed in respect of receiving Ex.P1 written report from PW1 against the accused, preliminary inquiry directed by him thereon, that was conducted by PW10 and PW10 assisted the Dy.S.P. in conducting the Pre-trap and Post-trap proceedings, registering Ex.P9-F.I.R thereon against the accused and in respect of pre-trap as well as trap proceedings covered by Exs.P3 and P4 mediator reports respectively. PW11 deposed in respect of his further investigation in this case.

PW10 Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore deposed about filing of charge sheet, after completion of investigation done by them. Thus, both of them deposed in respect of investigative aspects.

Thus, the prosecution has let-in evidence in this case.

9. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., basing on the incriminating evidence appearing from the prosecution evidence. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked.

10. The accused officer stated that he did not demand any bribe nor receive it from PW1 nor he had any work relating to PW1 pending with him. PW1 falsely implicated him in this case. He further stated that he did not commit any offence.

11. Written submissions filed on behalf of prosecution.

12. Now, the following points arise for determination are:

(1) Whether the prosecution established that Accused Officer was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 (c ) of Prevention of Corruption Act and as to whether the prosecution obtained a valid sanction under Section 19 of P.C.Act to prosecute the Accused Officer for the offences alleged under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act?

(2) Whether the prosecution established the pendency of official favour of PW1 with Accused Officer prior to trap and on the date of trap?

(3) Whether the prosecution established that Accused Officer demanded PW1 to pay bribe of Rs.50,000/- and accepted Rs.10,000/- as advance from PW1 for doing official favour in the manner as alleged?

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 (4) Whether the prosecution established the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act against the Accused Officer beyond reasonable doubt?

(5) To what finding?

13. POINT No.1:-

It is not in dispute that Accused Officer Sri Mannepalli Rama Krishna was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District from 25.05.2005 to 20.11.2011. Undisputedly, Accused Officer falls under the category of public servant as defined under Section 2( c) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

14. Further, with regard to sanction order for prosecution against the

Accused Officer, it is the case of prosecution that as per the service particulars, the District Collector is the competent authority to remove the Accused Officer from services who was under the designation of Mandal Revenue Inspector –I,

Kovur Mandal Office, Tahsildar, Kovur. Thereby, the sanction proceedings were obtained from District Collector to prosecute Accused Officer under Prevention of

Corruption Act. The then District Collector Sri N.Srikanth accorded sanction proceedings under Ex.P7, dated 20.10.2013 to prosecute the Accused Officer.

In support of the case of prosecution, PW9 is also examined who is the

Superintendent in the Collector Office, Nellore since July, 2008.

15. It is deposed by PW9 that sanction of the District Collector Sri

N.Srikanth was accorded on verifying the copies of F.I.R., statements of witnesses and documents, mediator reports and final report and also other documents sent by DG, ACB, Hyderabad and after thorough satisfaction, he accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. It is also stated by PW9 that he can identify the signature of said District Collector Sri N.Srikanth as he worked under the said District Collector. Ex.P7 is brought on record through PW9.

16. At the first instance, PW9 was not cross examined, thereby it was recorded as “NIL”. Thereafter, PW9 was recalled on petition and cross examined wherein PW9 denied that the District Collector is not competent authority to issue sanction orders and to remove him from the service. Admittedly, ACB Officials

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 sent the final report to the District Collector along with the file on 18.01.2013 seeking permission for sanction. It is further stated by PW9 that as the approval from the Government is required, there was some delay in according sanction.

17. On careful perusal of Ex.P7 – Sanction proceedings, all the particulars of the case with regard to complaint, trap proceedings and the relevant documents reference is made as perused by the issuing authority. It is also mentioned in Ex.P7 that copy of F.I.R., statements of witnesses, copies of documents, mediator reports and final report of DG, ACB, Hyderabad and also other material placed before him was considered and issued the said proceedings. In particular, it is mentioned in Ex.P7 that “I Sri N.Srikanth, I.A.S.,

District Collector, S.P.S.R. Nellore District being the authority competent to remove the said Sri Mannepalli Rama Krishna, Mandal Revenue Inspector,

Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District” which shows that he is competent authority to issue sanction proceedings.

18. The contention of Accused Officer and the arguments of the learned counsel for Accused Officer that the District Collector is not competent authority needs no further consideration in the light of specific mention of his authority by the District Collector in Ex.P7. If at all, such is the case, nothing prevented Accused Officer to place such material that the District Collector is not competent for his removal nor issuing of sanction proceedings. Only for the reason that PW9 spoke about approval of the Government for according sanction, it does not mean that the sanction proceedings are to be issued by the

Government. The controlling authority and Head of the Department is the District

Collector undoubtedly, thereby if at all such approval of the Government is required, it is only a formal. Application of mind in issuing of sanction proceedings is to be made by the District Collector alone which is not disputed in the cross examination with regard to application of mind nothing is elicited.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

19. At the same time, in the light of a decision of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in between Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh which is also relied by learned counsel for Accused Officer. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v.

State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1979 (4) SCC 172, it is also held in the said Judgment that:

“an order of valid sanction can be proved by the

Sanctioning Authority in two ways: either (1) by

producing the original sanction which itself

contains the facts constituting the offence and the

grounds of satisfaction; or (2) by adducing

evidence aliunde to show that the facts were placed

before the Sanctioning Authority and the

satisfaction arrived at by it.”

20. Therefore, to the instant case, wherein the Prosecution examined

PW9 who was acquainted with the signature of Sanctioning Authority to prove the valid sanction. Apparently, the sanction order shows the application of mind.

Further, in Ex.P7 itself there is a specific mention that he is authorized to issue sanction proceedings. Moreover, it is evident on record that Accused Officer is not a direct recruit and on promotion he became Mandal Revenue Inspector and his post is equal to Senior Assistant. Therefore, the District Collector alone is the competent authority to issue Sanction Orders. Accordingly, Point No.1 for determination is answered.

POINTS 2 to 4:

21. It is also the case of prosecution and also deposed by PW1 who worked as Technical Assistant in the Office of M.P.D.O., Indukurpet on outsourcing basis from 2007 to December,2012 that he got Ac.1.03 cents of land in Kovur village in Survey Nos.992-1A, 2A and 992/1-B1 which is their ancestral property. PW1 wanted to construct an Ice factory in an extent of Ac.00.45 cents of the said land. In that connection, he filed an application before the R.D.O.,

Kavali on 18.10.2011 seeking conversion of his agricultural land to an extent of

Ac.00.45 cents into non-agricultural land. He also paid an amount of Rs.45,000/- for the said purpose and filed a challan along with his application. Later, on 27.10.2011 the R.D.O. addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Kovur to enquire into

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 the matter and to submit a report to him. He also enclosed Xerox copies of necessary documents including his Title deeds to his application.

22. Further, in the 1st week of November, 2011 on one day,PW1 met the Tahsildar/PW4 in his office after 5.00 p.m. and requested him to send his report to the R.D.O., Kavali with regard to conversion of his agricultural land into non-agricultural land. Then, the Tahsildar informed him that the Revenue

Inspector has to submit his report and asked him to meet the Revenue Inspector.

Accordingly, he met the Accused Officer who was working as Revenue Inspector,

Kovur and requested him to send report to the Tahsildar. On that, the Accused

Officer informed him that he was busy with other office work and he would send the report after some time. Thereafter, he met the Accused Officer on two occasions.

23. PW1 further deposed that when he met the Accused Officer on 19.11.2011 at about 5.00 p.m., and requested him to do his work, the Accused

Officer demanded him to pay Rs.50,000/- to get the land surveyed through the

V.R.O. and to submit his report to the Tahsildar. Then, PW1 informed Accused

Officer that he could not pay Rs.50,000/-. On that the Accused Officer asked him to pay an advance of Rs.10,000/- and pay balance amount of Rs.40,000/- after completion of his work. As PW1 was not willing to pay bribe to the Accused

Officer, he gave Ex.P1 - Written complaint, dated 19.11.2011 to the

Dy.S.P.,ACB, Nellore on the same day at 8.00 p.m. and it bears his signature.

The Dy.S.P had gone through his compliant and informed him to get ready with intended bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- and to come to his office as and when required.

24. Further, on 21.11.2011 in the morning hours, the Dy.S.P., ACB.,

Nellore informed him over phone to come to his office on the same day at 1.00 p.m. along with intended bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, he reached the office of Dy.S.P., ACB., Nellore before 1.00 p.m. At 1.00 p.m. PW1 was

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 called into the room of Dy.S.P. and the Dy. S.P. introduced PW1 to his staff and

Mediators and vice-versa. The Dy.S.P. handed over a copy of his complaint to the Mediators and asked them to go through it and ascertain whether the contents of the complaint are genuine or not. The Mediators had gone through it and when enquired him, PW1 stated that the contents are true and correct. Then the Mediators signed on copy of complaint.

25. Further, on the instructions of the Dy.S.P., he handed over cash of

Rs.10,000/- i.e., twenty currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination each, to the

Mediators. One of the Mediators counted the cash and verified the numbers and the other Mediator noted down serial numbers of currency notes and their denomination in pre-trap Proceedings. The Dy.S.P. got prepared some solution in two glasses through one of his Constables. On the instructions of Dy.S.P. the

Constable counted the cash and kept it on a table. Later that Constable rinsed his hands in the solution and there was no change in the colour of the solution.

The Constable applied Phenolphthalein Powder on the Currency notes and kept them in his Shirt pocket after making it empty. The Dy.S.P. instructed him to go to the Office of the Accused Officer and to pay the bribe amount only on his further demand and not otherwise. Then the Constable who handled the currency notes dipped his fingers in the solution and it turned into pink colour. The Dy.S.P.

explained significance of the test to them. The Dy.S.P. further instructed PW1 that in case the Accused Officer accepts bribe amount, to give a signal by wiping his face with a hand kerchief. The Mediators drafted pre-trap proceedings.

Samples of the powders were taken sealed and affixed identity slips. The

Proceedings were completed at 4.30 p.m.

26. Further, they all proceeded to Kovur and reached Kovur at 5.00 p.m and stopped vehicles near Old Police Quarters. The Dy.S.P. reiterated his earlier instructions given to him. When he went to the office of the Accused Officer, he was not available. PW1 was informed that the Accused Officer went outside and

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 would come to the office after half an hour. He informed the same to the Dy.S.P.

and the Dy.S.P. asked him to wait there till the arrival of the Accused Officer.

The Accused Officer returned to his office at 6.05 p.m. and when he enquired about his work in the verandah, the Accused Officer took him to his room and enquired whether he brought the intended bribe amount. Then PW1 said that he brought the amount and the Accused Officer asked him to pay the amount. Then he took out tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket and handed over them to the Accused Officer. He received the same with his right hand, counted the same and kept in his pants’ hip pocket on the left side. Then the Accused Officer informed him that he would look into his matter. Then he came out and gave a signal to the Police by wiping his face with a handkerchief.

27. Then the trap party lead by Dy.S.P. came to the room of the Accused

Officer. PW1 showed the Accused Officer to the Dy.S.P. He asked him to wait outside till he called him back. After long time, PW1 was called inside and the

Dy.S.P. confronted the version of the Accused Officer that he received the amount for G.C. Venkateswara Rao, V.R.O and not for himself. PW1 denied the version of the Accused Officer and narrated to the Dy.S.P. what all happened after left the trap party and further stated that on the demand of the Accused

Officer, he paid amount to him. The Mediators drafted a report at the office of the

Accused Officer. Later PW1 returned to his village and on the next day, he was called to the office of the Tahsildar, Kovur and recorded his statement.

Subsequently, his statement was also recorded by a learned Magistrate and it bears his signature. Thereafter, the R.D.O issued conversion certificate to him and he started his Ice Factory. The official favour pending with the Accused

Officer as on the date of trap was that he has to submit a report to the Tahsildar after getting his land surveyed.

28. PW2 the then Deputy Executive Engineer, Nellore Municipal

Corporation who acted as a Mediator deposed that he knew another Mediator

D.Balakrishna, worked as Junior Assistant in Nellore Municipal

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

Corporation. On 21.11.2011 their Municipal Commissioner informed him to go to

ACB Office, Nellore on the same day. Accordingly, PW2 and D.Balakrishna together went to ACB Office, Nellore at 12 Noon on that day and they met the

Dy.S.P. and after mutual introductions, they were asked to stay in the office and at about 3 p.m., they were called into the room of the Dy.S.P. The Dy.S.P. also called the Complainant into his room and the Dy.S.P. handed over a copy of complaint to them and asked to verify its genuineness through PW1. On enquiry,

PW1 confirmed the contents of his complaint as true and correct. Accordingly, they both signed on Ex.P2- Copy of F.I.R.

29. When the Dy.S.P. asked, PW1 produced cash of Rs.10,000/- consisting of twenty currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination each. The

Assistant of PW2 noted down the numbers of the currency notes in the Mediators report. The Dy.S.P. got prepared Sodium Carbonate Solution in two glasses.

When the Constable dipped his hands in the Solution, there is no change in its colour. On the instructions of Dy.S.P., the same Constable applied

Phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and kept them in the shirt pocket of PW1 after ensuring that it was empty. On the instructions of Dy. S.P. the said

Constable rinsed his hands in Sodium Carbonate Solution and it turned into pink colour. All the proceedings were recorded by him by way of Pre-trap proceedings. Ex.P3-Pre-trap proceedings drafted at the office of Dy.S.P. PW2, another mediator, Dy.S.P. and a Constable signed on it. The Dy.S.P. instructed

PW1 to hand over the cash to the Accused Officer only on his further demand and not otherwise.

30. Later, they all proceeded to Kovur and reached there at 4.30 p.m.

The Dy.S.P. reiterated his earlier instructions given to PW1. PW1 and A.R S.I.

proceeded to the Taluk Office. The A.R. S.I. stopped at the entrance of the Taluk office. PW1 went inside and after some time, he came out and informed that the

Accused Officer was not available in his office. Later, at 6.05 p.m. they received a signal and then PW2, C.I. and Dy.S.P. rushed to the room of the Accused

Officer and found him in his room. The Dy.S.P. disclosed his identity and also

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 identity of the trap party to the Accused Officer. The Dy.S.P. got prepared

Sodium Carbonate Solution and asked the Accused Officer to dip his hand fingers in the Solution and when he did so, the solution in both glasses turned into pink colour. The version of the Accused Officer was noted in the Post-trap proceedings. The Accused Officer produced the amount of Rs.10,000/- from his pants’ back pocket. When compared with the numbers of notes in the pre-trap proceedings with the tainted amount, they were tallied. Then, the Complainant was called inside and his version was also recorded in the post-trap proceedings.

The inner linings of the pants pocket of the Accused Officer when subjected to

Sodium Carbonate Solution turned into pink colour and the pants was seized.

Samples of Sodium Carbonate powder were also seized. So also the solutions were also taken into three bottles. They were sealed and attested. The documents available with the Accused Officer relating to this case were also seized and also seized cash of Rs.10,000/-. The Dy.S.P. examined the staff of the Tahsildar.

MO1-Sodium Carbonate powder, MO2-Phenolphthalein powder, MO3

Sodium Carbonate powder were seized at the time of Post-trap proceedings.

MOs.4 and 5 are the right and left hand washes of the Accused Officer. MO6 is inner linings of the wash of the trousers of the Accused Officer. MO7 is trousers of the Accused Officer. MO8 is cash of Rs.10,000/-.

Ex.P4 - Post-trap proceedings drafted by him was duly signed by him, other mediator, Dy.S.P. and the Staff. A copy of Ex.P4 was served on the

Accused Officer. The proceedings were completed at 6-15 a.m. on the following day and later the Accused Officer was arrested.

31. It is also the evidence of PW11 the Investigating Officer that after receiving of the complaint from PW1 and on receiving of the preliminary enquiry over the antecedents of the complainant as well the Accused Officer , he registered the same as Crime No.14/2011 u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 21.11.2011 at 12-00 Noon and issued F.I.R. under Ex.P9. Thereafter, he prepared for Mediator Report-I, the Pre-trap proceedings and proceeded to

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 the Office of Accused Officer as stated by PW1 and PW2 and also after receiving of the signal and enquiry over Accused Officer, Post-trap proceedings were conducted and also that the cash of Rs.10,000/- under MO8, the tainted amount was recovered from Accused Officer. It is the further case of PW11 and evident on record that under Ex.P4-Post Trap proceedings Mediator Report-II several signatures of the witnesses present over there were obtained. The signatures of the mediators PW2, LW3/D.Balakrishna and also Accused Officer, the

Investigating Officer were obtained. The signature of PW10 the Inspector of

Police who also accompanied the raiding party, signature was also obtained.

The signatures of PW4 and PW5 and also one Sugunamma, Office Subordinate and other Inspector of ACB was also obtained. PW4 and PW5 also deposed that they assigned their signatures on Ex.P4 and they were present at the time of

Trap proceedings. Apart from the evidence of PW4 and PW5, in order to substantiate that Accused Officer was trapped. PW6 and PW7 were also examined. It is stated by PW6 that she came to know about trap of Accused

Officer by the ACB Officials. PW6 is retired Deputy Tahsildar. He deposed that file relating to PW1 was forwarded to his office from R.D.O. The Tahsildar forwarded the said file to B-Section for circulation. He did not process the enquiry report to the Tahsildar. It is also stated that accused worked as Mandal

Revenue Inspector, Kovur at that time. He did not receive the file from Accused

Officer or Mandal Surveyor or VRO.

32. His evidence reveals nothing about the role of Accused Officer in dealing with the file of PW1 nor that he ever dealt with the said file.

33. Further, the evidence of PW7 reveals that the application of PW1 under Ex.P5 for conversion of his agricultural land into non-agricultural land on 18.10.2011 was forwarded by him to the Tahsildar on 27.10.2011. PW7 worked as a Special Grade Deputy Collector at that time. Necessary documents and

Challan were also enclosed with the said application. After the trap, PW7 received the entire file and he issued proceedings permitting PW1 for conversion.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

34. The evidence of PW7 also does not reveal any role of Accused

Officer in dealing with the application of PW1. Similarly, the evidence of PW8

Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition also does not reveal that there was any role played by Accused Officer over the application of PW1.

35. In the light of above evidence, it is not in dispute that PW1 filed application under Ex.P5, dated 18.10.2011 before the authorities concerned for conversion of his agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.45 cents into non- agricultural out of Ac.1.03 cents which is ancestral property. The requisite fee for such conversion of Rs.45,000/- was also paid. The said file for processing was pending with Revenue Authorities.

36. The very contention of the Accused Officer is that there was

no official favour pending with the Accused Officer nor any demand for

bribe was made by Accused Officer and that no amount was received by

the Accused Officer. At the same time, it is also the contention of Accused

Officer that after he came to Tahsildar Office along with Tahsildar, Accused

Officer went to his room and in order to go to washroom, he removed his

Jeans pant/MO7 and hanged the same to a nail in his room and wearing a

towel, he went to washroom. At that time, PW1 entered into the room of

Accused Officer and kept the tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- (MO8) herein in

his pant left side hip pocket. Few minutes thereafter, DW1/Satish Reddy

and one Chiranjeevi came to the room of Accused Officer on the work of

DW1 himself. After Accused Officer came back from the washroom, he

wore his pant and spoke with DW1 and other. Then, they left the room.

After that PW1 caught hold of the hands of Accused Officer and requested

to complete his work at an early date. Accused Officer informed him that

on 18.11.2011 itself he completed his work and he is awaiting the report of

VRO to forward his report along with report of VRO to the Tahsildar.

37. The prosecution relied upon a decision reported in 1992 CRLJ 1552 SUPREME COURT wherein it is held that

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

Onus to explain possession of the

amount to be discharged by the accused.

Further also relied over the decision reported in 1996 CRLJ 4031 where in it is held: Colour test conducted on clothes and hands of the Accused prove positive. Accused version is not up to the mark, conviction sustainable.

Further, relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 873 wherein it is held that it is not bar u/s 162 Cr.P.C. to consider the explanations recorded in Post-trap proceedings and also that corroboration need not be directed to prove demand and acceptance which is observed in a reported decision in AIR 1995 SUPREME

COURT 3656.

38. The learned counsel for Accused Officer also relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 CRLJ 1715 in between

C.Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala wherein it is held:

“Burden to prove accusation against

accused, offence with regard to

acceptance of illegal gratification from

complainant lies on prosecution.”

39. In the light of the contention of the Accused Officer that the work of

PW1 was completed by Accused Officer by 18.11.2011 itself. It is elicited from the evidence of PW3 that on 18.11.2011, he received the file from Accused

Officer in the evening hours. It is also admitted by PW3 that he received a memo from Tahsildar informing that the case file of PW1 forwarded to Accused Officer shall be taken by PW3 and conduct enquiry into the matter. The reasons for such a memo to PW3 is left unexplained. It is also left unexplained as to who is responsible for the delay if any in the process of file of PW1.

40. Further, PW1 pleaded ignorance that Accused Officer prepared the report after physical verification of his land on 18.11.2011 and by leaving the date blank and put the month and year on the same. At the same time, it is the

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 evidence PW11, the Investigating Officer that his investigation revealed that

Accused Officer prepared a report after physical verification of the land of PW1 on 18.11.2011 itself by leaving the date blank and put the month and year in the report.

41. In the instant case, the date of application of PW1 is 18.10.2011 which was forwarded by RDO on 27.10.2011 and by 14.11.2011 PW4 issued notices to Mandal Revenue Inspector (AO), Village Revenue Officer (PW3) and

Sub Registrar, Kovur under Ex.P6. Admittedly and evidently by 18.11.2011

Accused Officer prepared the report after physical verification of the land of PW1 and the file was sent to V.R.O. PW3 herein. PW3 admits the said fact. The Trap proceedings were conducted on 21.11.2011. The file of PW1 was not with

Accused Officer by that time.

42. Further, the case of prosecution in the light of complaint of PW1, the demand for bribe was made on 19.11.2011 when PW1 met him at about 5-00 p.m. and requested to do his work. Accused Officer demanded to pay

Rs.50,000/- to get the land surveyed through V.R.O. and to submit his report to the Tahsildar. It is not the case of reward sought by Accused Officer. PW1 is a businessman and is aware of all the cadres of Revenue Department which clearly can be observed in the light of his evidence. When such is the case, when the file is not at all with Accused Officer by 18.11.2011, how can Accused

Officer demand for bribe and how can PW1 can accept to pay the bribe is unbelievable. The said arguments appears to be believable subject to further scrutiny of the case of prosecution.

43. Further, the contention of the learned counsel for Accused Officer that it is not the Accused Officer alone who dealt with the file of the PW1 and also that for a conversion of small land of Ac.00.45 cents and on payment of fee of

Rs.45,000/- for such conversion giving of or demand of Rs.50,000/- by one of the employee dealing with the file is surprising and unbelievable. Moreover, no

prudent person would accept to give bribe to one person among several

persons dealing with the file. Thereby, the report of PW1 itself is created and

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 the total trap proceedings have been mislead by PW1 with intervention and active connivance with PW3. In the instant case, PW3 bore grudge against

Accused Officer which can be seen in the evidence of PW3 himself to the circumstances.

44. On scrutiny of evidence of PW4/Tahsildar, it is elicited that only on receiving of notices i.e., prior to 14.11.2011, he did not give any instructions to

Accused Officer or any other person to conduct any enquiry in the case of PW1.

The procedure in dealing with conversion file has been elicited. It is admitted by

PW4 that VRO (PW3) has to make physical inspection of the land and submit his report to him through Mandal Revenue Inspector (Accused Officer). It is also stated that Mandal Revenue Inspector (AO) may also conduct physical inspection. After receiving report from Mandal Revenue Inspector (AO) PW4 also has to make physical inspection of the land. It is further stated that generally they take Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer along with him to the field inspection. After making inspection and upon his satisfaction, he will recommend for conversion of agricultural land into non- agricultural land to the R.D.O. Further, if the R.D.O. gets any doubt, he may also make physical inspection of the land. It is also the evidence of PW8 that in case of conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land, he has to measure the land and prepare FMB and combined sketch and also that on the instructions of Tahsildar and in presence of V.R.O., such measurements is to be taken.

45. When such is the procedure above stated demanding of bribe by

Accused Officer alone of Rs.50,000/- after completing of his work within 4 days of the notice received by him clearly shows that the allegations are created. The said argument also appears to be believable.

46. Further, evidently the file of PW1 was not with Accused Officer.

Admittedly and evidently, the file was seized from the possession of PW3 containing all material papers under Ex.P6 which is a comprehensive one.

Whereas, the documents left with Accused Officer were only notices by which it cannot be stated that there is any official favour pending with Accused Officer.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

When the file itself is not with Accused Officer by the date of alleged demand of bribe nor by the date of trap. It is to observe that there was no official favour pending before the Accused Officer with regard to work of PW1. To substantiate the said contention, it is clearly elicited from the evidence of PW4, PW3 and also from the Investigating Officer/PW11 that by 18.11.2011 the case file was received by PW3 from Accused Officer and the said file was handed over to

ACB Officials on 23.11.2011. The evidence of PW4 also shows that Accused

Officer prepared the report without mentioning the date, but mentioned the

month and year as November, 2011. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that by the date of the alleged demand of bribe and trap proceedings, there was no official favour pending before Accused Officer.

47. The further contention of Accused Officer that the instant case is deliberately created in connivance between PW3 and PW1. In the evidence of

PW3 it is elicited that he know PW1 and his brothers. It is also stated by PW3 that the brothers of PW1 does Real Estate business which goes to show that

PW3 is not only aware of PW1, but also about his family and their work. The arguments of the learned counsel for Accused Officer that when PW1 and his brothers deal with Real Estate business, they obviously will have close relationship with Revenue Officials is a point for consideration to the instant case facts and circumstances. Admittedly, one Bhaskar Rao worked as Tahsildar,

Kovur from 2007 to 2010. It is also admitted by PW3 that the said Bhaskar Rao filed criminal case against him alleging that he tampered Revenue records relating to Cherlopalli village and a crime was registered vide Crime

No.183/2010, dated 05.12.2010 against PW3. It is also admitted that Bhaskar

Rao, Tahsildar directed Accused Officer to rectify the records of Cherlopalli village and that Accused Officer conducted an enquiry in this regard. Further, admittedly on the report of Accused Officer said Bhaskar Rao, Tahsildar gave a complaint against PW3. Thereby, there is a clear animosity developed by PW3 to falsely implicate Accused Officer. Therefore, PW1 under the influence of PW3 foisted a false report under Ex.P1.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

48. When there is a clear admission by PW3 himself with regard to a criminal case registered against him on the report of Accused Officer herein and also in the instant case, even after receiving of the file of PW1, he did not take any further action, but PW1 giving a report against Accused Officer appears to be strange. At the same time, it is the evidence of PW1 that he has no prior acquaintance with the accused, but he know PW3, VRO, Kovur village. When such is the case, without approaching PW3 about his file nor informing Tahsildar or RDO about the demand of bribe by Accused Officer appear to be strange. It is not the case of PW1that he does not know PW3 nor the RDO higher officials. It is his own evidence that in the first week of November, 2011 he met Tahsildar,

PW4 herein in his Office and requested him to send his report to RDO. Then, the Tahsildar informed him to meet Revenue Inspector as he has to submit the report. When PW4 is questioned with regard to approach of PW1, he clearly stated that PW1 never met him prior to the Trap and he has no acquaintance with PW1.

49. The arguments of the learned counsel for Accused Officer in this regard that the version of PW1 itself is false and it clearly appears in his evidence itself as when notices were not issued prior to 14.11.2011 meeting of Tahsildar,

PW4 and he directing PW1 to meet Accused Officer is absolute falsehood. The said argument appears to be believable as no official without taking any steps on his behalf would direct to meet the other person. When the notices were issued on 14.11.2011, meeting PW4 prior to that and PW4 directing him to meet

Accused Officer appears to be unbelievable and strange.

50. Further, with regard to animosity pleaded and contended by

Accused Officer and also in the light of evidence of PW1 and PW3, it clearly goes to show that there is some differences in between PW3 and Accused Officer and the evidence of PW1 and presentation of the same is not consistent nor corroborative, thereby it goes to show that Ex.P1 report is with ulterior motive.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

51. Further, on perusal of Ex.P1 report, dated 19.11.2011 there is a specific mention that he met Accused Officer two or three times and that

Accused Officer postponed the issue, but on the same day i.e., on 19.11.2011 it is alleged that Accused Officer demanded Rs.50,000/- towards bribe for doing the work of PW1.

52. Evidently, on record by 18.11.2011 itself the file of PW1 was already sent to PW3. It is not the case of PW1 that he does not know PW3. It cannot be expected that PW1 is ignorant about the pending file as to with whom the same is. By 19.11.2011 the file of PW1 evidently is with PW3. Thereby, the arguments of the learned counsel for Accused Officer that there is no question of demand of bribe by Accused Officer on 19.11.2011 does not arise appears to be true.

53. Further, with regard to demand of bribe allegedly by Accused

Officer on the date of Trap i.e., on 21.11.2011, it is the very case of prosecution and also stated by the Investigating Officer that PW1 and one S.I. Venkateswarlu left in motor cycle to the Office of Accused Officer. The said fact is not stated by

PW1 nor by the mediator PW2. The reason for the said suppression is left unexplained. Moreover, the said person who accompanied the complainant is shown as AR SI Venkateswara Rao. Along with him, PW1 went as a pillion rider in a motor cycle is mentioned in Ex.P4-Mediator report II. It is strange to note that the Investigating Officer who has taken his own Officer AR SI

Venkateswara Rao could not be remembered by him and states that he has taken SI Venkateswarlu and he has taken the complainant to the Office of

Accused Officer. This is a material fact which has been omitted to speak by PW1 nor by PW2. PW11 being the Investigating Officer failed to state inconsistency with Ex.P4-Mediator Report. It is not a big task to remember his own Officer by

PW7, if at all it is truth. The said argument of learned counsel for Accused Officer is acceptable.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

54. Further, admittedly and evidently the signature of said AR SI

Venkateswara Rao is not obtained in Ex.P4 who is the person who has taken

PW1 the Complainant herein in his motor cycle as a pillion rider. He played an important role in receiving the signal and in turn giving signal to the Trap team.

The said fact is bypassed by PW1 as well by PW2. The reasons for the said evidence is also left unexplained which is a material fact to bring on record to show the consistency with Ex.P4- Mediator Report-II with that of the evidence.

Thereby, in absence of the said evidence, every suspicion arises over the case of prosecution. Further, admittedly, the said AR SI Venkateswara Rao is not examined by PW11 nor his statement is recorded. The reasons for the same also could not be explained. It is evident on record that one Inspector ACB

Range II signature is obtained. His name is not mentioned nor he is cited as a witness. Thereby, in absence of the evidence of such important witnesses, the case of prosecution as such cannot be accepted.

55. Further, if at all the case of prosecution is accepted for a while, it shows that the signatures of the other employees present at Accused Officer’s office were also obtained admittedly and evidently, who are PW4, PW5 and also one V.Sugunamma, Office Subordinate. The said Sugunamma is not cited as a witness. The evidence of PW4 reveals that the report of VRO (PW3) is not found in Ex.P4 or Ex.P6 which goes to show that it is PW3 with whom the file of PW1 was pending. No doubt, the evidence of PW4 reveals that at the time of Ex.P4

Trap Proceedings were prepared and his signature is on the same. At the same time, it is elicited in the cross examination of PW5 that her signature was obtained on Ex.P4 at about 10-00 a.m., on 22.11.2011. On perusal of Ex.P4, it is evident that the proceedings commenced at 6-10 p.m. on 21.11.2011 and completed by 6-15 a.m. on 22.11.2011 which goes to show that throughout night

Ex.P4 proceedings containing 13 pages were prepared which appears to be strange. But if at all it is also considered to be true, on further perusal of the evidence of PW5, it is astonishing to note that some papers were torn and new papers were prepared by the ACB Officials in Ex.P4. The said ambiguity could

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 not be removed by the Prosecution. The reasons for tearing of papers and adding of new papers are left unexplained. It is stated by PW11, the Investigating

Officer that there are no special reasons for the long time taken to draft Ex.P4.

In absence of the same, such long time taken that too during night times

which are said to be odd timings and in presence of lady staff also is to be

suspected. To the instant case, all the mediators nor other witnesses signed on each page of Ex.P4 except the signature of PW2 no others signature is found on other papers. Further, his signature is also made on alternate page.

56. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for Accused

Officer that preparing of Mediator Report-II under Ex.P4 from 6-10 p.m on 21.11.2011 till 6-15 a.m. on 22.11.2011 cannot be believed is to be accepted.

Further, the admission of PW5 that at 11-00 a.m. the ACB Officials on the next day left their office and also that her signature was obtained at 10-00 a.m. on the said day of Ex.P4 also appears to suspect Ex.P4. When it is evident on Ex.P4 itself, the same was completed by 6-15 a.m. on 22.11.2011 taking of signature of

PW5 at 10-00 a.m., has to be suspected about the genuineness of Ex.P4.

57. The further arguments of learned counsel for Accused Officer that the evidence of PW3 clearly shows that there is animosity to him against

Accused Officer and that as he know PW1 and his family got foisted Ex.P1 appears to be believable. When PW3 was alleged of tampering the Revenue records and wherein enquiry was ordered on the report of Accused Officer herein and also when the file relating to PW1 was already in custody of PW3 blaming that the official favour is with Accused Officer is nothing but only with an intention to implicate Accused Officer, such a false case is created is to be accepted. It is left unexplained with any sufficient and satisfactory material as to why PW3 kept quiet without preparing any report over the file of PW1 from 18thatleast till 21.11.2011. It is the evidence of PW3 that on 21.11.2011 till 2-00 p.m., he was in his Office which is the date of Trap proceedings and thereafter after lunch, he left to Chennai due to ill-health. It is the contention of Accused Officer that deliberately he kept file of PW1 with him and blamed him for the work pending

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024 with him and on the date of trap also deliberately left the premises and handed over the file to ACB Officials on 23.11.2011. No material is placed to show that with such cause he left the Office after lunch on 21.11.2011 and no reasons are accorded to complete his inspection atleast by 21.11.2011. When it is the case of Accused Officer that on receipt of notice on 14.11.2011 itself, he could complete inspection and report by 18.11.2011 the difficulty with PW3 to proceed atleast for inspection is left unexplained which goes to show that there is some animosity against Accused Officer and purposefully implicated Accused Officer in this case through PW1. The said argument is also to be accepted to the case facts.

58. It is laid down law that a preliminary enquiry is to be conducted

before registering of the F.I.R. which is held by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported

in (2006) 13 SCC 305 in between V.Venkata Subbarao Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police and also in a case in between State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 wherein it is held:

“Before a Public Servant is charged with an act of

dishonestly which amounts to serious Mis-demeanor

and an FIR is lodged against him, there must be

some suitable preliminary enquiry into the

allegations by a responsible officer.”

59. In another decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR

2011 SUPREME COURT 1363 in between Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of

Sikkim wherein it is held

“The necessity for holding a preliminary enquiry has

become part of the law and failure to observe the

same would be violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India”.

60. To the instant case, it is deposed by PW11, the Investigating

Officer that “he got conducted” the preliminary enquiry with regard to the antecedents of both complainant and Accused Officer wherein it revealed that

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

Accused Officer is ill-reputed and corrupt and the complainant had no ill-motive to implicate the accused in a false case.

61. Whereas, the antecedents appears on Ex.P1 as conducted by the

Investigating Officer PW11 himself on 21.11.2011 at 12-00 hours on the report,

dated 19.11.2011. It is left unexplained as to why the other Officer is not

entrusted to conduct such enquiry and it is also left unexplained as to why

such falsehood is spoken by him before the Court that “he got conducted

preliminary enquiry”. To the surprise of this Court, again before the Court it is the evidence of PW11, the Investigating Officer himself that his investigation

does not reveal that Accused Officer demanded and accepted bribe from

others prior to the trap, which shows that Accused Officer has a clean record and his integrity is not shaken. When such is the case, as to how he can make such endorsement on Ex.P1 that “Accused Officer is ill-reputed”.

62. Further, the evidence of PW4/Tahsildar in his cross examination reveals that “It is true that prior to the trap none of the public including PW1

ever complained against the AO that he demanded illegal gratification from

anybody.”

63. PW7/Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali in his cross examination deposed that “It is true that with regard to conversion of agricultural land

into non agricultural land, the decision of R.D.O. is final”. “Witness adds

that an appeal lies to the Collector against orders passed by the R.D.O. “

“Prior to the trap, none of the public ever complained to me that the A.O.

was demanding bribes from public.”

64. PW10/Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore deposed in his cross examination that “during the course of my investigation, it has not come to

my notice that the A.O. demanded and accepted bribe from others prior to

the trap.”

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

65. When such is the evidence of prosecution witnesses themselves who are officials and also the Trap team member, PW10 further to the surprise

PW11 himself states that there were no such instances of demanding and accepting of bribe by Accused Officer prior to the instant case as to how PW11 the Investigating Officer would make such endorsement as Accused Officer is ill- reputed is something which is to be seriously be looked into.

66. The endeavour of the Legislature is not reached and the spirit is not acted upon and is made a formal.

67. Further, with regard to seizing of the cash from the custody of

Accused Officer, it is the case of prosecution that as he received the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- (MO8) from PW1, it is recovered from the pant pocket of

Accused Officer and the chemical test also shows that he touched the currency notes, thereby the solution changed its colour into pink which is clearly mentioned in Ex.P4 as well spoken by PW2, one of the mediator and also the

Investigating Officer.

68. The arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that such a recovery and confession is not admissible which is made in the immediate presence of the Police Officer and is hit under Section 26 in the light of a decision reported in 2001 (2) ALD (Criminal) 170 A.P.

69. The decision relied upon by the prosecution reported in 2009 CRLJ 1896 SUPREME COURT wherein it is held that the trap and recovery if proved beyond reasonable doubt, accused is liable for conviction and also the other decisions relied upon by the prosecution 2004 CRLJ Supreme Court 620, 1995

(3) SCC 567, 2001 CRLJ Supreme Court 175, 2004 (2) 730, 2014 CRLJ 2040

AIR 1974 SC 1516, 2005(1) ALD 453 AP, AIR 1974 SC 773, 2009 CRLJ NOC

579 Bombay wherein it is held that presumption can be raised under Section

114(a) of Indian Evidence Act and also Section 20(1) of Prevention of

Corruption Act and also the decision reported in 1991 CRLJ 1269 wherein it is held that minor discrepancies cannot be considered or binding over this

Court.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

70. If any material object is discovered while confession and seizure proceedings, it will not hit Section 26 and is admissible and can be relied under

Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, thereby the arguments of learned counsel for

Accused Officer is not acceptable.

71. But to the instant case, the contention of Accused Officer suggested to the prosecution witnesses and also submitted before this Court at the time of examination of Accused Officer under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it is stated that “I did not received M.O8 amount of Rs.10,000/- from P.W1. The room allotted to me in the office of Tahsildar of Kovur is in the backside of Tahsildar’s

Office and on its north-east corner at the end of the verandah just before the trap at about 5-30 p.m. I came back to my office room after attending to a library meeting. Soon after returning from the meeting, I went to toilet room after removing my jeans pant and hanged it a nail in my room. After some time I returned from toilet room and found PW1 Mr. Ravi Chandra, Mr. Chiranjeevi and

Mr. G.Sathish Reddy are in my room. After wearing my pant I talked to Mr.

Chiranjeevi and Mr. Sathish Reddy and send them away. Thereafter, PW1 caught hold of my both hands and requested me to do something with regard to his work. On that I asked him to get the report of PW3 as he was the friend of

PW1. On that PW1 informed to me there were no cordial relations between him and PW3 as on that day. PW1 who came prior to Mr. Chiranjeevi and Mr.

G.Sathish Reddy to my room implanted MO8 cash of Rs.10,000/- in my pant pocket which was hanging to the nail in my room. Not knowing the same I weared my pant.”

72. With regard to said contention, DW1 one of the person came to his office room G.Sathish Reddy is examined as DW1. He deposed accordingly. In the cross examination of DW1 nothing is suggested that DW1 had no work nor his application was pending and that Tahsildar called the Accused for endorsement on his application previously.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

73. The contention of Accused Officer in the light of evidence of DW1 alone would have not been considered as such. But in absence of any suggestion that there is no application of DW1 pending before Tahsildar and also in the light of above observations with regard to several suspicious circumstances over the case of prosecution, the contention of Accused Officer appears to be true and correct. Therefore, only for the reason that Ex.P4 is placed before this Court and evidenced by PW2, the case of prosecution as such cannot be accepted.

74. Further, to the facts and circumstances of this case and also in the light of a decision relied upon by the learned counsel for Accused Officer in between K.Giri Vs. State of ACB, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad reported in 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 821 (A.P) wherein it is held “Once a person acts as a mediator on behalf of

prosecution party, he looses his character as an

independent witness and automatically becomes

a part of prosecution party”

75. Therefore, in absence of any material to show that PW2 acted as an independent witness and wherein the prosecution failed to establish Ex.P4 beyond reasonable doubt the said seizure of MO8 cash of Rs.10,000/- cannot as such be accepted.

76. The arguments of the learned counsel for Accused Officer that the evidence of solitary witness as such cannot be accepted is not acceptable even in the light of a decision relied upon by him in between T.Ramesh Reddy Vs.

State of A.P. reported in 2010(1) ALD (Crl.) 342 A.P wherein it is clearly held “Witness solitary witness credibility of case, when

rests upon evidence of a solitary witness, it must be

true trustworthy free from doubt and holy reliable –

Evidence of witness, if put in category of wholly

reliable, no legal bar to base conviction on solitary

testimony of witness – But, if he cannot be termed as

a wholly reliable witness or can be put in category of

neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, his

evidence requires corroboration – Prevention of

Corruption Act 1988 Sec.7 and 13”.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

77. In the above decision itself, it is clearly held that evidence of a solitary witness shall rest upon true and trustworthy and also that there is no legal bar to base conviction on solitary testimony of a witness.

78. To the instant case, the evidence of PW1 alone appears to be not sufficient which is observed as not trustworthy from the date of Ex.P1. The investigation is also not on proper lines. Therefore, the case of prosecution cannot be accepted on the said grounds and the benefit of doubt shall go in favour of Accused Officer.

79. In the light of above observations, the other following decisions relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor needs no consideration to the facts of this case.

(1) C. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2015(1)

ALD (Crl.) 717 (SUPREME COURT)

(2) K.Narasimhachary Vs. State Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Cuddapah District reported in 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 730 (AP).

(3) Tandra Ravi v. State of A.P. reported in 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 170 (AP) (4) B.Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 73 (SC).

No presumption needs to be drawn under Section 20(1) of Prevention of

Corruption Act as the prosecution failed to establish the Ex.P4 – Trap proceedings beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, no call data is placed before this Court by the prosecution with regard to the conversation in between PW1 with that of Accused Officer which is stated by PW1 himself. When it is the case of prosecution that there was a conversation in between them, it is for the prosecution to place such material before this Court. No such witnesses are cited nor examined nor any call-data is tried to secure by the Investigating Officer in this case. Thereby, the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

POINT No.5:

80. In the result, Accused Officer is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 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 Officer shall stand cancelled after appeal time and the same shall be in force for a period of six 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.7, which are useless, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case property, cash of Rs.10,000/- marked under MO.8 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of February, 2024.

Sd/- Smt. C.Satya Vani,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

For Prosecution:

PW1 : P.Ravichandra, De-facto complainant.

PW2 : P.Venkata Anil Kumar, the then Deputy Executive Engineer, Nellore Municipal Corporation. PW3 : G.C.Venkateswarlu, the then V.R.O.II, Kovur

PW4 : B.Venkateswarlu, the then Tahsildar, Kovur.

PW5 : Smt. E.Ramadevi, the then Senior Assistant, Tahsildar’s Office, Kovur. PW6 : M.Narasaiah, the then Deputy Tahsildar, Kovur.

PW7 : M.Venkateswarlu, the then R.D.O., Kavali.

PW8 : A.Madhusudhan, the then Mandal Surveyor, Kovur

PW9 : V.H.Ramaprasad, Superintendent in Collectorate, Nellore.

PW10 : Ch. Chandra Mouli, the then Inspector of Police, ACB, Nellore.

PW11 : B.Sarathbabu, the then Dy. S.P., ACB, Nellore Range, Nellore.

Judgment in CC No.18 of 2014 Dated 22.02.2024

For Defence:

DW1 : G.Satish Reddy

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Complaint of PW1, dated 19.11.2011. Ex.P2 : Copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.14/RCT-NLR/2011. Ex.P3 : Mediator Report-I, dated 21.11.2011 drafted at the Office of DSP, ACB, Nellore. Ex.P4 : Mediator Report-II, dated 21.11.2011 drafted at the Office of Tahsildar, Kovur. Ex.P5 : Application of PW1, dated 27.10.2011. Ex.P6 : Original File No.RCB/582/2011 regarding conversion of agricultural land of PW1 into non-agricultural land. Ex.P6(A) : Notice dated 14.11.2011 given to the Accused Officer directing him to conduct enquiry with regard to the case of PW1. Ex.P7 : Proceedings vide RC.No.A1/5882/2011, dated 20.10.2013 issued by Collector and District Magistrate, SPSR Nellore District. Ex.P8 : Memo dated 07.11.2013 issued by Director General, ACB, AP, Hyderabad in RC No.235/RCT-NNL/2011. Ex.P9 : Original FIR in Crime No.14/RCT-NLR/2011. Ex.P10 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

For Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 : Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder preserved at the time of drafting Mediator report-I MO2 : Sealed cover containing sample of Phenolphthalein powder preserved at the time of drafting Mediator report-I MO3 : Sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder preserved at the time of drafting Mediator Report-II MO4 : Sealed bottle containing wash of right hand fingers of Accused Officer. MO5 : Sealed bottle containing wash of left hand fingers of Accused Officer.

MO6 : Sealed bottle containing wash of inner linings of the trousers hip pocket of Accused Officer. MO7 : One faded blue colour pants of Accused Officer. MO8 : Cash of Rs.10,000/- (tainted amount)

Sd/- Smt. C.Satya Vani,

Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.