Sri G Rajagopal

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.1 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES:

HYDERABAD

Dated this the 15th day of March, 2023.

Present:Sri G.Raja Gopal, Prl. Spl. Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, FAC-I Addl.Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

CALENDAR CASE No. 51 of 2014

Name of the Complainant: The State through Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, City Range-I, Hyderabad.

Crime No.: Cr.No.13/ACB-CR1/2012.

Offence: The charges under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO1 and Section 12 of the P.C.Act, 1988 against A2.

Name of the Accused : AO-1 Smt.R.Rajasree, Officers w/o.Late.Jashwanth Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Officer/TPS,Circle-VI, Rajendra Nagar, GHMC, Ranga Reddy District.

A-2 Sri.G.Sripathi, S/o.Narsimha, Aged 36 years, Occ:Private Assistant to AO1, R/o.1-2-56/40/3A, Talla Basthi, Domalguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty. Officers Finding of the Court: AO1 and A2 are found guilty.

Result: As a result, AO1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 and A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under S.12 of the P.C.Act, 1988 and AO1 and A2 are convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C. AO1 and A2 are heard with regard to quantum of sentence.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.2 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

Accordingly, AO1 is convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 and she is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act,1988, in default of payment of fine, AO1 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Similarly, AO1 is convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and she is sentencedtoundergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence. In default of payment of fine, AO1 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

A2 is convicted for the offence under Section 12 of the P.C.Act, 1988 and he is sentencedtoundergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the said offence. In default of payment of fine, A2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- for AO1, and Rs.5,000/- for A2. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently for AO1.

The remand period already undergone by AO1 (ie., from 08.11.2012 to 24.11.2012) and A2 (ie., from 08.11.2012 to 24.11.2012) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

AO1 and A2 are informed that an appeal lies to the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

MO7 tainted currency of Rs.20,000/- shall be confiscated to the State and non- valuables vide MOs.1 to 6 and MOs.8 to 10 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.3 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

Name and particulars of AO-1 Smt.R.Rajasree, Accused Officers w/o.Late.Jashwanth Rao, Aged about 55 years, Occ:Officer/TPS,Circle-VI, Rajendra Nagar, GHMC, Ranga Reddy District.

A-2 Sri.G.Sripathi, S/o.Narsimha, Aged 36 years, Occ:Private Assistant to AO1, R/o.1-2-56/40/3A, Talla Basthi, Domalguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 03.03.2023 in the presence of Smt.A.L.Manogna, learned Special Public Prosecutor, ACB,Hyderabad and Sri.T.Vivek Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for AOs, upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, City Range-1, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet in Crime

No.13/ACB-CR1/2012 against AO1 and AO2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) (Herein-after will be referred as ‘P.C.Act’ for convenience sake).

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as under :

AO1 worked as Section Officer/TPS, Circle-VI, Rajendranagar,

GHMC, Ranga Reddy District from 05.08.2012 to 07.11.2012 and by virtue of the post held by her she falls under the category of ‘public servant’ as defined under section 2(c) of the P.C.Act, 1988. A2 is

Private Assistant of AO1.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.4 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

3.On 06.11.2012 at 05.00 PM, PW1 submitted a written report in Telugu before PW10 DSP, ACB, CR-1, Hyderabad alleging that on 04.07.2012 himself and his cousin brother ie., PW2 had separately applied seeking permission for construction of new house in the demolished old house site bearing House Nos.6-1-86 and 6-1-87,

Shivarampally village, Rajendranagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

During the process, they met AO1 for immediate action, for which she agreed and demanded Rs.20,000/- each for her and A2. They requested her that they can not pay such huge amount as they belong to poor family, but she did not agree and she did not heed to their request. Subsequently they started construction duly thinking that the authorities of GHMC will give permission later. On 22.08.2012 AO1 came to their house and issued a notice for stopping construction. After two days, PW1 along with PW2 met AO1 in the office and requested to do needful. Further AO1 demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe and also informed that she will give another notice for demolishing of under- construction house. Both PW1 and PW2 once again requested AO1 that they can not pay such huge amount and came back. AO1 informed them over her cell phone No.7702774608 to meet her, but they did not meet her as per her instructions. On 05.11.2012 and 06.11.2012, AO1 once again called PW1 through her cell phone and threatened that she will take action for demolition of the building if they failed to meet her demand. On 06.11.2012, PW1 and PW2 met AO1 and requested for some time for paying the bribe amount. On that AO1 instructed them to pay the said bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- on or before evening of

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.5 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 07.11.2012 and also gave two weeks time for paying remaining bribe of Rs.20,000/-. As PW1 was not willing to pay the said bribe amount to

AO1, lodged the above report before PW10 requesting for taking legal action.

4.On receipt of Ex.P3 report dt.06.11.2012, PW10 made endorsement at 5.00 PM and instructed PW1 to come to ACB office on 07.11.2012 along with proposed bribe amount of Rs.20,000/-. PW10 conducted confidential enquiries with regard to genuineness of the report of PW1 and reputation of AO. After completion of all formalities,

PW10 registered a case in Crime No.13/ACB-CR1/2012 under S.7 of the

P.C.Act, 1988 on 07.12.2012 at 03.00 PM after obtaining prior permission from competent authority.

5.During the course of trap, on 07.11.2012 at about 5.00 PM when PW1 along with PW2 met AO1 she demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- through her Private Assistant ie., A2 from

PW1, who received it with his left hand and kept in his left side pant pocket. Left hand fingers, including wearing pant wash of A2, yielded positive result when subjected to phenolphthalein test. The tainted amount of Rs.20,000/- was seized under cover of Mediators Report and seized relevant documents from almirah of AO1. PW10 arrested AO1 and A2 on 08.11.2012 at 01.00 AM and produced them before the court and they were remanded to judicial custody. The learned VII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (LW17) has recorded the

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.6 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 statements of PW1 and PW2 under S.164 of CrPC. During the course of further investigation, PW10 examined and recorded the statements of

PW1 and PW2 under S.161 CrPC. PW11 took up further investigation, examined and recorded the statement of PW4, PW5 and LW7 Mohin

Pasha, LW9 Gande Harinath, LW11 Patel Manuraj, LW12 Andore Satish

Kumar and LW13 Verusanolla Srinivas Goud, collected relevant records and submitted the draft final report. PW7 furnished information about allotment of government mobile phone to AO1 for official use. Further

PW6 and PW8 furnished information about call data records of AO1 and

PW1 respectively.

6.Sri.Somesh Kumar, IAS, Commissioner, GHMC being the competent authority to remove AO1 from her service accorded sanction for prosecution of AO1 vide proceedings dt.13.05.2014.

Sanction order is not required against A2 since he is the private person.

Thus, A1 committed offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and A2 committed offence punishable under S.12 of the P.C.Act, 1988.

7.Cognizance of the offences taken under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 against AO1 and under Section 12 of the

P.C.Act, 1988 against A2.

8.On appearance of AO1 and A2 before this court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Upon

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.7 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 hearing both sides, AO1 and A2 were examined u/s.240 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation levelled against them in brief, for which they denied the accusation. Therefore, charges for the offences under

Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 have been framed against AO1. The charges have been read over and explained to her in

Telugu. Likewise, charge for the offence under Section 12 of the P.C.Act, 1988 has been framed against A2. The said charge has been read over to him and explained to him in Telugu. Both AO1 and A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.During the course of trial, PW1 to PW11 are examined and

Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 10 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. Ex.D1 is marked through PW9 by the defence.

10.After closure of prosecution evidence, AO1 and A2 are examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material available against them in the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution. Both the accused denied the same. During examination under S.313 CrPC AO1 stated that sanction order is bad in law. A2 stated that he received money on the instructions of AO1 only from

PW1. Both the accused have chosen to file their written statements and also stated that they have defence evidence, but no defence evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused persons. However, written statement of AO1 and A2 have been filed.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.8 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

11.Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the record.

12.Now the points that arise for consideration in this case are :

1) Whether the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from PW1 by the accused to do any official favour as alleged?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the AO1 for the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved that A2 abetted AO1 to commit the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act beyond reasonable doubt?

4) To what relief?

13.Points Nos.1 to 3 are inter-related with each other, as such all these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.

Points Nos.1 to 3:

14.As aforesaid, to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in all. PW1 is the defacto complainant and set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P3 report before PW10 on 06.11.2012. PW2 is cousin brother of PW1 and he is also victim along with PW1. PW3 is one of the mediators along with LW4 to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. PW4 and PW5 are employees of Circle-VI,

GHMC, Rajendranagar. PW6 is Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited. PW7 is the Deputy Executive Engineer, I.T.Section, GHMC who speaks about allotment of official mobile phone to AO1. PW8 is Alternative Nodal

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.9 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

Officer, Vodafone Idea Limited who furnished call data record particulars of PW1. PW9 is the Assistant Municipal Commissioner,

GHMC who deposed about Ex.P20 sanction proceedings accorded by

LW18 then Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad. PW10 is the trap laying officer and PW11 is the subsequent Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet.

15.The story of the prosecution as unfolded by the testimony of prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as under:

PW1 is the defacto complainant and set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P3 report dt.06.11.2012 before PW10, the DSP,

ACB and trap laying officer. The evidence of PW1 goes to show that he was having ancestral property. His father and his brother having two houses each consisting of 78 Sq.yards, total admeasuring 156 Sq.yards situated at Shivarampally, Rajendranagar. His father had gifted the house to him and his brother through a registered Gift Deed and his father’s brother has gifted his house to his son ie., PW2. On 04.07.2012 himself and PW2 have submitted an application for permission for reconstruction of the two houses combinedly vide Ex.P1. Then, they met the Town Planning Supervisor, GHMC (AO1) and requested her to give permission for construction of the house. AO1 demanded Rs.2

Lakhs as bribe from both of them. When they expressed their inability,

AO1 told them to pay the amounts in instalments and asked them to proceed with construction. While constructing the house, PW1 initially constructed a shop for his tailoring purpose and on 22.08.2012 AO1

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.10 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 came to his house and gave a notice under Ex.P2 and AO1 was angry on him as he has not paid the bribe amount and constructed the shop and inspite of his request she left the shop by giving the said notice.

After two days, he along with PW2 went to AO1 and expressed their inability to pay the amount and requested her to reduce the amount.

AO1 at last agreed for Rs.20,000/- each to be paid to her. After two months again on 01.11.2012 AO1 called them through telephone and asked them to pay the amount or else she would demolish the shop.

16.PW1 further deposed that on 04.11.2012 and 05.11.2012

AO1 called him and insisted to pay bribe and as he was not willing to pay the amounts on 06.11.2012 he went to ACB office and met the

DSP, ACB (PW10) and informed him about the demand and DSP asked him to write complaint and accordingly he gave his report vide Ex.P3 dt.06.11.2012. The DSP informed him that he would make a call afterwards. On 07.11.2012 in the morning hours DSP/PW10 called him to come to his office along with his brother PW2 and the proposed bribe amount in the after noon hours. Accordingly he along with PW2 went to the office of PW10. The DSP informed him that the report given by him was registered. After 10 minutes the DSP called them inside the office and introduced two government officials, Inspector and constables. He also enquired about who accompanied him, then he told him that his brother PW2 accompanied him. The copy of his report was given to government officials ie., who are mediators (PW3 and LW4) and they enquired PW1 as to his report was genuine. The DSP enquired

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.11 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 him whether he has any previous enmity with AO1, for which he replied negatively. The DSP also enquired PW2 about the genuineness of Ex.P3 report. At that time, AO1 called PW1 through phone and the DSP asked him to lift the call and again called her and switched on speaker mode and AO1 enquired whether the money was ready and that she was sending a person who works under her and asked PW1 to pay money to him, but PW1 told her that he would only pay the amount to her and not to others. Then, AO1 asked PW1 to call her after reaching his shop.

On the instructions of DSP, PW1 gave the proposed bribe amount to the mediators to note down numbers of the currency notes, then a constable prepared a solution and asked PW1 to dip his hand fingers in the said solution. The DSP, PW2, PW3 and another mediator dipped their hand fingers in the solution and the colour of the solution remained unchanged. Then the constable applied the powder to the currency notes and kept the same in the left side shirt pocket of PW1 after ensuring that it was empty pocket. Then the constable dipped his hands in the solution which turned into pink colour and the same was destroyed and the said constable was asked to stay back. The DSP instructed PW1 to give the bribe amount on the demand made by AO1 and not otherwise. In case AO1 accepts the bribe amount he has to come out and give a signal by wiping his face with kerchief.

17.Then DSP, PW1, PW3 and other staff members started to the shop of PW1 at his site, they stopped their vehicles between pillar nos.293 and 294 and the DSP once again reiterated his earlier

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.12 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 instructions to PW1. The trap party members took vantage positions around the site of PW1 and PW1 came to his shop along with PW2.

Then he called AO1 through his phone, informed her that he came to his shop and asked AO1 to come to his shop. AO1 along with one person (A2) came to his shop. PW1 identified A2 herein as that person.

AO1 asked him whether the money was ready. When AO1 took out the money from his pocket and tried to give to her, AO1 asked him to give the money to A2. Then PW1 handed over the money to A2, who kept the money in his back pant pocket and then PW1 gave signal as instructed by DSP. Then DSP and the trap party came and apprehended both the accused. The DSP instructed PW1 to move aside. Accordingly, he stood at a distance and after one hour the DSP called him and the mediators noted down his version. The DSP has recorded his statement on the next day of the trap. On 01.12.2012 his statement was recorded by the Magistrate.

18.PW10 is the then DSP, ACB, CR1, Hyderabad and trap laying officer. His evidence is that on 06.11.2012 he received Ex.P3 report from PW1 and entrusted the same to PW11 Inspector of Police, ACB for verification. On 7.11.2012 the Inspector reported that the contents of

Ex.P3 report are genuine and AO was not enjoying good reputation.

After obtaining permission from the DG, ACB, PW10 registered a case in

Crime No.13/ACB-CR1/2012 under S.7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 and issued

FIR vide Ex.P21. PW11 has secured two independent mediators on the same day ie., 07.11.2012 at 3.00 PM PW1 along with PW2 appeared

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.13 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

before him. The mediators ie., PW3 and LW4 also appeared before him

and he introduced PW1 to the mediators and vice-versa.

19.PW11 supplied copy of report of PW1, which is Ex.P5, to the mediators and they have verified contents of the report and confirmed the contents from PW1. Both the mediators attested on Ex.P5. While the proceedings were going on, PW1 received a missed call on his mobile and PW1 called back and they heard the conversation, as per which AO1 who made called instructed PW1 to be available at the construction site along with bribe amount by 6.00 PM on that day. AO1 also informed PW1 that she will come to the site along with her

Assistant and collect the bribe amount. PW1 produced Ex.P2 notice issued by AO1 and also copies of Ex.P1 application for permission of construction. The mediators in token of their acknowledgment put their signatures on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Then he called PW2 to his room and asked him to accompany PW1 and watch the happenings. Then

PW1 has produced proposed bribe money of Rs.20,000/- in Rs.1000 x 4,

Rs.500 x 32 denomination. He handed over the amount to the mediators with a direction to note down the numbers of the currency notes and accordingly the mediators noted down the currency note numbers. PW10 also enquired PW1 whether he had any financial transactions or enmity with AO1 and PW1 replied negatively. He got prepared sodium carbonate solution in a glass of water with the help of a constable Venkateswarlu. All the trap party members rinsed their hand fingers in the solution which remained in the same colour. Then

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.14 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

PW10 instructed the constable to apply phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes. Accordingly, the constable applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency and kept the same in the left side shirt pocket of PW1 after ensuring the pocket empty. On his direction, the constable who applied phenolphthalein powder rinsed his hand fingers in the sodium carbonate solution, when he did so, the solution turned into pink colour. The Resultant Solution was destroyed there itself and instructed the constable to remain in the office along with phenolphthalein powder. PW10 instructed PW1 not to shake his hands with AO and pay the bribe amount only on the demand of AO1 and to give a signal by wiping his face with handkerchief, in case AO1 accepts the bribe amount. The sample powder of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate were seized and sealed in the presence of mediators vide

MO1 and MO2. The proceedings were reduced to writing by PW3 vide

Mediators Report-II, which is Ex.P6 and the same was concluded at 4.30

PM.

20.PW10 further deposed that all the trap party, PW1 and PW2 started from their office and reached pillar nos.293, Aziznagar Road,

Shivrampally and got down from the vehicle at 5.20 PM. He reiterated the earlier instructions to PW1, thenall of them proceeded to the construction site of PW1. The trap party took vantage position in and around the premises of PW1. PW1 and PW2 were standing at the entry of construction site. At 5.45 PM, PW1 gave pre-arranged signal. Then

PW10 along with trap party rushed to the premises where PW1, AO1

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.15 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 and A2 were standing. PW10 introduced himself to AO1. He got prepared sodium carbonate solution in 4 glass tumblers and asked AO1 and A2 to rinse their both hand fingers in the tumblers separately. The solution in which the AO1 rinsed her fingers remained in the same colour and whereas the solutions in which A2 rinsed his left hand fingers turned into pink colour and the other solution in which he rinsed his right hand fingers remained colourless. He seized the resultant solutions under MO3 to MO6. When PW10 asked about the bribe amount A2 produced currency notes from his left side back pant pocket. On his request, the mediators verified the currency notes by comparing with pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P6 and they found the numbers tallied. PW10 also subjected the inner linings of pant pocket of A2 to chemical test, which also yielded positive result. Then he has seized the currency notes and pant of A2 vide MO7 and MO9 respectively. The resultant solution of pant of A2 is MO8 and the remaining sodium carbonate power is seized vide MO10. Then he called PW1 and PW2, enquired them and got recorded their versions in the proceedings. He also enquired AO1 and AO2 about the demand and acceptance of bribe and their versions were incorporated in the proceedings. PW10 examined LW9 Moin Basha and his version was incorporated. He has prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence vide

Ex.P7 and arrested AO1 and A2. The Mediators Report-II vide Ex.P8 was drafted by LW4 mediator, which was concluded at 1.30 AM at 08.11.2012. He has furnished copy of the same to AO1 and A2. Then all of them proceeded to the office of Dy.Municipal Commissioner,

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.16 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

Circle-VI, GHMC, Rajendranagar and he met PW4 who is Assistant

Planner and gave him search proceedings under Ex.P9. PW10 asked him to show the connected file on which PW4 stated that the keys are available with AO1. On his request, AO1 has opened the almirah and produced three made-up files pertaining to construction of PW1 and

PW2 and a notice. He enquired PW4 and LW9 and incorporated their versions. The locker keys were returned to PW4. He also seized the

Attendance Register and related documents of PW1 and PW2. The proceedings were concluded at 2.45 AM on 08.11.2012. All of them signed on the proceedings and copy of the said proceedings were given to AO1 and A2. He produced the accused before the court. PW10 examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and PW2. Subsequent investigation was handed over to PW11.

21.PW11 previously worked as Inspector of Police, ACB, CR1 at the relevant point of time. According to her evidence, on 06.11.2012 she has received Ex.P3 from PW10 to verify its genuineness.

Accordingly she verified and found it is genuine and informed the said fact to PW10 on the same day. On the next day morning she gave requisition to District Commissioner, Education Department to provide two mediators to assist them. On the same day, she made a phone call to PW1 in the morning hours and asked him to come to ACB office at about 2.00 PM along with amount. She has participated during Exs.P6 and P8 proceedings ie., pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. She also participated in Ex.P13 inventory proceedings drafted at the office of

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.17 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

AO. After taking over investigation from PW10, she has examined PW4,

PW5, LW7 and LW11 to LW13. She also collected call data record of AO1 and PW1 and job chart of AO1. She collected information from PW7 about allotment of cell phone to AO1. Later, LW21 Inspector of Police,

ACB, CR1 has obtained sanction order and he filed charge sheet and that she identified his signature on the charge sheet.

22.PW3 Gade Srinivas Reddy is one of the mediators along with

LW4 to pre-trap and post-trap proceedings under Exs.P6 and P8. He deposed corroborating the evidence of PW10 trap laying officer on material particulars and in tune with Exs.P6 and P8 pre-trap and post- trap proceedings.

23.PW2 Sri.P.Devender is cousin of PW1. According to his evidence, there was a dilapidated house belonging to them and their paternal uncle. The said house bearing No.6-1-86 of Shivarampally,

Rajendranagar was gifted to him by his father and also to PW1 by his paternal uncle. Since it was a joint property both of them wanted to construct it jointly. On 04.07.2012 they applied for permission for construction of house at GHMC Shivarampally Circle. He along with

PW1 met AO1 in connection with the permission. AO1 initially demanded the bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each. They requested her that they can not pay such huge amount, then AO1 instructed them to pay the amount in instalments and also allowed them to start construction. His brother ie., PW1 has constructed a small shop for his

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.18 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 tailoring business and the house was under construction. On 22.08.2012 AO1 came to their site and stated that they are constructing house, but did not pay the bribe asked by her. She also issued a notice on that day. Then, both of them requested not to issue notice and AO1 instructed them to come to the office. After two days, he along with PW1 went to the office of AO1 and requested her that they have started construction on her instruction only, then why did she issue notice. Then AO1 stated that they have not paid the amount, as such she has issued notice. On their request AO1 asked them to pay atleast Rs.20,000/- as bribe now as a part payment. They requested time for the amount.

24.PW2 further deposed that from 01.11.2012 AO1 started calling daily to PW1 and pressuring for payment of bribe, that she also made a phone call on 05.11.2012, and also on 06.11.2012, then on 06.11.2012, they went to the office of AO1 and met her. AO1 asked them to pay the amount and they requested her to give two days time.

Afterwords, they came home and as they were not interested to pay the bribe amount in the evening on the same day they went to the ACB office and her brother ie,. PW1 gave report to ACB. The DSP told them that they would enquire and informed them on the next day.

Accordingly on the next day, his brother received a phone call from the

DSP to come to the office along with proposed bribe amount. At about 3.00 PM he along with PW1 went to the office of PW10, at first PW10 was called inside the office and after 15 minutes he was called inside

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.19 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 the office. DSP introduced mediators to him and enquired him whether they have any financial transactions or enmity with AO1 and they replied negatively. On enquiry by DSP, PW1 produced the bribe to the mediators, who noted the numbers and one constable brought two glasses of water and powder was mixed in the said glasses of water.

When all of them dipped their hand fingers in the said solution, there is no change in the colour of the solution. Then the constable applied some powder to the notes and kept it in the shirt pocket of his brother/

PW1 by ensuring it was empty pocket. Then the constable dipped his hand fingers in the said solution, the solution turned into pink colour and thus they were explained the significance of the chemical test.

Then the solution was thrown away.

25.PW2 further deposed that all of them proceeded to their house and they stopped their vehicles at Pillar No.293. The DSP once again reiterated the earlier instructions to PW1. From there, they went to site of PW1, called on AO1 and she informed that she was coming there. They were waiting for AO1 and the trap party were in and around the construction of the house. After 15 minutes, AO1 came along with another person on a bike. AO1 asked PW1 whether the amount was ready, then PW1 replied affirmatively and AO1 asked him to give the amount, when PW1 was about to give the amount to AO1, she asked him to give it to A2. A2 received the money with his left hand and kept in his left side pant pocket. Then PW1 gave the signal by wiping his face with kerchief. Immediately all the trap party came and caught hold

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.20 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 of AO1 and A2, asked them to wait for some time, therefore himself and PW2 waited at a distance for about one hour. Then the DSP called both of them and their versions were incorporated by the mediators.

His statement was recorded on the next day and he also gave statement before the Magistrate.Ex.P4 is his application dt.04.07.2012.

26.PW4 is the then Assistant Town Planner, GHMC, Rajendrangar

Circle. According to his evidence, on 17.11.2012 after completing his work and while he was about to move, he received a call to his mobile from ACB officials and informed that AO1 was trapped in a bribe case and asked him to wait at his office. Accordingly he waited at the office, after 1.30 AM ACB officials came to his office and by producing a search warrant asked him for some records, AO1 also accompanied the

ACB officials. The file sought for by the ACB officials were available in the almirah of AO1, he got the almirah opened with the keys available with AO1 and handed over the file to ACB officials. He had no idea about the applications filed by PW1 and PW2 and about the notices issued to PW1 and PW2. He knew AO1 engaged a private employee for dropping her and picking up from office on her scooter.

27.PW5 is the then Town Planning Supervisor, Circle-6,

Rajendrangar, GHMC at the relevant point of time. According to his evidence, he used to lookafter Ward No.59 and 60 and AO1 used to lookafter Ward No.57, Shivarampally. On 07.11.2012 he came to know about the trap against AO1 by the TV news. He further deposed that

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.21 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 any application for building permission shall be disposed within 30 days from the date of application, otherwise it is deemed the permission granted for construction. The Deputy Commissioner, Rajendranagar,

Circle-6, GHMC has furnished service particulars of AO1 vide Ex.P14 and he can identify signature of Deputy Commissioner Sri.V.Srinivasa

Goud.

28.PW6 is the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, Secunderabad. he was authorized to give evidence vide Ex.P15. He deposed that in pursuance of the Joint Director, ACB they have furnished call data record in respect of phone No.7702774608 which stands in the name of

Office of GHMC and it is a post paid connection. Ex.P16 is the letter addressed by their office along with call data record.

29.PW7 is working as Deputy Executive Engineer, IT Section,

GHMC. He was authorized to give evidence under Ex.P17. According to his evidence, in pursuance of the letter received from the Inspector of

Police, ACB, City Range-I, their office furnished information with regard to allotment of mobile phone No.7702774608 to AO1. The letter addressed by Addl. Commissioner is Ex.P18.

30.PW8 is the Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Limited,

Hyderabad. He deposed that in response to the letter received from

Joint Director, they have furnished call data records of Mobile

No.9948167575 in the name of PW1 vide Ex.P19.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.22 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

31.PW9 previously worked as Superintendent in Legal Section of

GHMC during the relevant point of time. He deposed that on 08.11.2012 they received radio message about the trap laid against

AO1. On the basis of the said message, AO2 was placed under suspension. Subsequently they have received preliminary report containing copies of FIR, complaint, Mediators Reports I and II and other related documents. Later, their office received copy of final report prepared by ACB. The Commissioner received a memo from

Government vide No.582/V1/Vig.ADMN/GHMC/2012-14 dt.13.05.2014 for prosecuting AO1. Their Commissioner having verified all the record issued proceedings under Ex.P20 to prosecute AO1.

32.Basing on the above evidence available on record, learned

Special Public Prosecutor submitted her arguments contending that according to the evidence of PW1 and PW2, they have submitted applications under Exs.P1 and P4 to AO1 seeking permission for construction of house and upon that AO1 demanded Rs.2 lakhs from both of them and orally permitted them to proceed with construction.

As PW1 and PW2 did not pay the bribe amount, AO1 issued show-cause notice under Ex.P2 on 22.08.2022 with her signature. When PW1 and

PW2 expressed their inability to pay bribe amount, AO1 threatened that she will issue another notice for demolition unless the demanded bribe amount is paid. On the request of PW1 and PW2, AO1 agreed for

Rs.20,000/- as bribe from each one. Again on 01.11.2012, 04.11.2012 and 05.11.2012, AO1 made phone calls to PW1 and insisted to pay the

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.23 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 bribe. This is how, AO1 made initial demand of bribe as could be seen from the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

33.As PW1 is not interested to pay the bribe amount to AO1, he lodged Ex.P3 report before PW10 against AO1 on 06.11.2012 for taking legal action against her. After discrete enquiries, PW10 has registered a case and issued FIR under Ex.P21. During pre-trap proceedings under

Ex.P6, PW1 received a call from AO1 and on the request of PW10, PW1 switched on speaker-mode of the phone and conversation between

PW1 and AO1 heard by the trap party members and AO1 insisted to get ready with money and that she was coming to their construction site along with her assistant. Accordingly on 07.11.2012 a trap was laid at the construction site of PW1 and PW2, since AO1 along with her assistant A2 came to the site, AO1 demanded bribe from PW1 when he offered the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/-, AO1 insisted to pay the bribe amount to A2 and accordingly PW1 paid the bribe amount to A2 at the behest of AO1 and accordingly A2 received it.

34.During post-trap proceedings, PW10 recovered the tainted currency of Rs.20,000/- from the possession of A2 and the chemical test conducted on the left hand fingers of A2 yielded positive result, so also the inner linings of his pant pocket which came into contact with tainted currency notes yielded positive. However, the chemical test conducted on the hand fingers of AO1 yielded negative. Later, the DSP seized Exs.P10 and P11 official favour files pending with AO1 from her

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.24 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 almirah in her office in the presence of mediators. Thus, the prosecution has proved, demand, acceptance, recovery of official favour files relating to PW1 and PW2. AO1 by corrupt and illegal means obtained illegal gratification for which no public interest is involved.

Therefore, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 against AO1.

35.It is further submitted that during post-trap proceedings, when A2 was questioned by DSP he accepted demand of bribe amount on the instructions of AO1 and he also admitted that he is working as

Private Assistant of AO1 and he used to collect bribes on her instructions and hand over the same to her. The presence of A2 at the scene of offence during trap proceedings is an undisputed fact. Thus,

A2 aided AO1 in committing the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, as such, the prosecution has proved the case against A2 for the offence under Section 12 of the

P.C.Act, 1988.

36.It is contended that since the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification has been established, therefore S.20 of the P.C.Act presumption comes into play. Once there is a presumption as contemplated under S.20 of the P.C.Act, it is for the accused to rebut the same and to establish that the amount was not received as bribe and the prosecution has relied on a decision in Subbu Singh vs.

State by Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal No.402 of 2002

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.25 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 dt.04.05.2009 held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, learned Special Public Prosecutor urged to convict AO1 and A2 for the charges levelled against him since the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

37.On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for

AO1 is that AO1 is facing charges for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. AO1 is innocent of alleged offence and she was made a scape-goat of the sinister and malicious scheme of PW1 and PW2. No official favour of PW1 is pending with the

AO1 at any point of time. Therefore, the question of demanding any bribe from him does not arise. PW1 and PW2 proceeded with construction on their site without obtaining permission from the competent authority by paying required fee and submission of documents and even as on the date of trap the construction was going on at the site of PW1 and PW2. Further Ex.P2 notice was served on

PW1 which contains signature of AO1 for unauthorized construction.

Further PW1 and PW2 are law-breakers as they proceeded with construction without any valid permission from the GHMC. AO1 neither demanded nor accepted illegal gratification from PW1 and that no tainted currency was recovered from AO1. Further AO1 is not competent to accord building permission, as such, no official favour is pending with her.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.26 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

38.PW1 had a strong motive to implicate AO1 in this case having proceeded with construction on their site illegally without permission. The demand of illegal gratification is foundation of the charge and that the alleged demand of Rs.2 lakhs and reducing to

Rs.20,000/- is unbelievable. That PW1 and PW2 are interested and partisan witnesses and there is no independent corroboration to their evidence. That there is inherent improbability in the entire prosecution case that there can be a demand of bribe for the official work which has been already rejected. Under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, in order to bring home the offence there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) and (I) and (ii) of the Act.

39.It is further submitted that PW3 is an obliging and stock witness to ACB as he acted as mediators in two or three ACB trap cases, therefore there is no sanctity to his evidence. It is also submitted that in a case of bribery mere recovery of money divorced for other circumstances not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of AO1 that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against her beyond reasonable doubt since demand and acceptance is not

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.27 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 established as required under S.7 of the P.C.Act. Therefore, prosecution is not entitled to draw presumption under S.20of the P.C.Act.

40.Learned counsel for AO1 also submitted that sanction order under Ex.P20 is bad in law. That as per the record, the official file connected to this case was not forwarded to the sanctioning authority.

Therefore, the sanctioning authority had no opportunity to peruse the official record and the prosecution has forwarded a draft or a specimen sanction order under Ex.D1 to the sanctioning authority, as such, the sanctioning authority was compelled to accord sanction under Ex.P20.

Since there is no valid sanction, as such the entire case of prosecution is vitiated. While submitting the above arguments, the learned counsel for AO1 relied on the following decisions:

(1) Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat (1997 AIR (SC) 3400). The gist of the said decision is that the sanction order passed by the sanctioning authority mechanically in obedience to mandamus issued by the High Court is not valid.

(2) State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan (2008 Cri.L.J. 347). According to this pronouncement, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. Ordinarily before passing the order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority.

In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.28 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 mind, as the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show that such materials had in fact been produced.

(3) Gulam Mahmood vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1558). It was held that in appreciating the evidence in such case the background should not be forgotten.

(4) Trilok Chand Jain vs.State of Delhi (1977 Cri.L.J. 254). This decision is with regard to rebuttal of presumption under section 20 of the P.C.Act. That the accused may rebut the presumption by showing a mere preponderance of probability in his favour. It is not necessary for him to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt.

(5) Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra (1980

Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 121). It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there can be no doubt that evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165-A

IPC 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 and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon.

(6) Chonampara Chellappan vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1979

Supreme Court 1761). This decision is with regard to necessity of

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.29 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 corroboration to the evidence of accomplice.

(7) Bandi Mallaiah vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1160) wherein it was held that, omission of important facts in earlier statements of witnesses, acquittal is proper.

(8) A.K.Biswas vs. State of Jharkhand (2006 LawSuit (Jhar) 1029).

When there appears serious inconsistency in the foundation of the witnesses in respect of manner of recovery of currency notes from the possession of appellant the exact place of occurrence where the alleged trap was laid and the tainted currency notes were handed over to the appellant and later recovered from him, does not appear to have been clearly fixed. Therefore, the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial court against the appellant/accused is set aside.

(9) Trilok Chandra Maurya vs. State (2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 672 (AP)).

The allegations of accused reiterating the demand of bribe in respect of second contract and accepting illegal gratification cannot be believed as there was no official favour pending with accused on alleged date of demand for bribe or on date of trap. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

(10) State vs. R.Krishnaiah (2013(1) ALD (Crl.) 331 (AP)) wherein it was held that, when there is no official favour pending with the accused on alleged date of trap, in absence of any such evidence,

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.30 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 alleged recovery of currency notes or chemical test yielding positive result, is of no consequence and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

(11) K.Shanthamma vs. State of Telangana (2022 LawSuit (SC) 212). It was held that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for establishing offence under section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988.

(12) Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt.of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1029, wherein it was held that in the absence of evidence of complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

P.C.Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

(13) State of Gujarat through CBI vs. Kumudchandra Pranjivan

Shah (1995 CriLJ 3623).

(14) Ravindra Mahadevo Kothamkar vs. State of Maharashtra (2016(2)AICLR 87 (Bom.)) wherein the Hon’ble HighCourt held that in trap cases, character of the complainant assumes significance when a complainant himself was a law breaker conviction not maintainable. It was further held that when the trap was being laid without verification of the demand, it was essential to have truly independent witnesses as panchas. However, panch had previously acted as panch for Anti

Corruption Bureau in about 3 to 4 occasions, selecting such a panch

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.31 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 casts doubt on the sincerity of the investigating agency, particularsly because the trap was laid hurriedly and without verification of the demand and conviction set aside.

(15) N.Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamilnadu (2021 CriLJ 1353) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere recovery of amount itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused for the offence under s.7 and 13 of the P.C.Act, 1988.

41.On the other hand, the submission of counsel for A2 is that,

A2 is not a public servant of GHMC and he is a private person. The name A2 is not reflected in Ex.P3 and he never demanded any legal gratification from PW1 and PW2. He is nothing to do with the alleged offence. As on the date of trap, A2 had taken AO1 on a motorbike to the site of PW1 and PW2 and on the instructions of AO1, he received the amount from PW1. Therefore, there is no voluntary demand by A2 at all as he was standing near his bike. On the date of trap ie., on 07.11.2012 A2 had just taken AO1 on motorbike only to help her.

Therefore, the question of abetting AO1 for committing the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 does not arise.

Further, A2 is innocent of alleged offence and the prosecution has not proved the alleged abetment of offence by A2.

42.It is further argued by the counsel for A2 that only at the behest of AO1, A2 received the amount of Rs.20,000/- and kept in his

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.32 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 pant pocket and that he had no knowledge that the money received by him is a bribe amount and A2 is entitled for a clear acquittal, and relied on the following decisions:

(1) K.Subbareddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2007 LawSuit (SC) 1071).

(2) Ramdas Waman Tadge vs. State of Maharashtra (2019

LawSuit (Bom) 304) (3) Virendranath vs. State of Maharashtra (1997 SCC (Cri) 264) (4) Trilok Chand Jain vs. State of Delhi (1977 AIR (SC) 666).

Counsel for A2 argued to acquit A2 for the charge under

Section 12 of the P.C.Act, 1988 as the prosecution miserably failed to prove that A2 had knowledge that the amount received by him is a bribe amount.

43.In view of the rival contentions of the prosecution and defence, now the entire oral and documentary evidence has to be scrutinized carefully to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved its case against AO1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt for the charges levelled against them.

44.The burden heavily lies on the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by AO1 from PW1 to do an official favour. According to PW1, being the defacto complainant, he set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P3 report on 06.11.2012

before the PW10, the then DSP, ACB, CR1, Hyderabad and who is also a

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.33 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 trap laying officer. As per the contents of Ex.P1, PW1 along with PW2, his cousin brother, succeeded old house bearing No.6-1-86 & 6-1-87 each admeasuring 78 sq.yards from their respective fathers. In order to construct new houses PW1 and PW2 demolished old houses and submitted applications in GHMC, Rajendranagar circle on 04.07.2012 vide Exs.P1 and P4 respectively. In this regard, they approached AO1

Smt.Rajasree, who is Town Planning Supervisor and requested her to accord building permission, for which she demanded Rs.20,000/- from each PW1 and PW2. Both PW1 and PW2 pleaded that they are poor and that they can not afford to pay such bribe and AO1 did not heed to their request and anticipating the building permission they proceeded with construction.

45.While so, on 22.08.2012 AO1 issued a notice under Ex.P2 directing to stop the construction. PW1 acknowledged receipt of the said notice. After two days, he along with his cousin brother PW2 met

AO1 in her office and requested her not to stop the construction, for which AO1 demanded Rs.20,000/- from each of PW1 and PW2, otherwise she will issue another notice for demolition of the construction. At that time also both PW1 and PW2 stated that they can not afford to pay such amount and came back. Later on, AO1 made phone calls through her mobile phone No.7702774608 demanding money and to meet her. As PW1 did not meet her as directed by AO1, again on 05.11.2012 and 06.11.2012 she made a phone call and threatened that if they do not pay the bribe amount she will take action

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.34 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 for demolition of their house. Therefore, they requested AO1 to give some time to pay bribe amount. For that, AO1 demanded to pay bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- by the evening of 07.11.2012 and she gave two weeks time to pay the balance bribe amount of Rs.20,000/-. As PW1 was not willing to pay bribe amount he approached PW10 and lodged

Ex.P3 report on 06.11.2012 on 05.00 PM to take necessary action against AO1. PW1 and PW2 deposed the said facts in their evidence and their evidence is corroborated with each other on material particulars also with the contents of Ex.P3 report.

46.PW1 in his cross-examination denies that since he did not stop the construction AO1 tried to serve second notice on him and for that purpose only she made a phone call to him. Here, it is pertinent to mention that for service of further notice in pursuance of Ex.P2 there is no need or necessity to make a phone call to PW1 by AO1. It is not the case of defence that even at the time of issuance of Ex.P2 notice dt.22.08.2022, AO1 made such a phone call either to PW1 or PW2. The defence taken by AO1 is that only for the purpose of service of second notice, AO1 came to the site of PW1 and PW2 and that since AO1 tried to serve second notice and to threaten the GHMC officials to prevent them from demolishing his construction and PW1 foisted a false case against accused. It is the positive evidence of PW1 and PW2 that after completion of pre-trap proceedings vide Ex.P6 both PW1 and PW2 along with trap party members went to their site on 07.11.2012 during evening hours. According to PW1, he made a phone call to AO1

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.35 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 informing her that he came to his tailoring shop and asked her to come to the shop. Then AO1 along with A2 came to his shop and AO1 asked whether the money was ready. When PW1 took out the tainted money of Rs.20,000/- from his pocket and tried to give her, AO1 asked PW1 to give the money to A2 and accordingly PW1 handed over money to A2, who kept the money in his back pant pocket and he relayed signal to the trap party members. Immediately the trap party rushed and apprehended both AO1 an A2 and conducted chemical test on the hand fingers of AO1 which yielded negative, however the chemical test conducted on the hand fingers of A2 yielded positive result, so also his inner linings of pant pocket which came into contact with the tainted currency also yielded positive result.

47.During polst-trap proceedings, when PW10 enquired AO1 about the demand and acceptance of bribe amount, she narrated that she did not demand any bribe amount from PW1, but he voluntarily offered the bribe amount for not issuing further notice for demolition and when PW1 was about to hand over the bribe amount to her, she directed PW1 to hand over the same to her Assistant Sripati (A2), accordingly A2 received the amount with his left hand and kept the same in his left back pant pocket. It is an undisputed fact that on the date of trap on 07.11.2013 during evening hours, AO1 came to the site of PW1 and PW2. As per the defence taken by AO1, she came to serve the further notice in pursuance of Ex.P2 notice to PW1. But the said fact is not stated by PW1 at the earliest opportunity ie., during post-

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.36 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 trap proceedings. In S.Abdul Kaffar vs. State of Kerala (Appeal (Crl)

Case No.436 of 1997 dt.18.12.2003), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India held that “when the stand taken by the AOs during trial not taken during the post-trap proceedings ie., at the first available opportunity the evidence was not genuine.” In view of the above said judicial pronouncement it is crystal clear that the defence taken by AO1, which was not taken at the earliest point of time ie., during post-trap proceedings can not be taken into consideration and it can be treated only an after-thought. Further it is important to mention that if at all the defence taken by AO1 is presumed to be true for a moment that AO1 came to the site of PW1 for service of second notice, no such notice was produced before the trap party members, to prove her innocence and bonafides. Even PW10 did not find any such notice in possession of AO1 during post-trap proceedings. Therefore, the story of defence that AO1 came to the site of PW1 on the evening hours on 07.11.2012 to serve second notice is only an after-thought but not a real fact.

48.Further during the post-trap proceedings when A2 is questioned by DSP, he stated that AO1 engaged him on a salary of

Rs.6,000/- per month for motorcycle conveyance to carry her from residence to the office and for field work and he is working as an

Assistant for the last seven months. He is also being paid an amount of

Rs.100/- per day for fuel charges and that as per the instructions of

AO1 he used to collect the bribe in her jurisdiction from public and hand over the same to AO1, in lieu of that she used to give some

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.37 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 amount out of that amount for aiding her in collection of bribe amount.

A2 further admitted during post-trap proceedings under Ex.P8 on being questioned by PW10 that he had accepted bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- as directed by AO1 and that he took out a wad of currency notes from his left back pant pocket and produced the tainted currency before

PW10. When compared the tainted currency notes with the note numbers mentioned in pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P6, they were found tallied. The DSP has seized the tainted currency of Rs.20,000/- vide MO7.

49.Further to strengthen the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the recitals of Ex.P8 post-trap proceedings, PW3 who is one of the mediators to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, deposed corroborating the evidence of PW1 and PW2 on material particulars, with regard to presence of AO1 and A2 at the site of PW1 on the evening hours of 07.11.2012 and seizure of MO7 tainted currency from the possession of A2. So also, the evidence of PW10, the trap laying officer, is corroborated with regard to the acceptance of tainted currency by A2 at the behest of AO1 from PW1.

50.The contention of AO1 is that PW3 is not trustworthy witness as he is a stock witness to the ACB officials since according to his cross- examination, he acted as mediator in two ACB cases, one from

Nalgonda and one such case of City Range-1, Hyderabad. In this regard, learned defence counsel for AO1 relied on a decision in State

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.38 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

CBI vs. K.P.Shah (1995 Crl.l.j.(sC) 3623) with regard to credibility of panch witness acting as police witness in number of cases and his evidence being pliable and untrustworthy and conviction could not be passed on his evidence being a stock witness.

51.No doubt, as per cross-examination of PW3, he acted as mediator earlier in two more ACB cases. Now, the question is whether mere acting as panch witness in two more ACB cases whether PW3/ mediator becomes untrustworthy. PW3 is a public servant, during the relevant point of time, he worked as a Reader in State Institute of

Vocational Education, Office of the Commissioner of Intermediate

Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. He has no enmity with AO1 or A2.

Therefore, there is no necessity for him to depose falsehood against

AO1 and A2 and supporting the case of the prosecution. The ACB is a specialized investigating agency established for preventing and detecting the corruption cases by and against public servants. It is not a regular police case. If it is a police case, then there would be some strength in the contention of AO1 that PW3 being a stock witness he is not trustworthy being acted as mediator in two more ACB Cases. Since

PW3 is a respectable and responsible person, therefore I am of the considered opinion that his evidence can not be brushed aside and his evidence can be taken into consideration.

52.Thus, on a careful scrutiny of evidence of PW1 to PW3 and

PW10 coupled with Exs.P3, P6 and P8, it is found that the prosecution

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.39 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 has proved the demand and acceptance of bribe from PW1 by A2 at the behest of AO1. Since it is established that the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from PW1, S.20 of the P.C.Act, 1988 comes into play. Once there is presumption as contemplated under S.20 of the P.C.Act, it is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as bribe.

53.Now, with regard to official favour pending with AO1 relating to PW1 and PW2 is revealed by PW4, who is the then Assistant Town

Planner, GHMC, Rajendranagar Circle. According to him, the files sought for by ACB officials were available in the almirah of AO1 and he got almirah opened with the keys available with AO1 ie., after Ex.P8 post-trap proceedings and handed over the files to ACB officials ie.,

Exs.P10 and P11, they are made-up files containing applications of PW1 and PW2 along with relevant documents. These documents clearly establish that official favour file is pending with AO1 as on the date of trap.

54.The contention of learned counsel for AO1 is that Pw5 deposed that any application for permission shall be disposed of within 30 days from the date of application and in case the application is not disposed in 30 days it is deemed permission. Of course, PW5 did not state the said fact during his examination under S.161 CrPC and it is an omission. Just because it is an omission it is not a material contradiction. There is a legal provision in GHMC Act regarding

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.40 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 deemed sanction. Even if PW5 did not state the said fact, the legal position and provision of law can be argued by the parties concerned.

Since there is a provision in GHMC Act with regard to deemed sanction if the application for permission is not concerned within 30 days.

Therefore from the above evidence of PW5 coupled with Exs.P10 and

P11, it is established that the official favour file relating to PW1 and

PW2 is pending with AO1 as on the date of trap.

55.Another attack of AO1 is that Ex.P20 sanction order is bad in law and the same was accorded without proper application of mind and the prosecution did not choose to examine the Commissioner, GHMC,

Hyderabad who issued Ex.P20, which is fatal to the case of prosecution and PW9 through whom Ex.P20 is marked has no knowledge as to what material the sanctioning authority perused while granting sanction order for prosecution of AO1 under Ex.P20. Therefore, on this ground

AO1 is entitled for acquittal.

56.A perusal of Ex.P20 sanction order dt.13.05.2014 it reveals that the same was accorded by Sri.Somesh Kumar, IAS, Commissioner,

GHMC, Hyderabad and he is cited as LW18 in the Memo of Evidence for prosecution, but he is not examined before this court. However, PW9 who is Assistant Municipal Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad and previously worked as Superintendent in the Legal Section, GHMC during the relevant period is examined and through whom Ex.P20 is marked. Her evidence speaks that they have received preliminary

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.41 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 report containing copy of FIR, complaint, pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and other related documents. Later they also received copy of final report prepared by ACB. The Commissioner having verified all the records issued proceedings to prosecute AO1 under Ex.P20.

PW9 in her cross-examination admits that along with proposals, ACB supplied a draft sanction order under Ex.D1, which was available with the witness. But the recitals of Ex.P20 would reveal that the sanctioning authority after fully and carefully examining the material ie,. FIR, Mediators Reports, Statements of witnesses, final report of DG

ACB, LW18 accorded sanction to prosecute AO1. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, it can not be said that the sanction under

Ex.P20 was accorded mechanically.

57.In the circumstances of the case, the decision relied upon by the defence counsel in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat and State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerjan have no relevancy to the facts of the case on hand. In Gokulchand

Dwarkadas Moraka vs. King AIR 1948 PC 82 it was held that merely because it is not happily worded it can not be said that the sanction order is suffering from non-application of mind. Further there is a presumption that every government order has been issued in conformity with the rules. In order to rebut this legal presumption, the burden of proof is on the person alleging to the contrary. Non- forwarding of Ex.P2 notice by the ACB officials along with proposals for sanction is not fatal since the relevant material has been forwarded to

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.42 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 the sanctioning authority for perusal and according sanction. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, this court has no hesitation to hold that there is no material to suggest that Exs.P20 sanction order is passed mechanically.

58.The charge against A2 is under S.12 of the P.C.Act, 1988 ie,.

he abetted AO1 to commit the offence under Ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The word ‘abetment’ has not been defined in

P.C.Act. However, S.107 of IPC defines ‘abetment’ as under:

“S.107 : Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.43 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

59.In the light of the above definition of abetment, now it has to be seen whether A2 committed the offence of abetment or not. There is no dispute that A2 is a private person and not employee of GHMC and he was not seen by PW1 and PW2 prior to the date of trap. It is also an admitted fact that PW1 did not lodge any report against A2 and

A2 did not make any demand of bribe from PW1 and PW2. Further PW1 and PW2 did not see A2 in the office of AO1 along with her, but it is an undisputed fact that A2 accompanied AO1 to the scene of offence on the date of trap ie., 07.11.2012. Pw2 in his cross-examination categorically deposed that A2 accompanied AO1 on 22.08.2012 also ie., on the date of issuance of Ex.P2 notice. No suggestion was put by

A2 to PW2 that on 22.08.2012 A2 did not accompany AO1. It was suggested that PW2 did not mention in his chief examination about presence of A2 along with AO1 to the construction site on 22.08.2012.

It is suggested to the prosecution witnesses by A2 that on the instructions of AO1 only PW1 paid money to A2 and he received it. The said fact was categorically admitted by PW10 and PW3.

60.It is not out of place to mention that during examination of

A2 under S.313 CrPC he stated that at the behest of AO1 he received amount from PW1. As per the evidence of PW1 and PW2, AO1 demanded money from PW1 in the presence of A2 only who was standing there. It means that A2 is having knowledge that AO1 is demanding bribe from PW1. The defence taken by A2 is that A2 had taken AO1 on motorbike to the construction site of PW1, but it is not

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.44 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 stated what is the relationship between AO1 and A2 to carry AO1 to the scene of offence by A2. Further A2 had no explanation as to why he took the money, in his examination under S.313 CrPC, except stating that at the behest of AO1 he received the money. Therefore, any amount of interference can be drawn that A2 is a private Agent of AO1 to collect illegal gratifications from public on behalf of AO1. It is nothing but, aiding AO1 in committing the offences of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the public, by A2. Therefore,

Explanation-2 given to S.107 IPC clearly attracts to this case.

61.In view of the evidence available on record, it can not be stated that A2 had no knowledge that the amount received by him from PW1 is a bribe amount. Therefore, the decisions on which A2 relied, referred supra, have no application to the present case on hand.

Here, it is important to note that no third party would carry AO1 on motorbike to the scene of offence unless there is some relationship in between them. It is not the case of defence that A2 is totally an unknown person to AO1. Hence, considering the material placed on record before this court, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the charge against A2 for the offence under

S.12 of the P.C.Act apart from proving the guilt of AO1 for the offence under S.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, beyond reasonable doubt.

Points Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.45 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

62.As a result, AO1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 and A2 is found guilty for the offence punishable under S.12 of the P.C.Act, 1988 and AO1 and A2 are convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

FAC-I.Addl.Special Judge for SPE&ACB Cases

Hyderabad.

63.AO1 is examined with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed. She stated that her husband expired 30 years back and she got compassionate employment of her late husband. She further stated that she is having 3 sons, out of which one son is unmarried and the remaining 2 sons are married. She further stated that she is diabetic and also suffering from Blood Pressure and requested to take a lenient view. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence being socio-economic and in view of gravity of the offence, this court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to take a lenient view and to consider the provisions of S.360 of

CrPC and Ss.3&4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

64.On questioning A2 regarding sentence to be imposed, he stated that he is having two daughters, who are aged 7 years and 2 years respectively and a son of 4 years old and that he is a private employee earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He further stated that his father is a retired RTC employee and depending on him and requested

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.46 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014 to take a lenient view. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to consider the provisions of S.360 of CrPC and Ss.3&4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, considering the offence committed by him and in view of the request made by A2 that he is having three minor children, this court is of the considered opinion that minimum punishment can be awarded.

65.Accordingly, AO1 is convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 and she is sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act,1988, in default of payment of fine, AO1 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Similarly, AO1 is convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and she is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence. In default of payment of fine, AO1 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

A2 is convicted for the offence under Section 12 of the

P.C.Act, 1988 and he is sentenced to undergoRigorous

Imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the said offence. In default of payment of fine, A2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.47 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

Total fine amount is Rs.20,000/- for AO1, and Rs.5,000/- for

A2. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently for AO1.

The remand period already undergone by AO1 (ie., from 08.11.2012 to 24.11.2012) and A2 (ie., from 08.11.2012 to 24.11.2012) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

AO1 and A2 are informed that an appeal lies to the Hon’ble

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

MO7 tainted currency of Rs.20,000/- shall be confiscated to the State and non-valuables vide MOs.1 to 6 and MOs.8 to 10 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I of the Prl.ACB Court, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 15th day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

FAC-I.Addl.Special Judge for SPE&ACB Cases

Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW-1Sri.P.Praveen Kumar (defacto complainant) PW-2Sri.P.Devender (cousin of PW1/Accompanying witness) PW-3Sri Gade Srinivas Reddy (Mediator for MR I & II) PW-4Sri G.Shanker (then Asst.Town Planner, Rajendranagar Circle, GHMC) PW-5Sri Bala Srinivas (then Town Planning Supervisor, Circle-VI, Rajendrangar, GHMC) PW-6Sri S.Deepak Kumar (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, Secunderabad) PW-7Sri Tito Benerjee (Deputy Executive Engineer, IT Section, GHMC)

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.48 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

PW-8B.Santosyh Kumar (Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd., Hyderabad) PW-9Smt.M.Lakshmi Prasanna (Asst.Municipal Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad) PW-10S.K.Chandra Shekar (then DSP, ACB, CR-1, Hyderabad & trap laying officer) PW-11Smt.G.Manjula (then Inspector of Police, ACB, CR-1, Hyd.)

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE / ACCUSED : NIL.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex. P1Application submitted by PW1 dt.04.07.2012 seeking permission for re-construction of the house before GHMC. Ex. P2Notice issued to PW1 by GHMC dt.22.08.2012. Ex. P3Complaint/Report of PW1 submitted to DSP, ACB dt.06.11.2012. Ex. P4Application submitted by PW2 dt.04.07.2012. Ex. P5Copy of complaint/report dt.06.11.2012. Ex. P6Pre-trap proceedings vide Mediators Report-I dt.07.11.2012. Ex. P7Rough sketch of scene of offence dt.08.11.2012. Ex. P8Post-trap proceedings vide Mediators Report-II dt.08.11.2012. Ex. P9Search Proceedings dt.08.11.2012. Ex.P10Made-up file containing application of PW1 along with documents. Ex.P11Made-up file containing application of PW2 along with other documents. Ex.P12Proceedings drafted at the office of Dy.Municipal Commissioner, Circle-VI, GHMC, Hyderabad dt.08.11.2012. Ex.P13Attendance Register. Ex.P14Service Particulars of AO1 vide letter dt.12.12.2012. Ex.P15Authorization given to PW6 to give evidence in court dt.09.12.2019. Ex.P16Letter addressed by Bharti Airtel Ltd., along with call data record in respect of Phone No.7702774608 dt.23.11.2012. Ex.P17Authorization given to PW7 to give evidence in court dt.06.12.2019. Ex.P18Letter of Addl. Commissioner IT, GHMC dt.05.12.2019 furnishing information with regard to allotment of mobile no.7702774608 to AO1. Ex.P19Letter of Alternate Nodal Officer, Idea, along with call data record of mobile no.9948167575 dt.14.12.2012. Ex.P20Sanction Proceedings pertaining to prosecution of AO1 vide No.582/V1/Vig.Admn/GHMC/2012-14 dt.13.05.2014.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.49 Judgment in C.C.No.51/2014

Ex.P21Original First Information Report dt.07.11.2012.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE/ACCUSED:

Ex.D1Copy of draft sanction order pertaining to prosecution of AO1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1Cover containing the sample of Phenolphthalein Powder. MO-2Cover containing the sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder. MO-3Left hand wash of A2. MO-4Right hand wash of A2. MO-5Left hand wash of AO1. MO-6Right hand wash of AO1. MO-7Tainted amount of Rs.20,000/-. MO-8Resultant Solution of Inner Linings of pant pocket of A2. MO-9Pant of A2. MO10Remaining Sodium Carbonate Powder.

Sd/-

Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

FAC-I.Addl.Special Judge for SPE&ACB Cases

Hyderabad.

1 //fair// os531of2007

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE: CITY CIVIL COURT AT

HYDERABAD.

Dated this the 31 st day of March, 2018.

Present:- Sri G. Raja Gopal, B.Sc. B.L.,

X Additional Chief Judge.

O.S. No. 531 of 2007.

Between:

1. Laiq Fatima W/o Late Mir Taher Ali Khan, aged about 60 years, R/o H.No. 5-4-367/1,2,3, Ali Cottage,M.J. Road, Hyderabad.

2. Fatima Biligrami ( Shaheen) D/o Late Mir Taher Ali Khan, aged about 59 years, R/o H.No. 5-4-367/1, 2, 3, Ali Cottage,M.J. Road, Hyderabad.

3. Asghar Ali Khan S/o Late Mir Taher Ali Khan, aged about 58 years, R/o H.No. 5-4-367/1,2,3, Ali Cottage,M.J. Road, Hyderabad.

4. Hyder Ali Khan S/o Laate Mir Taher Ali Khan, aged about 54 years, R/o H. No. 5-4-367/1,2,3, Ali Cottage, M.J. Road, Hyderabad.

5. Sardar Ali Khan S/o Late Mir Taher Ali Khan, aged about 53 years, R/o H.No. 5-4-367/1,2,3, Ali Cottage,M.J. Road, Hyderabad.

6. M/s. ESBEE Holdings Private Limited, a company registered under Companies Act, 1956, rep by its Chairman Mr. Syed Badruddin S/o Mr. Syed Waheeduddin, Muslim, aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, having its registered office at 8-2-580/B/2, Road No. 8, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiffs.

And

1. Telangana Housing Board rep. by its Vice Chairman, Gruhaakalpa building, Mukarram Jahi road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. Government of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

3. District Collector, Hyderabad District, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

4. The Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

6. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nampally Mandal, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

… Defendants.

2 //fair// os531of2007

The present suit came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.A. Achuthanand, advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri K. Sampath Kumar Das, advocate for the Defendant No.1, Sri P. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the Defendant No.2 and having stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking judgment and decree

a) To declare that the plaintiffs through their predecessors have perfected title to the suit schedule property known as “ Ali collage” bearing premises No. 5-4-367/1 to 3, Mukarram Jahi Road, Hyderabad by adverse possession prior to the advent of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, and consequently continued to be owners of suit property U/s. 9 of the said Act;

b) A declaration that the defendants do not have any right, title or interest over the above schedule property consequent on the de-notification of the Land Acquisition Notifications by the then Government of Hyderabad as per Gazette dt. 19-07-1951 at Sl. No.; 178 dt. 28-06-1951 and the allotment of land by the second defendant in favour of first defendant in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 361 dt. 21-02-1963 and G.O.Ms. No.1940 dt. 03-08- 1965;

c) A declaration that the order of eviction passed by the competent authority, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board in case No. 152/CA1/1963 dt. NIL is not executable against the plaintiffs and/or the suit schedule property.

d) A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the amended plaint dt. 05-02-2018 are as under:-

It is averred that the suit schedule property, i.e. Ali Cottage, admeasuring 2300 sq. yards bearing M.No. 5-4-367/1 to 3, Mukarram Jahi

Road, Hyderabad had been in possession and enjoyment of the grand father and father of the plaintiffs for more than 60 years by now. That the suit schedule property is part of old Sy. No. 100 of Nampally village and as per the Refenue and Land Records, it is an Inam land. Consequent 3 //fair// os531of2007 on the abolition of Inams by virtue of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)

Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, all inam lands got vested with the State.

However by virtue of Section 9 of the said Act, owner of buildings in Inam land as on the date of vesting, is entitled to ownership over such building without obtaining any re-grant. Since the plaintiffs and their forefathers have been in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property since 1936, the plaintiffs have perfected title by adverse possession, as against the erstwhile Inamdar, Hariram Gir Gosai, even before the advent of the said Act i.e. by the year 1955 itself. That the father of the plaintiffs, late Mir Taher Ali Khan had filed O.S.No. 277 of 1984 on the file of

Additional Chief Judge cum I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB

Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the present defendants for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property but the suit was dismissed by the trial court as well as Hon’ble single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court in C.C.C.A.No. 10 of 1987 but it was partly decreed to the extent of injunctive relief in LPA No. 33 of 1996. However, in the said proceeding a finding was recorded that Late

Taher Ali Khan has failed to establish title to the suit property through his father Mir Hasan Ali Khan. That the plaintiffs are filing the present suit for the relief of declaration of title on the ground that they have perfected title by adverse possession on account of their open, continuous possession over the suit property. Thus, the findings in the suit in O. S. No. 277 of 1984 do not constitute resjudicata in the present suit.

Some time in the year 1348 Fasli ( 1939 A.D.), the erstwhile

Government of Hyderabad had issued Land Acquisition Notifications where under some property situated on Mukarram Jahi Road was 4 //fair// os531of2007 acquired for the purpose of constructing Central Secretariat office and

Assembly Hall but these notifications did not contain either the premises or the survey number or extent of the properties acquired. Based upon the properties so acquired, the second defendant had issued G.O.Ms. No.

361 dt. 21-02-1963 allotting the vacant sites and buildings abutting

Mukarram Jahi Road on both sides to the first defendant. The said

Government order was follows up by another Government order in G.O.

Ms. No. 1940 dt. 03-08-1965 but both these Government orders did not specifically described the properties that were acquired and allotted to the first defendant herein. However based upon the allotment contained in G.O. Ms. No. 361 dt. 21-02-1963, the first defendant has taken a stand that it has become owner in respect of all that property that was allotted to it and it had initiated certain proceedings for eviction of unauthorized occupants and tenants before the competent authority, Andhra Pradesh

Housing Board, Hyderabad as per provisions contained in Section 52 of

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956. That the forefathers of the plaintiffs were doing the business auctioneering in the said premises in the name and style of M/s. Ali Brothers. One such eviction suit was filed against the said M/s. Ali Brothers in case No. 152/CA1/1968 and an order of eviction was passed in the said case for the benefit of first defendant.

That the plaintiffs have now come to know that there was a denotification of the Land Acquisition proceedings by the then

Hyderabad Government as per the Gazette dt. 19-07-1951 at Notification

No. 178 dt. 28-06-1951. In the said denotification/withdrawal, it is stated that the earlier Land Acquisition Notifications are withdrawn. Hence the second defendant could not have validly allotted any land in Mukarram

Jahi Road to the first defendant vide G.O. Ms. No. 361 dt. 21-02-1963. In 5 //fair// os531of2007 other words, the first defendant could not have instituted the said eviction case No. 152/CA1/1968 as the Housing Board was not conveyed valid title over any property under the said Government Order.

Therefore, the eviction order in the said case has no foundation at all. At any rate, the said eviction order is not executable against the plaintiffs.

That apart the said eviction order was passed in respect of the premises bearing plot No. 2/East of Mukarram Jahi road which is a different property bearing premises No. 5-4-372, Mukarram Jahi Road which was taken on lease by the father of the plaintiffs. It is not in dispute that the said premises were vacated by the father of the plaintiffs in the year 1970. Thus the eviction order in case No. 152/CA1/1968 is not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are not liable to be evicted under the said order of competent authority. That the schedule of property in the said case No. 152/CA1/1968 is different and hence the suit property is not covered by the order in the said case.

That the father of the plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit for declaration of title bearing O.S. Nol. 277 of 1984, he was unaware of the de-notification of the acquired land by the erstwhile State of Hyderabad.

In fact the plaintiffs were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, Mir Taher Ali Khan in LPA No. 33 of 1996 in the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter the plaintiffs came to know about the de-notification of Land Acquisition proceedings by the

Government of Hyderabad and therefore they have filed a petition in

L.P.A.M.P. No. 17 of 2007 for receiving additional evidence before the

High Court in the said LPA No. 33 of 1996. However, the Hon’ble High

Court has decided the LPA holding that the deceased plaintiff Mir Taher

Ali Khan has failed to prove the title of his father Mir Hasan Ali Khan and 6 //fair// os531of2007 therefore declaration of title cannot be granted but the relief of permanent injunction was granted since a specific finding was recorded by all the courts that the deceased plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since 1941. In that view of the matter, the High Court did not deal with the additional evidence petition relating to the de-notification of Land Acquisition proceedings by the erstwhile Hyderabad

Government. However, the Hon’ble High Court has observed that the plaintiffs are at liberty to take all such defences against the order of eviction in favour of first defendant, obviously the one passed by the competent authority in case No. 152/CA1/1968. That the erstwhile

Hyderabad Government has denotified the earlier Land Acquisition

Notifications as per the Gazette No. 29 dt. 19-07-1951 at Notification No.

178 dt. 28-06-1951 and the operative part of the same reads as under:-

DENOTIFICATION

“It was notified through declaration under Section (5) of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Government Gazette No. 13 dated 23rd Bahman 1358 Fasli, that the lands mentioned therein were being acquired by the Government for the construction of the Central Secretariat and Assembly Hall. Now under Section 39 of the Land Acquisition Act, notice is hereby given to all whom it may concern that the lands specified in the schedule below and situated in the Hyderabad City are not required. Therefore, the declaration referred to in respect of those lands should be taken as withdrawn.

SCHEDULE

HYDERABAD CITY

Description of land, wet or dry, Inam or Poramboke with Sy. No. Land with all the houses.

Boundaries of the land required to be taken up.

North:- Station Road, Nampally from cross road at Rahim Khan’s Auction Hall to the Post Mastewr Generral’s office East:- From Abid road to Moazzam Jahi Market and behind the market to the Mukarram Jahi road.

7 //fair// os531of2007

South:- From Mukarram Jahi road upto 300 ft. Depth houses acquired for Central Secrwetariat to Cross road,Nampally near the office of Director, Customs Department. West:- From the cross road, Nampally at Rahim Khan’s Auction Hall to the cross road at the office of the Director, Customs Department.”

GULAM HYDER

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

It is contended that in view of the above De-notification of the

Land Acquisition Notifications, the acquisition that was earlier made and property consequently allotted to the first defendant vide G.O.Ms. No.

361 dt. 21-02-1963 have all become invalid and nullified. In other words, whatever title that was passed on under the said Government Order in favour of the first defendant, stood divested and consequently the claim of the first defendant under the said Government Order became invalid and incomplete. It is relevant to submit here that the relevant land acquisition notifications, which stood de-notified by the above quoted notification, have also referred to the acquired property with the same boundaries and for the sake of clarity, the Land Acquisition Notification is extracted below:

NOTIFICATION

“Under Section (3 and 5) of the Law of Land Acquisition as per the year 1319 Fasli, it is hereby advertised that for the purposes of construction, by the Government of the Secretariat Offices and the

Constituent Assembly the area of the houses and the land within the boundaries as given below is required by the Government. The plan of the land required is available for inspection at the office of the Taluqdar,

District Baaghat (Gardens), City Limits.

8 //fair// os531of2007

BOUNDARIES OF AREA

North:- Station Road, Nampally via Cross Junction Road from Rahim Khan Auctioners till the office of the Directorate of Tappa (Posts) of the Government of H.E.H. East:- From Abid Road to Moazzam Jahi Market and backside of the Market to Mukarram Jahi road. South:- Mukarram Jahi Road up[to (300 ft.) houses acquired for the purposes mentioned above and from market upto cross roads Nampally near the office of the Directorate of Customs. West:- From Cross Roads, Nampally near Rahim Khan Auctioneers upto the cross roads of Office of the Directorate of Customs.

Sd/-for Secrertary

Government of HEH-Revenue Department

From a comparison of the Land Acquisition Notification and the de- notification of the same, extracted above, it is clear that what was acquired for the construction of Secretariat office and constituent

Assembly, stood de-notified in the year 1951. Thus the second defendant did not succeed to the acquired land as described in G.O.Ms. No. 361 dt.

21-02-21963 and consequently the allotment in favour of the first defendant was without authority of law. Thus, none of the defendants were having any right, title or interest over the land that was acquired by the Hyderabad Government in view of the de-notification of Land

Acquisition by the Government of Hyderabad. Therefore, the first defendant has no title or authority of law to initiate any eviction proceedings before the competent authority for the reason that the first defendant itself so also the second defendant had no title to the so- called acquired land.

That the plaintiffs have perfected title to the suit property by reason of continuous hostile possession of the suit property through their predecessors namely, Mir Taher Ali Khan and Mir Hasan Ali Khan, 9 //fair// os531of2007 even before the advent of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. As per the Revenue and Land Records, the Inamdar of the land in old

Sy.No.100 was Hariram Gir Gosai who had never taken any steps to question the continued possession of the predecessors of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Since the suit property was part of old Sy.No.100, which is an Inam, by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the said Act, the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit property. In this context, it is submitted that the' Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad

Division has passed Orders in Proceedings No.B/3894/2005 dated 17-06- 2006 to the effect that the suit property known as "Ali Cottage" bearing

No.5-4-367/1 to 3, Mukarram Jahi Road, Hyderabad is situated in Old

Sy.No.100 of Nampally Village corresponding to T.S.No.12, Block E, Ward

No.48 which stands Inam in the name of Hariram Gir Gosai and that the plaintiffs have to approach the Competent Authority for remedy. It is contended that the plaintiffs have filed a writ petition in W.P.No.16831 of 2006 in the Honourable High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which was dismissed by order dated 08-09-2006, with the following observations.

"A plain reading of the above prov i sion would show that if a person who is owner of building as on the date of vesting, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, without anything else, such property shall vest in the person who owned it before the date of vesting. In the case of agricultural land, however, Inamdar, Khabiz - e- Khadim, permanent tenant, protected Tenant or non-protected tenant shall have to be registered as occupants of the lands under relevant provisions after conducting enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. No power is conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer to register any person as an occupant if the land is nonagricultural land or land is used otherwise than for construction of a building. In this case, there is no denial that the petitioners are in possession of the building known as "Ali Cottage" and, therefore, under Section 9 (1) of the Act, that building vests in them. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is unexceptionable. The writ petition with the above observations is accordingly dismissed. No costs" 10 //fair// os531of2007

Thus, it is clear that having perfected title to the suit property

before advent of the Act, the plaintiffs have become owners as on the

date of vesting and therefore they are entitled to be declared as owners of the suit property within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act. That the defendants do not have any right, title or interest over the suit property and consequently, the eviction orders obtained by the 1st defendant are unenforceable in law. That apart, the eviction orders obtained by the 1st defendant are not against the plaintiffs and or not in respect of the suit schedule property. That for compliance of Section 68 of the A.P. Housing

Board Act, 1956 and Section 80 of the CPC, the suit notice dt. 17-04-2007 was sent to the defendants 1 and 2 by certificate of posting and thus the legal requirements for maintaining the suit are complied with. Thus the plaintiffs are entitled to sue and the defendants are liable to answer.

Hence the suit.

3.That the defendants 1 and 6 have filed their respective written statement and defendants 2 to 5 have filed a memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.6.

4.The brief averments of the written statement of defendant No.1 are as under:- it is contended that the suit is not maintainable and hit by principles of resjudicata. The husband of the first plaintiff and father of other plaintiffs late Mir Taher Ali Khan filed O.S. No. 277 of 1984 for a similar relief as in this suit and the same was dismissed and the matter is carried in appeal in CCCA No. 10 of 1987 and the same is also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. Aggrieved by the same, LPA 33 of 1996 is filed and during the pendency of LPA Mir Taher Ali Khan died and plaintiffs herein being the legal representatives of the deceased were impleaded 11 //fair// os531of2007 in the said LPA. that the following order was passed in LPA 33 of 1996:- “ In these circumstances, we allow the appeal, setaside the judgment of the trial court and the learned single Judge to the extent of dismissal of suit for injunction and uphold the decree with respect of the declaration and pass a decree to the effect that the appellants shall not be dispossessed from the property in question, except through due process of law.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that already eviction orders have been passed. If that is so, the respondents shall be at liberty to get the orders executed in accordance with law. If the appellants have got any remedies against such orders, they are also at liberty to take such remedies.“

The plaintiffs herein having not been able to establish the title lost the relief of declaration to be the owners of the suit schedule premises.

The plaintiffs being the legal heirs of the deceased late Mir Taher Ali

Khan, they do not acquire any better rights than what has accrued on him. That the suit schedule premises admeasuring 2300 sq. yards at No.

2/East, M.J. Road was originally the property of the Government and the same was transferred to the Housing Board under G.O.Ms. No. 361 dt.

21-02-1963 and by G.O. Ms. No. 1940 dt. 03-08-1965 the same was duly handed over to the Housing Board. According to the aforesaid

Government orders, the properties that were transferred to the Housing

Board are:-

1) the whole of the plot on the eastern side of M.J. road upto the ex- customs office

2) the whole of the plot from M.J. Market upto Gandhi Bhavan i.e. the whole plot from M.J. Road and the Nala. The suit schedule property at the time of handing over to the Housing Board was in possession of the plaintiff’s father as tenants of the Government and as such the plaintiffs have no other right or title whatsoever on the suit schedule premises except as a tenant. On such transfer of the land to the APHB, the 12 //fair// os531of2007 plaintiffs and their predecessors have become the tenants of the APHB.

That the plaintiffs and their predecessors being the tenants of APHB and having committed default of rents, the APHB filed case No. 152/CA-1/68

dt. 26-12-1979 on the file of Competent Authority under the A.P. Housing

Board Act, 1956 and the same was allowed directing eviction. Aggrieved by the same, late Taher Ali Khan filed CMA No. 127 of 1980 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by its order dt. 14-07-1981 confirming the eviction orders by the Competent

Authority. Late Mir Taher Ali Khan filed W.P. No. 507 of 1963 along with 14 other petitioners in High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was disposed off by an order dt. 15-12-1964 with a finding that “ the learned counsel

for the petitioner frankly states that the petitioners have to execute

lease deeds because the Housing Board is the present landlord. The petitioners do not claim any right or interest in the houses except as a tenants thereof.” In fact, by a legal notice dt. 02-07-1963 on behalf of late Taher Ali Khan by his advocate Mohd. Younus Saleem it was admitted that “ my client Nawab Mir Taher Ali Khan, Proprietor M/s. Ali Brothers,

Auctioneers, Mojamjahi Market, Hyderabad obtained CSB plot No.1 of

East on lease from your department under a lease deed executed by him on 30-08-1948.” Thus, even late Taher Ali Khan suffered an order declaring him to be the tenant and he himself also admitted that he is the tenant. The plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Taher Ali Khan cannot acquire any better right.

That the order of Revenue Divisional Officer in proceedings No.

B/3894/2005 dt. 17-06-2006 nor the order in W.P. No. 16831 of 2006 are not binding on this defendant since the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board was not a party to the said proceedings. Moreover, the Revenue 13 //fair// os531of2007

Divisional Officer proceedings clearly indicate that even according to

TSLR at column 20 Housing Board is shown.

That in O.S. No. 106 of 1976 late Mir Taher Ali Khan asserted that his father Nawab Mir Hasamn Ali Khan was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the said Mir Hasan Ali Khan gave possession to him on 14th Amardad 1345 Fasli under an oral gift. Late Mir

Taher Ali Khan in the entire course of litigation comprising of various cases before several courts could not establish the fact that he was the owner of the suit schedule property. Thus having failed to establish the title to the suit schedule property cannot be permitted to take recourse or reply upon the various land acquisition notifications and de- notification. That the plaintiffs are trying to compare or correlate the suit schedule property with some other properties at a different location.

Moreover the plaintiffs having failed to establish their title are not entitled to claim that since the suit schedule property is de-notified the ownership vests with them. Therefore, the entire notification and de- notification of the Land Acquisition Act sought to be projected in the present suit is mischievous and is made only with an intention to misguide the whole issue.

That the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim suit relief under advere possession in view of the fact that the plaintiffs and late Mir Taher Ali

Khan all along asserted that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and having failed to establish the same cannot turn around the state that now they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Claiming to be the absolute owners by virtue of a sale or by virtue of a gift deed is quite contradictory to the plea of adverse possession. The plaintiffs are estopped from taking the plea of 14 //fair// os531of2007 adverse possession when late Mir Taher Ali Khan as well as the plaintiffs suffered a decree having failed to establish their title. The suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs cannot be permitted to deny the title of the defendant No.1 having established its title in various legal proceedings.

Hence the defendant No.1 therefore prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5.The brief averments of the written statement of defendant No.6 are as under:-

That the suit schedule property is situated in a part of T. S. No. 12,

Block- E, Ward No. 48 of Nampally village and in column No. 10 it is recorded as ‘HARIRAMGIR GOSANI’ and in column No.20 it is recorded as ‘G’ Housing Board. The T.S. No. 12 correlates to Revenue Sy. No. 100 of

Nampally village and Mandal and in column No. 11 it is recorded as ‘HARIRAMGIR GOSANI’ and in column No. 16 it is recorded as ‘Abadi.’ The names of the petitioners are not recorded in the revenue record or in the

Town Survey land records. The town survey in the twin cities of

Hyderabad and Secunderabad was conducted between the year 1963 to 1969. The same was published in the District Gazette during the year 1976 and 1977 U/s. 13 of the A.P.S.& B Act, 1923. The petitioners or their predecessors should have filed an appeal U/s. 14 of the said Act within the period of three years. As the plaintiffs failed to file any such appeal within the prescribed period of three years, they have no locus standi to approach this court at this juncture. As per Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 the possessors should file an application before the defendant herein and obtain Occupancy Rights

Certificate. However, the crucial date of vesting as per the said Act is 01- 11-1973 and there is no record that the plaintiffs herein were in 15 //fair// os531of2007 possession of the said property on the date of vesting.

The plaintiff herein cannot claim title or possession of the suit schedule property till they obtain Occupation Rights Certificate U/s. 9 of

Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act.

In the absence of any entry in the possession column of the revenue record the plaintiffs have no right or title and plead to add that the plaintiffs or their predecessors never obtained Occupancy Rights

Certificate and they are not entitled for any title of suit schedule property. Hence the defendant No.6 therefore prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by my learned Predecessor for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs can maintain the suit without filing an appeal U/s. 14 of Andhra Pradesh S & B Act, 1923?

2. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of suit property by the date of vesting under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 i.e. 01-11-1973?

3. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected title to the suit property? If so, whether they are entitled to suit relief?

4. To what relief?

The following additional issues were framed on 09-03-2011:-

1. Whether the suit is barred by principles of resjudicata?

2. Whether the suit is barred by time ?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are in adverse possession?

The following additional issue was framed on 01-06-2017 as per orders in

I.A. 85 of 2016:-

1. Whether the defendants 1 and 2 have any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property under law in view of De-notification of the then Hyderabad Government as per Gazette dt. 19-07-1951, notification No. 178 dt. 28-06-1951?

7.During course of trial, P.w.1 is examined and Exs. A.1 to A.36 have been marked on behalf of plaintiffs. The Assistant Estate Officer of defendant No.1 is examined as D.w.1 and the Tahsildar, Nampally Mandal 16 //fair// os531of2007 has been examined as D.w.2 on behalf of defendants 2 to 6 and got marked Ex.B.1. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have filed their respective arguments and heard the learned Government Pleader on behalf of defendants 2 to 6.

Issue No.1:-

8.The case of defendant No.6 is that the suit schedule property situated in part of T.S. No. 12, Block-E, Ward No. 48 of Nampally village and in column No.10 of TSLR 18 i.e. Ex. B.1 which is recorded as

HARIRAMGIR GOSANI’ and in column No. 20 it is recorded as ‘G’ Housing

Board. That the T.S. No. 12 correlates to revenue Sy. No. 100 of Nampally village and Mandal and in column No.11 it is recorded as HARIRAMGIR

GOSANI’ and in column No. 16 it is recorded as ‘Abadi.’ It is further case of defendants that the names of the plaintiffs are not recorded in the revenue record or in the Town Survey Land Records. A joint survey was conducted between the year1963 to 1969 and that the same was published in District Gazette during the year 1976 and 1977 U/s. 13 of

Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. It is further contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs or the Predecessors should have filed an appeal U/s. 14 of the said Act within a period of three years. As the plaintiffs failed to file any such appeal within the prescribed period of three years, they have no locus standi to approach this court . On behalf of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 D.w.2 is examined who is Tahsildar of Nampally

Mandal, Hyderabad. She deposed as per the contents of their written statement.

9.The plaintiffs in their pleadings categorically pleaded that as per the revenue records the land in Sy. No. 100 is an Inam land and Inamdar of the land in Sy. No. 100 as shown as Ex.B.1 TSLR shows in column No. 10 17 //fair// os531of2007 the name of occupier by name HARIRAMGIR GOSANI’ in column No.20

Housing Board and column No. 22. Therefore, there is no dispute that the said property correlates to Sy. No. 100 of Nampally village and Mandal.

10.It is also the case of the defendant that as per Section 9 of Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act,1955 the possessors should file an application before the competent authority and obtain

Occupancy Rights Certificate. The crucial date of vesting as per Act is 01- 11-1973 and there is no record which shows that the plaintiffs were in possession over the said property on the date of vesting. Hence it is contended that the plaintiffs plea over the suit property is not tenable in the eye of law.

11.Here it is pertinent to mention that the Predecessors of the plaintiff have filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Hyderabad in form No.-I for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of suit schedule property. The learned Revenue Divisional

Officer has referred the matter to Mandal Revenue Officer, Nampally

Mandal for enquiry and report. After due enquiry by the Mandal Revenue

Officer, Nampally submitted his report after due inspection and found that the plaintiffs Predecessors were in continuous possession of the entire premises till date since more than 50 years. Thereafter the learned

Revenue Divisional Officer along with Mandal Revenue Officer also inspected the site and passed orders vide proceedings dt. 13-06-2006 which is Ex.A.16 wherein it has been categorically found that the suit schedule property is in possession of applicant. Since the schedule property is a building as such he required predecessors of the plaintiffs to approach competent authority for remedy. Thereupon the predecessors of the plaintiffs have filed W.P. No. 16831 of 2006 on the 18 //fair// os531of2007 file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring Ex.A.16 proceedings as arbitrary, illegal etc. The

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has disposed off the said Writ

petition with the following observations:- "A plain reading of the above provision would show that if a person who is owner of building as on the date of vesting, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act, without anything else, such property shall vest in the person who owned it before the date of vesting. In the case of agricultural land, however, Inamdar, Khabiz - e- Khadim, permanent tenant, protected Tenant or non-protected tenant shall have to be registered as occupants of the lands under relevant provisions after conducting enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer. No power is conferred on the Revenue Divisional Officer to register any person as an occupant if the land is nonagricultural land or land is used otherwise than for construction of a building. In this case, there is no denial that the petitioners are in possession of the building known as "Ali Cottage" and, therefore, under Section 9 (1) of the Act, that building vests in them. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is unexceptionable.

12.The order under Ex.A.17 of the Hon’ble High Court has become final. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the suit schedule building vested in the plaintiffs. Moreover, there is no denial that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule building known as “Ali Cottage”. By virtue of the said order passed by the Hon’ble High Court under Ex.A.17 the plaintiff predecessors were in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the property since 1941. The land and building vests in the capacity of the owner U/s.9 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Abolition of Inams

Act, the property vested on Taher Ali Khan and has become the owner of the property. The plaintiffs have also filed Exs.A.26 to A.29 Pahanies for the years 1965-66, 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74 in respect of old Sy. No.

100 of Nampally village. A perusal of the said record shows that the extent of the land in Sy. No. 100 is Ac. 03-30 Guntas and it is recorded as “

Inam Dasthgardhan” in column No. 12 in the name of ‘HARIRAMGIR

GOSANI’ in column No. 11 and it is shown as ‘Abadi’ in column No. 16. It 19 //fair// os531of2007 correlates to TSLR , TS No. 12, Block ‘E’, Ward No. 48 under Ex.B.1. There is no mention of either the Government or the Housing Board in the above said revenue records of Pahanies. P.w.1 was not cross-examined on the said revenue record by the defendants.

13.It is the contention of the defendants that as the plaintiffs failed to file a suit within three years of Gazette Notification U/s. 14 of the above said Act the suit is barred by limitation. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were served notice under the said Act enabling them to prefer an appeal. Admittedly they were in possession of the property since more than six decades. Ex.A.36 goes to show service of notice only on the Housing Board. Therefore, the plaintiffs or their predecessors have no opportunity of notice and consequently filing appeal U/s. 14 of the Act challenging the gazette notification does not arise. Here it is pertinent to mention that the defendant No.1 has not filed any documentary proof in respect of their pleadings and defendants 2 to 6 have filed only Ex.B.1 i.e. extract of

TSLR. D.w.2 in her cross examination categorically stated that “I have not filed any record to show that the notices were issued to the occupants of the suit schedule property. She also admits that as per their record, there are occupants for the last 70 years in the suit schedule property. Ex. A.36 is the notice issued under Form-38 only to the Chairman, Housing Board.

It is true that no notice of survey issued to the occupants of the suit schedule property. It is true that I have no personal knowledge about issuance of notice and other record from Survey and settlement department. It is true that even in the year 1966-67 there was a building in the suit schedule property.” In view of the above said admissions of

D.w.2 it is crystal clear that no notice was served upon the occupants of 20 //fair// os531of2007 the suit schedule property. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs can maintain a suit. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No.2:-

14.In the fore-going discussion it has been held that the plaintiffs predecessor were in possession of suit schedule building as on the date of vesting U/s. 9 of Abolition of Inams Act (Telangana Area) 1955. Ex. A.16 is the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad and the observation of the Hon’ble High Court in Ex.A.17 order the suit schedule property was vested with writ petitioners as on the date of vesting. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs are in possession. The plaintiffs or their predecessors in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property since 1942. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh also in LPA 33 of 1996 under Ex.A.22 found that the plaintiffs or their predecessors in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for over six decades and granted perpetual injunction against the defendants therein from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property.

15.The claim of defendant No.1 is that the plot No.2/East, M.J. Road which they are claimed it to be the same as the suit schedule property.

The claim of defendant No.1 is that the open plot was taken on lease by

Ali Brothers in 1948 from P.W.D. is the same as plot No.2/East and also i.e.

the same as the suit schedule property. As above discussed the defendant No.1 has not produced any documentary proof to show that the plot No.2/East is correlated to the open plot taken on lease by Ali

Brothers in 1948, or even to the suit schedule property. On the other hand, Ex. A.34 and A.35 the certified copies of the municipal town survey sheets clearly shows that there was no open land in or around the suit 21 //fair// os531of2007 schedule property. Ex.A.23 the certified copy of lease deed in Urdu between Ali Brothers Auctioneers and P.W.D. The defendant did not dispute the said document. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the said document does not give any information as regards to the identification of the land like boundaries, survey number, door numbers etc. On the other hand, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the property which was taken on lease under Ex.A.23 from P.W.D. was handed over to P.W.D. and they have also obtained acknowledgment under Ex.A.25. Thus Ex.A.25 clearly goes to show that the open plot/site which was obtained on lease by Ali Brothers was handed over to the Government. Thus from the documentary evidence available on hand, it is crystal clear that the listed property under Ex.A.23 which was redelivered to the Government has no correlation with the suit schedule property herein which is under the occupation of the plaintiffs and predecessors for more than 60 years. It is well settled principle of law that the entries in TSLR record will not confer any title with the Housing Board as held by Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 15438 of 2013 and batch dt. 28-04-2014. In the said decision various judgments of our own High Court and the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India have been referred on the said point. As

above said in support of Ex.B.1 the defendants have not produced any single document in support of their contention.

16.D.w.1 in his cross-examination deposed that “presently I have not seen any lease agreement executed by Ali Brothers Auctioneers in favour of first defendant. There is a record to show that the property let out to

Ali Brothers auctioneers on rent. Unless I verify the record, I cannot say whether it is an open plot or constructed property. Unless I verify the record, I cannot say which is the property leased out to Ali Brothers 22 //fair// os531of2007 auctioneers.” For non-producing any documentary proof an adverse inference shall be drawn against defendant No.1 U/s. 114(g) of Indian

Evidence Act that there is no lease deed in respect of suit schedule building and even if the same is produced the same goes against the case of defendant No.1. D.w.1 further admitted that he has not verified the records and he cannot say the boundaries of leased out property. He also deposed that “ I do not know whether any record is filed corresponding to door number given to the suit schedule property. I cannot say whether there is any specific record in respect of premises No. 5-4-367/1 to 3 with defendant No.1.. He also admits that it is true that Ex.A.25 is a letter written to the first defendant showing delivery of possession. It is true that the suit filed by the plaintiff in respect of door bearing No. 5-4-367/1 to 3 admeasuring 2300 sq. yards with specific boundaries with building and whereas Ex.A.25 does not mention the house number, boundaries and extent. He also admits that the suit pertains to Ali Cottage and

Ex.A.25 pertains to Ali Brothers. He also admits that Ex.A.25 pertains to the property covered under Ex.A.24 and that after Ex.A.25 was given to defendant No.1 came in possession of the property but the document is not in possession of defendant No.1. From the above said cross- examination, it is crystal clear that the subject matter of the leased property under Ex.A.24 and A.25 is distinguishable with the suit schedule property. In view of above admissions it is crystal clear that the defendant No.1 came into possession of the leased property covered by

Ex.A.24 and A.25. With the foregoing discussion and in view of the material available on record much less Exs. A.16 and A.17 it is crystal clear that the plaintiffs/their predecessors are in possession of the suit schedule property by the date of vesting under the provisions of Andhra 23 //fair// os531of2007

Pradesh (Telangana Area)Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 i.e. 01-11-1977 which is the vesting date. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Additional Issue No.3 & Issue No.3:-

17.The case of the plaintiff is that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 60 years. The suit schedule property is a part of old Sy. No. 100 of Nampally village and as per revenue record and land records it is an Inam land. Consequent to

Abolition of Inams by virtue of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)

Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 all inam lands got vested with the State.

However by virtue of Section 9 of the said Act owner of the building in

Inam land as on the date of vesting is entitled to ownership over such building without obtaining any grant. As per the orders in Ex.A.17 of the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition the suit schedule

building is vested U/s. 9 of the Act with the plaintiff and their predecessors in title. Now it is the specific case of the plaintiff that since the plaintiffs and their fore-fathers have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 1936, the plaintiffs have perfected title by adverse possession as against the erstwhile Inamdar by name HARIRAMGIR GOSANI’ even before the advent of the said Act i.e.

by 1955 itself.

18.Here it is important to mention that earlier to this suit, the father of plaintiffs late Mir Taher Ali Khan filed O.S.277 of 1984 on the file of

Additional Chief Judge cum First Additional Special Judge for SPE and

ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad against the defendants herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit property.

Admittedly the said suit was dismissed by the trial court so also the 24 //fair// os531of2007

Hon’ble Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court has dismissed the CCCA No.

10 of 1987. But on appeal it was partly decreed to the extent of injunctive relief in LPA No. 33 of 1996 as per Ex.A.22 certified copy of order in LPA No. 33 of 1996. In the said LPA, a finding was recorded that late Mir Taher Ali Khan has failed to establish title to the suit property through his father Mir Hasan Ali Khan. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title on the ground that they have perfected title by adverse possession on account of their open, continuous possession over the suit schedule property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that some time in 1358 Fasli ( 1949 A.D.) the erstwhile

Government of Hyderabad has issued land acquisition notification whereunder some properties situated on Mukarram Jahi Road was acquired for the purpose of constructing Central Secretariat offices and

Assembly Hall but the notification does not contain premises number, survey number or extent of the properties. Based upon the property so acquired second defendant has issued G.O. Ms. No.361 dt. 21-02-963 allotting the vacant sites and buildings abutting Mukarram Jahi Road on both sides to the first defendant Housing Board. The Government also issued another G.O.Ms. No. 1940 dt. 03-08-1965 which are marked as Exs.

A.10 and A.11. A perusal of these documents, it reveals that they did not specifically describe the properties that were acquired and allotted to the first defendant Housing Board. Basing on Exs.A.10 and A.11 G.Os. the defendant No.1 contending that it has become owner in respect of that property that was allotted to it and it had initiated certain proceedings for eviction of unauthorized occupants and tenants before the competent authority under Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act by invoking Section 52 of the said Act. One such eviction case was filed 25 //fair// os531of2007 against Ali Brothers in case No.152/CA1/1968 and an order of eviction was passed by the competent authority.

19.Now it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they came to know that there was a de-notification of land acquisition proceedings by the then Hyderabad Government as per Gazette dt. 19-07-1951 at

Notification No. 178 dt. 28-06-1951 which is marked as Ex.A.15. In the said de-notification/withdrawal it is stated that earlier land acquisition notifications are withdrawn. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendants are not having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property in view Ex.A.15 denotification.

20.Now coming to cross-examination of D.w.1, it appears that the defendant No.1 is claiming the property based on Ex.A.10 and A.11 G.Os.

However, he do not know when the Government has acquired the plots and sites as mentioned in Ex.A.10. D.w.1 also admits that in Ex.A.10 and

A.11 boundaries are not mentioned and that Exs.A.12 to A.14 have been de-notified under Ex.A.15. He also admits that the properties covered under Ex.A.12 to A.14 is the same property now defendant No.1 is claiming under Exs.A.10 and A.11. Exs.A.12 to A.14 are the land acquisition gazette notifications bearing No. 25, 24 and 13 respectively.

21.The previous suit vide O.S. No. 277 of 1984 was filed by claiming declaration of title by virtue of oral gift but the plaintiff therein failed to prove the title right from the trial court to LPA No. 33 of 1996 on the file of Hon’ble High Court. Ex. A.22 is the order in LPA No. 33 of 1996 dt. 23- 08-2007. The operative portion of the judgment in the said LPA is as under:- “In these circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the Judgment of the trial court and learned Single Judge to the extent of dismissal of suit for injunction and uphold the decree 26 //fair// os531of2007 with respect to the declaration and pass a decree to the effect that the appellants shall not be dispossessed from the property in question, except through due process of law. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that already eviction orders have been passed. If that is so, respondents shall be at liberty to get the orders executed in accordance with law. If the appellants have got any remedies against such orders, they are also at liberty to take such remedies.”

22. The contention of the plaintiffs is that in pursuance of the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court in the above said LPA that the appellant therein work out their remedies as available under law as such the present suit has been filed seeking declaration of title and injunction since the plaintiff subsequently came to know about de- notification of the land acquisition proceedings under Ex.A.15 and claiming title by adverse possession. Here it is pertinent to mention that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad has passed order under

Ex.A.16 on 17-06-2006 and the Writ Petition filed by the plaintiffs predecessors vide W.P. No.16831 of 2006 was disposed off on 08-09-2006 under Ex.A.17. As above discussed, as per Ex.A.17 of the Hon’ble High

Court, the suit schedule property i.e. building vested in the plaintiffs. The said pleas were not available to the plaintiffs in the earlier suit. Though it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs were in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit schedule building for more than six decades. As per the evidence available on record all the defendants have also not disputed the said fact. In view of the findings of the Hon’ble High Court in

Ex.A.17 the plaintiffs and their predecessors have became the owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Now the point for consideration is whether the suit for declaration of title basing on adverse possession is maintainable or not? As per the decision of 27 //fair// os531of2007

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2001) 2 SCC 498 between

Balakrishan vs. Satya Prakash and Others and (2) 2007 (9) SCC 641 between Des Raj vs. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by L.Rs. the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India held that a suit for declaration of title is maintainable basing on adverse possession. But recently in 2014 (2) ALD 3 (SC) the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:-

“The declaration of ownership by adverse possession not maintainable even plaintiff found to be in adverse possession.”

It was also further held that :- “only proceedings filed against the plaintiff and plaintiff arrayed as defendant that it can used adverse possession as shield/defence.”

23.In view of the above said legal position and in view of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is crystal clear that the declaration of ownership/title by adverse possession cannot be granted to the plaintiff. However it is always open to the plaintiff to use it as a shield/defence. Apart from that in view of the order passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide Ex.A.17, the plaintiffs became

owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of Section 9 of Andhra

Pradesh (Telangana Area) Inams Abolition Act. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiffs herein cannot be granted the relief of declaration of title/ownership in respect of suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.

Issue No.5:-

24.Ex. A.22 judgment in LPA No. 33 of 1996 was delivered on 23-08- 2007 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The present sit was filed on 17-09-2007 i.e. present suit is filed within one 28 //fair// os531of2007 month of passing of judgment under Ex. A.22. The contention of the defendants is that the sit is barred by limitation but they have not filed any cogent evidence to prove this issue. Moreover in the foregoing issue it has been held that as no notice was served on the plaintiffs or their predecessors under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and

Boundaries Act, therefore, the question of filing of an appeal U/s. 14 of the said Act within three years of Gazette Notification does not arise.

Hence viewing from any angle this court finds that the defendants have miserably failed to prove that the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly this issue is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.

Issue No.6:-

25.The defendant No.1 has taken a defence that the present suit is hit by the principle resjudicata as enumerated U/s. 11 of CPC in view of earlier judgment and decree in O.S. 299 of 1984 filed by Mir Taher Ali

Khan for the relief of declaration, possession and permanent injunction.

The burden of proof lies on the defendants to prove that the present suit is hit by the principles of resjudicata. Admittedly the defendants have not filed the pleadings, issues involved in the suit and the judgment thereon in the earlier suit. That the plaintiff though filed only certified copy of pleadings in the above suit under Exs.A.6 to A.8. Now a perusal of Ex.A.6 the pleadings goes to show that the plaintiff therein Mir Taher Ali Khan the father of plaintiffs herein filed the above suit seeking declaration of title basing on oral gift. But the said suit was dismissed and later admittedly the appeal also dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and the

Hon’ble High Court on appeal under Ex.A.22 judgment in LPA passed

confirming of judgment of the trial court regarding dismissal for the 29 //fair// os531of2007 relief of declaration of title however granted permanent injunction against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs not to dispossess him and held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the schedule property for more than 60 years. Now the burden is on the defendants to demonstrate before this court that the present suit filed by the plaintiffs is similar to the claim made in the formal suit and the issues in which the matter directly or substantially in issue in the former suit between the same parties. A perusal of Ex.A.6 plaint pleadings reveal that the plaintiff therein late Mir Taher Ali Khan claimed title over the suit schedule property by way of oral gift made by his father late Mir Hasan Ali Khan who executed an agreement dt. 30 Mehar 1340 Fasli in favour of plaintiff as such the plaintiff’s possession is continuous since 19-06-1936 which constituted cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit against the defendants therein for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Undoubtedly the defendant No.1 has not filed the copy of judgment and certified copy of issues involved in the above suit to demonstrate in this suit what were the issues framed by the court in formal proceedings. In Isher Singh vs. Sarvan Singh AIR 1965

SC 948 it was held that :-

“The effect of resjudicata is, however, confined to the matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former litigation inter parties. What was directly and substantially in issue in the first application made by the landlords? The question has to be decided on the pleadings, the issues and the findings given in that case.”

26. As above discussed the defendant No.1 has miserably failed to file the issues and finding given to the issues in the former suit. Therefore, in view of the above said decision, it is crystal clear that the defendant No.1 30 //fair// os531of2007 has miserably failed to prove the principles of resjudicata. Further more the plaintiffs in this case have pleaded the notification proceedings,

Gazette Notification for land acquisition under Exs. A.10 to A.14 and de- notification of land acquisition proceedings under Ex.A.15 etc. These pleadings were not available in the former suit. Moreover there is also no pleadings in the former suit with regard to filing of application before

Revenue Divisional Officer for grant of occupancy certificate and passing of orders under Ex.A.16 and challenging the said order in W.P. No. 16831 of 2006 on the file of Hon’ble High Court under Ex.A.17 etc. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case it appears that the issues involved in the former suit and in the present suit are different and distinct. The plaintiffs in this case also categorically contended that consequent upon

Abolition of Inams the defendants 1 to 6 have no title to the property in view of vesting the suit schedule property in the plaintiffs as per Ex.A.17 and in view of de-notification under Ex.A.15. Moreover the earlier suit was based on oral gift and the present suit is based on adverse possession. In R. Ganapathy Goundar vs. The State of Madras represented by Collector & Another AIR 1960 MADRAS 194 it was held that:- “ for the principle of resjudicata to apply, there must be an identity of issue to be tried and the issue must have been decided on the merits in the previous proceedings. So also there can be no resjudicata regarding a cause of action that has arisen subsequent to the previous suit.”

27.The above said judgment squarely applicable to the present facts of the case since the present suit has been filed based on new cause of action i.e. Exs. A.16, A.17 and A.22. Similarly in Baidyanath Rai and another vs. Satyanarain Rai and other AIR 1960 PATNA 36 it was held that :- 31 //fair// os531of2007 “ In order to attract the applicability of S.11 not only the matter must be directly and substantially in issue in both the suits but must also be litigated under the same title in a court of competent jurisdiction. It is not the subject matter of the litigation which determines the applicability of the principle of resjudicata but the identity of the title which forms the foundation of the claim. “

In Korin v. Indian Cables Co. Ltd. and others AIR 1978 SUPREME

COURT 312 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:- “ Nature of defendants’ interest in disputed plots at the time of subsequent title suit changed from that at the time of earlier title suit. Findings in earlier suit will not operate as resjudicata.”

28.In this case in view of de-notification under Ex.A.15 the defendants have no title or right whatsoever over the suit schedule property.

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of above said decisions, this court finds that basically the defendants have miserably failed to prove that the present suit is hit by principles of resjudicata and on the other hand on merits this court finds that the present suit is not hit by principles of resjudicata in view of issues involved in both the suits are different and cause of action also different and distinct. Accordingly this issue is answered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs.

Additional Issue No.1:-

29. On behalf of plaintiff, P.w.1 is examined and filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination wherein he reiterated the plaint averments besides producing documentary evidence under Exs. A.1 to A.36. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the erstwhile Government of

Hyderabad had issued land acquisition notifications whereunder some properties situated Mukarram Jahi Road was acquired for the purpose of constructing Central Secretariat offices and Assembly Hall but these 32 //fair// os531of2007 notifications did not contain either the names or the survey number or extent of the properties acquired. The said acquisition proceedings are marked as Exs. A.12 to A.14. Based on the said proceedings the second defendant has issued G.O. Ms. No. 361 dt. 21-02-1963 and G.O. Ms.

No.1940 dt. 03-08-1965 under Exs.A.10 and A.11 allotting vacant sites and buildings abutting Mukarram Jahi Road on both sides to the defendant No.1. The contention of the defendant No.1 is that based upon Exs.A.10 and A.11 the defendant No.1 has become owner in respect of property that was allotted to it and initiated eviction proceedings U/s.

52 of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956. Now the specific case of the plaintiff is that the Government has denotified the earlier land acquisition notification as per Gazette No. 29 dt. 19-07-1951 Notification

No. 178 dt. 28-06-1951 which is marked as Ex.A.15. D.w.1 in his cross- examination categorically admitted that the defendant No.1 is claiming the property based on Exs.A.10 and A.11 and that he do not know when the Government has acquired the buildings and sites as mentioned in Ex.

A.10. It is elicited from D.w.1 that there is no mention in Ex.A.10 and A.11 the total extent, area, survey number, door numbers, boundaries etc. and that there will be a plan whenever the property is allotted to the Housing

Board. Admittedly the defendant No.1 has not produced any document substantiating their claim. D.w.1 also admits that whenever the allotment is made there will be delivery of possession and handing over of possession to the Housing Board and that he do not know whether there is any record except Exs.A.10 and A.11 to show the suit schedule property was allotted to the Housing Board i.e. defendant No.1. He also admits that whenever possession is delivered the staff will prepare panchnama and sketch plan showing giving and taking over possession. He also 33 //fair// os531of2007 admits that the property covered under Exs. A.12 to A.14 Gazette

Notifications, the defendant No.1 is claiming the same property under

Exs.A.10 and A.11 notifications. He also categorically admits that

Exs.A.12 to A.14 have been de-notified under Ex.A.15. D.w.1 further admits that in Exs.A.10 and A.11, there is no mention of survey number under which land and building said to have been given to the first defendant and that the survey numbers and boundaries are required to locate the property and that they have not produced any document with regard to identity of suit schedule property except Exs.A.10 and A.11.

Thus, from the above said cross-examination of D.w.1 it is crystal clear that the Gazette Notifications issued under Exs.A.12 to A.14 have been de-notified by virtue of Ex.A.15. Thus, it is the contention of the plaintiffs that in view of de-notification of land acquisition proceedings under Ex.A.15 that Exs. A.10 and A.11 G.Os have become invalid and nullity and that the alleged title that was passed on under Exs.A.10 and

A.11 in favour of defendant No.1 stood divested. Consequently the claim of defendant No.1 under the said G.Os become invalid and incompetent.

Inspite of specific pleading by the plaintiffs about de-notification, the defendant No.1 in their written statement has not specifically denied about de-notification i.e. Ex.A.15. In JASPAL KAUR CHEEMA AND

ANOTHER VS. INDUSTRIAL TRADE LINKS AND OTHERS (2017) 8

Supreme Court cases 592 it was held that :- “Under Order 8 Rule 3 and 5 the defendant in written statement must categorically deny or dispute averments made in the plaint, as evasive denial would amount to an admission of the allegation made in the plaint.”

In this case, there is no evasive denial or specific denial with regard to

Ex.A.15 de-notification. Therefore, in view of the above said decision, it 34 //fair// os531of2007 would amount to admission of allegation made in the plaint with regard to de-notification.

30.P.w.1 was cross-examined by the defendants and P.w.1 in his cross- examination categorically stated that he is aware of the contents of G.Os i.e. Ex.A.10 and A.11 and that the property was never taken from them and that he is not aware of the proceedings for de-notification. He categorically denies the suggestion that the de-notification is not valid since the proceeding is not valid. The defendant No.1 did not dispute the extent of the property covered by land acquisition proceedings including de-notification proceedings. A perusal of the cross-examination of P.w.1 by defendant No.1 goes to show that the first limb of the cross- examination refers that the Gazette Notification does not pertain to the suit schedule property and the second limb of the cross-examination goes to show that proceeding is not valid for de-notification. Thus on the face of record it appears that the defendant No.1 had taken inconsistent stand in respect of notifications as well as de-notification under Exs.A.12 to A.15. Even the evidence of D.w.1 who deposed on behalf of defendant

No.1 goes to show that he did not deny the notifications under Exs. A.12 to A.14 and de-notification under Ex.A.15.

31.The admissions made by D.w.1 in his cross-examination evident that the notifications issued under Exs.A.12 to A.14 have been withdrawn under Ex.A.15 de-notification.

32.Now the simple point for consideration is whether by virtue of

Exs.A.10 and A.11 G.Os issued by the Government whether defendant

No.1 became owner of the property?In view of de-notification of the earlier proceedings by virtue ofEx.A.15 the defendant No.2 has no right or title to allot the properties to defendant No.1 by virtue of Ex.A.10 and 35 //fair// os531of2007

A.11 G.Os. In other words, no title has been passed under the G.O’s vide

Exs.A.10 and A.11 in favour of defendant No.1 and consequently the claim of defendant No.1 that they are owners of suit schedule property cannot be accepted as no title has been passed.

33.The defendant No.1 in their written arguments submitted that the suit schedule property originally the property of the Government and the same was transferred to Housing Board under the above said two G.Os

Exs.A.10 and A.11 and the same was duly handed over to the Housing

Board. Admittedly no document is filed to show handing over the property to the Housing Board. On the other hand, the learned Revenue

Divisional Officer, Hyderabad as well as the Hon’ble High Court under

Ex.A.22 found that the plaintiffs or their predecessors are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property for more than 60 years. It is further submitted on behalf of defendant No.1 that at the time of handing over of the property to the Housing Board the same was in possession of plaintiff’s father as tenants of the Government and as such the plaintiffs have any right or title over the suit schedule property except as a tenant. It is further submitted the plaintiffs and their predecessors have committed default of rents and they have filed case

No. 152/CA-1/68, dt. 26-12-1979 on the file of competent authority U/s.

52 of Housing Board Act, 1956 and the same was allowed directing the eviction. It is also further submitted that aggrieved by the same, late

Taher Ali Khan filed CMA No. 127 of 1980 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide CMA No. 127 of 1980 dt. 14-07-1981. It is further submitted that late Mir Taher Ali Khan filed W.P. No. 507 of 1963 in the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was disposed off by an order dt. 15-12-1964 with a finding that the 36 //fair// os531of2007 learned counsel for the petitioners have to execute lease deeds because the Housing Board is the present landlord. The defendants have not produced any document with regard to Ex.A.10, the order passed in CMA and also orders passed in the above W.P. Here it is not out of place to mention that in the foregoing paras it has been held that the plaintiffs have taken the open land from P.w.2 under Ex.A.24 and thereafter hand over possession to the Housing Board under Ex.A.25. The defendant No1 has miserably failed to prove that the subject matter of Ex.A. 24 and P.25 and the present suit schedule property is one and the same. Moreover as per Ex.A.34 and A.35 municipal survey plan shows that there is no open land in the vicinity. The defendant did not file any documentary proof to show that the order passed in eviction case No. 152/CA/1/68 is binding on the plaintiff and the same is in respect of suit schedule property. As above discussed, Exs.A.16 and A.17 proceedings of the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Hyderabad and the order in W.P. No. 16831 of 2006 of

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh clearly establishes that the suit

schedule building vested in them i.e. predecessors of the plaintiff. The contention of the defendant No.1 is that they are not parties to the above said writ petition as such the said order is not binding on them. But the said contention cannot be accepted since the said order has become final. Moreover, Government is a party to the said proceedings and they did not dispute the said order. Therefore, it is also binding on them. The defendant No.1 claiming the property through defendant No.2

Government. When the said order under Ex.A.17 is binding on the defendant No.2 the same also binding on the defendant No.1 since defendant No.1 do not have any independent title over the property and they are claiming the same by virtue of Exs.A.10 and A.11.

37 //fair// os531of2007

34.A perusal of Exs.A.10 and A.11 G.O’s issued by the Government buildings and sites acquired by the Government in Mukarramjahi road for the construction of Secretariat building and allotment to the Housing

Board-orders issued. Both the G.Os refer to the buildings and sites which are alleged to have been acquired by the Government under Exs. A.13 and A.14 Gazette Notification. Ex. A.15 is the land acquisition de- notification Gazette dt. 19-07-1951 de-notifying the proposed land in acquisition for Central Secretariat and Assembly Hall on Mukarramjahi road. Thus it is evident that the defendant No.1 has no title to the property. The record shows that the possession of suit schedule property never been handed over to the defendant No.1 at any time. Since the defendant No.1 has no title over the suit schedule property, therefore any eviction proceedings initiated or orders passed by the competent authority is a nullity and not binding on the plaintiffs or suit schedule property.

35.With the foregoing discussion and in view of the material evidence available on hand, this court finds that the defendants 1and 2 have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A.15 de-notification. Accordingly this issue is answered against the defendants.

Issue No.4:-

As a result, the suit is partly decreed declaring that the defendants do not have any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property consequent upon issuance of de-notification of the Land Acquisition

Notifications. It is further declared that the order of eviction passed by the defendant No.1 in case No. 152/CA1/1963 is not executable and not binding on the plaintiffs or the suit schedule property. Further perpetual 38 //fair// os531of2007 injunction is granted restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property.

The suit is partly dismissed with regard to declaration that the plaintiffs have perfected title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. There is no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 31st day of March, 2018.

X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

PlaintiffsDefendants

P.w.1:-Syed Baderuddin.D.w.1:- P. Krishnaiah. D.w.2:- R. Premlatha.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Plaintiffs

Ex. A-1:-General Power of Attorney dt. 12-10-2003. Ex. A-2:-Copy of paper publication of the Rahbare Deccan, Urdu daily Newspaper, Hyderabad dated 19.10.1940. Ex. A-3:- Certified copy of paper publication of Subhe Deccan, Urdu Daily Newspaper, Hyderabad dated 22.8.1941. Ex. A-4:- Certified copy of paper publication of Nizam Gazette, Urdu Daily Newspaper. Ex. A-5:- Copy of paper publication of Deccan Chronicle – Hyderabad English daily newspaper dt.14.1.1997. Ex. A-6:- Certified Copy of plaint in OS No.277 of 1984 on the file of IV Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Ex. A-7:-Certified Copy of written statement of defendant no.1 in OS No.106 of 1976 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Ex. A-8:-Certified Copy of written statement of defendant no.2 in OS No.106 of 1976 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Ex. A-9:- Certified Copy of rejoinder of plaintiffs in OS No.106 of 1976 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

39 //fair// os531of2007

Ex. A-10:-Certified Copy of GO Ms No.361 dated 21.2.1963. Ex. A-11:- Certified Copy of GO MS No.1940, dated 3.8.1965. Ex. A-12:-Certified Copy of notice issued under land acquisition Gazette Notification No.25 dated 12th Khurdad 1348 F. Ex. A-13:-Certified Copy of notice issued under land acquisition Gazette Notification No.24. Ex. A-14:-Certified Copy of notice issued under land acquisition Gazette Notification No.13 dated 27 Bahman, 1358 F. Ex. A-15:-Certified Copy of the land acquisition de-notification No.29

dated 19.7.1951.

Ex. A-16:-Certified Copy proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. Ex. A-17:-Certified Copy of order in WP No.16831 of 2006 passed by the

Hon’ble Sri Justice VVS Rao – grant of occupancy rights u/s 9 of

the Inams Abolition Act dt. 8-992006. Ex. A-18:- Office copy of legal notice issued to defendant no.1 and 2 dt. 17.4.2007. Ex. A-19:- Under certificate of posting dt. 17.4.2007. Ex. A-20:-Under certificate of posting dt 17.4.2007. Ex. A-21:- Market value certificate. Ex. A-22:-Certified Copy of Judgment in LPA No.33 of 1996 dt. 23-08- 2007 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Ex. A-23:- Certified Copy of lease (in Urdu). Ex. A-24:- English translation of Ex. A-23. Ex. A-25:- Certified Copy of possession of delivery letter by Ali Brothers to defendant No.1. Ex. A.26:- Pahani Patrik for the year 1965-66. Ex. A.27:- Pahani Patrik for the year 1970-71. Ex. A.28:- Pahani Patrik for the year 1972-73. Ex. A.29:- Pahani Patrik for the year 1973-74. Ex. A.30:- Copy of sale deed dt. 27-10-2014. Ex. A .31:-Copy of sale deed dt.17-10-2014. Ex. A.32:-Copy of sale deed dt.28-10-2014. Ex. A.33:- Copy of sale deed dt.29-10-2014. Ex. A.34:- Copy of municipal plan survey sheet. Ex. A.35:- Copy of municipal plan survey sheet.

Defendants :-

Ex. B.1:- Town Survey Land Record Register.

X ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.1 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE & ACB CASES: HYDERABAD

Dated this the 31st day of March, 2023.

Present:Sri G.Raja Gopal,

Principal Special Judge for trial of

SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

CALENDAR CASE No.19 of 2014

Name of the Complainant: The State through Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, City Range-II, Hyderabad.

Crime No.: Cr.No.09/ACB-CR-2/2013.

Offence: The charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Name of the Accused Officer: Avula Prasad

Plea of the Accused Officer: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found guilty.

Result: AO is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act,1988 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

AO is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act,1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Similarly, AO is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.2 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Total fine amount is Rs.10,000/-. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently for AO.

The remand period already undergone by AO (ie., from 22.04.2013 to 14.05.2013) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

MO1 tainted currency of Rs.20,000/- shall be confiscated to State and other non-valuable material objects ie., MOs.2 to 10 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

AO is informed that an appeal lies to the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

Name and particulars of Avula Prasad, Accused Officers S/o.Late.A.Bolli Kondappa, Aged about 57 years, Occ:S.I.of Police, P.S.Abids, Hyderabad City, R/o.H.No.11-10-231, Road No.2, Vijaypuri Colony, Kothapet, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27.03.2023 in the presence of Smt.K.Rajani, learned Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, Hyderabad and Sri.P.Vara Prasad, learned Counsel for AO, upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.3 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, City Range-2, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against AO for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act No.48 of 1988) (here-in-after will be referred as ‘P.C.Act’ for convenience) in Crime No.9/ACB-CR2/2013.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet is as under:

AO worked as Sub Inspector of Police in Abids Police Station,

Hyderabad from 04.09.2008 to 21.04.2013. By virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of ‘public servant’ as defined under

Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act.

3.PW1 Sri.K.Madhava Reddy is working as Assistant Executive

Engineer, Western Division, A.P.Housing Board (APHB), Kukatpally for the past five months prior to the complaint and he is the General Secretary of

Telangana Housing Board Engineers Association. On 08.04.2013 PW1 visited the Head Office, APHB, Gruhakalpa Building to meet the Secretary,

APHB for the purpose of their promotions from A.E./A.E.E. to Dy.Executive

Engineer. When he was in Peshi of the Secretary, Smt.Jayalaxmi came there and abused PW1 as leaders are thieves, on that PW1 asked why she was abusing him and in the meantime the Secretary intervened and pacified the issue and they went away. On the same day, Smt.Jayalaxmi lodged a complaint against PW1 in Police Station Abids, Hyderabad which

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.4 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 was registered as case in Crime No.121 of 2013 under Sections 506, 509

IPC. On 09.04.2013, AO contacted PW1 over his cell phone bearing

No.9652234013 through his mobile phone 9490616852 and asked him to come to Police Station, Abids as a case was already registered, on which

PW1 surrendered before the learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad at Nampally and obtained bail on 12.04.2013. AO contacted

PW1 over cell phone on 13.04.2013 and demanded bribe amount for not adding Section 354 IPC and also not to inform about his involvement in criminal case to his Department and AO also asked PW1 to come to nearby

Traffic Police Station at Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad in between 2.00 to 3.00 PM. Accordingly PW1 met AO and paid bribe of Rs.7,000/-, on that AO demanded bribe amount of Rs.30,000/-, including Rs.7,000/-. PW1 informed that he can not afford to pay and went away. On 18.04.2013 AO asked PW1 over his cell phone no.9440946826 to be available at his Head

Office on the same day for investigation purpose. AO visited Head Office of PW1, recorded the evidence of witnesses in the above case. Further AO demanded bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- at his office and threatened that if he did not pay the bribe amount he would add Section 354 IPC and also intimate his involvement in the above case to the Department of PW1 and that case will be kept pending until the bribe amount is paid. On repeated requests of PW1, AO reduced the bribe amount to Rs.20,000/- and also informed to him that AO will contact PW1 through phone about the payment of bribe within three days.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.5 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

4.As PW1 was not interested to give the bribe amount of

Rs.20,000/- to AO, therefore on 20.04.2013 at 5.00 PM he approached the

DSP, ACB, CR-2, Hyderabad and presented a report for necessary action against the AO as per law and the same was endorsed to the Inspector of

Police for verification. After due verification, on 21.01.2013 at 08.30 AM a case was registered in Crime No.9/ACB-RCT-CR2/2013 under Sec.7 of the

P.C.Act by PW8 DSP, ACB, CR-2 and proposed to lay a trap against AO.

5.On the day of trap, PW1 made a phone call to AO and asked about the place where he would meet the AO to give the demanded bribe amount of Rs.20,000/-. AO informed that he will come to Parking Place at

Ramakrishna Cinema Hall within one hour and instructed him to meet at the said place. PW1 left the DSP, ACB Office at 2.45 PM in his car towards

Parking Place of Ramakrishna Cinema Hall and the ACB trap party also followed him. PW1 parked his car in the Parking Place at Ramakrishna

Cinema Hall at 2.55 PM. The trap party took vantage positions in and around Ramakrishna Cinema Hall. AO came on a motorcycle in mufti and stopped infront of PW1. Then PW1 gave bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- at 3.15 PM on the demand of AO with his left hand, AO took the bribe amount with his right hand and kept the same in his left side shirt pocket. The sodium carbonate test conducted over the both hand fingers of AO and the right hand fingers yielded positive result. The chemical test conducted on the inner flap of the front left side shirt pocket and on the leather cell phone pouch which came into contact with the tainted bribe amount also

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.6 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 yielded positive results. AO was arrested at 9.40 AM on 22.04.2013 and forwarded him for judicial remand. During the course of investigation, the

DSP has recorded the statement of PW1 and collected documentary evidence.

6.The AO has demanded and accepted bribe amount of

Rs.20,000/- from PW1 on 21.04.2013 at vehicle parking place of

Ramakrishna 70MM Cinema Hall for not adding Sec.354 IPC to Crime

No.121 of 2013 under Secs.506, 509 IPC of Police Station Abids,in which

PW1 is accused and also for not informing about his involvement in the above criminal case to the Department of PW1. Hence, the AO committed an offence punishable under Sections 7,13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1988.

7.The Government of Telangana being the competent authority to remove the AO from service accorded sanction for prosecution of AO in a court of law for the aforesaid offences vide G.O.Ms.No.02 dt.01.07.2014

Home Department.

8.Cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C.Act against the AO.

9.On appearance of AO before this Court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.7 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the material before this Court,

AO was examined under Section 240 of Cr.P.C. by explaining accusation levelled in brief, for which he denied the same. Therefore, charges for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act were framed as follows:

“Firstly, that you AO Sri.Avula Prasad, son of late Sri.A.Bolli Kondappa, aged about 57 years, having worked as the SI of Police, Abids Police Station, Hyderabad from 4/9/2008 to 21/4/2013, on 13/4/2013 demanded the defacto complainant Sri.Kaukuntla Madhava Reddy, a bribe of Rs.30,000/- and subsequently repeated the demand, but on the imploration of the said Sri Kaukuntla Madhava Reddy reduced the bribe to Rs.25,000/- on 18/4/2013 and further reduced to Rs.20,000/- and finally on 21/4/2013 at about 15.15 hours at the vehicle parking place of Ramakrishna 70MM Cinema Hall near the southern side out gate of the complex towards Abids, M.J.Market, Hyderabad demanded and accepted a bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- from the above said person as a motive or reward for yourself as gratification other than legal remuneration, to do an official act, ie., for not adding the section 354 IPC to the Cr.No.121/2013 registered under sections 506 and 509 IPC of the police station, Abids, Hyderabad, in which the defacto complainant Sri Kaukuntla Madhava Reddy is the accused and also for not informing about his involvement in a criminal case to the department and thereby you (AO) committed the offence of ‘public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act’ punishable under sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.

Secondly & Lastly: That you (AO) being the public servant employed as the SI of Police, Abids Police Station, Hyderabad from 4/9/2008 to 21/4/2013 on 21/4/2013 at about 15.15 hours at the vehicle parking place of Ramakrishna 70 MM Cinema Hall near the southern side out gate of the complex towards Abids, M.J.Market, Hyderabad, by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing your official position as a public

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.8 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 servant and without any public interest obtained a valuable thing and pecuniary advantage in the shape of an illegal gratification for yourself to an amount of Rs.20,000/- from the defacto complainant Sri Kaukuntla Madhava Reddy to do an official act ie., for not adding the section 354 IPC to the Cr.No.121/2013 registered under sections 506 and 509 IPC of the police station, Abids, Hyderabad, in which the defacto complainant Sri Kaukuntla Madhava Reddy is the accused and also for not informing about his involvement in a criminal case to the department, and thereby you (AO) committed the offence of ‘criminal misconduct by a public servant’ punishable under sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.”

The above said charges have been read over and explained to AO. He denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10.During the course of trial, PW1 to PW10 are examined, Exs.P1 to

P16 and M.Os.1 to 10 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. Exs.D1 to

D5 are marked on behalf of the AO by way of confrontation through cross- examination of PW1. After closure of the prosecution evidence, AO is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution.

AO denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf and he has chosen to file written statement.

During the course of examination under Sec.313 of CrPC, AO stated that he did not demand bribe from PW1 and he himself stuffed the bribe in his left side shirt pocket and that the DSP did not incorporate his true version in the post-trap proceedings.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.9 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

11.Heard arguments from both sides. Prosecution and AO filed

Written Arguments.

12.Now the points that arise for consideration in this case are:

1) Whether the prosecution has proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by AO from PW1, as alleged?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

P.C.Act, 1988 against the AO beyond reasonable doubt?

3) To what relief?

POINTS NOs.1 & 2:

13.Points Nos.1 and 2 are inter-related with each other, as such both points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.

14.As aforesaid, to substantiate the case of prosecution, as many

as 10 witnesses, in all, are examined. PW1 is the defacto complainant who

set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report before the DSP,

ACB, CR-2 on 20.04.2013 at 5.00 PM. PW2 is one of the mediators to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. PW3 is S.I.of Police and owner of vehicle bearing No.AP-09CP-6409 who deposed about using of the said vehicle at the time of trap by AO. PW4 is SHO of P.S. Abids who deposed about circulation of pending official favour file (Ex.P6). PW5 is the Station

Writer of P.S. Abids who speaks about official favour pending file kept on

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.10 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 the table of SHO from drawer of AO and seizure of the same by the ACB officials. PW6 is one of the mediators to the documents under Exs.P7 to

P10. PW7 is Section Officer of Home Department deposed about the sanction order. PW8 is the then DSP, ACB, CR, Hyderabad who is a trap laying officer. PW9 is the then Inspector of Police, ACB, CR2, Hyderabad who deposed about seizure of official favour file and PW10 is the subsequent Investigating Officer and filed charge sheet.

15.The story of the prosecution as unfolded the testimony of witnesses, in brief, is as under:

PW1 deposed that he worked as Assistant Executive Engineer in

APHB, Western Division, Kukatpaly in the year 2013 and at that time he was General Secretary of Telangana Engineers Association, Housing Board.

On 08.04.2013 he visited the Head Office at Gruhakalpa Building to meet secretary, APHB for promotion. When he entered the office the Estate

Officer Smt.Jayalaxmi was present and she abused leaders as thieves.

When he questioned her there was an altercation took place. Meanwhile, the Secretary intervened and pacified the matter and he left that place. On 09.04.2013 morning hours, AO being the S.I.of Police, Abids Police Station telephoned him and informed that a criminal case was booked against him in Cr.No.121 of 2013 under sections 506, 509 IPC and asked him to meet, but PW1 did not go to police station and, on the other hand, he surrendered before the learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s

Court Hyderabad and obtained bail on 12.04.2013. On 13.04.2013 at 1.30

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.11 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

PM AO telephoned him and asked to meet him at Traffic Police Station,

M.J.Market at 2.00 PM. On the same day, at about 2.00 PM, accordingly he met the AO and AO took PW1 aside and informed that he booked a case for the offence under Sec.354 IPC and also intimated the same to the

Department about the registration of the case. When PW1 asked AO, he asked Rs.30,000/- and PW1 informed that he had no such amount and handed over Rs.7,000/- to AO. But the AO insisted him to pay entire amount of Rs.30,000/- including the said Rs.7,000/- and PW1 left the place.

16.Again on 18.04.2013, AO telephoned to PW1 and informed that he was coming to Head Office for investigation and asked PW1 to be available. In the presence of PW1, 2 or 3 Attenders were called and examined them. PW1 and AO remained there. Then AO asked PW1 about the remaining amount of Rs.25,000/- within 2 or 3 days. PW1 expressed his inability, then AO pressurized him to pay the demanded bribe amount, otherwise he will intimate to Department and also convert the case into

Sec.354 IPC. Finally PW1 agreed to pay Rs.20,000/-. AO asked to pay the said amount within 2 or 3 days. As his conscious did not permit to pay the bribe amount, AO gave complaint to DSP, ACB on 20.04.2013 vide Ex.P1.

The DSP asked him to come to his office on 21.04.2013 at 10.30 AM along with proposed bribe amount of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly on the next day he went to the office of DSP, ACB (PW8) at 10.30 AM along with proposed bribe amount. At about 11.00 AM, DSP introduced two mediators to him and vice-versa. The copy of Ex.P1 was given to mediators, who have gone

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.12 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 through it and enquired PW1 as to the genuineness of his complaint and he confirmed the same. The DSP asked him to hand over the bribe amount to the mediators and accordingly he gave it to them in the denomination of Rs.1000 x 20 nos. The mediators counted the notes, noted down the numbers and denomination of the notes. PW1 also deposed that PW8 got demonstrated the chemical test. On the instructions of the DSP, one constable applied powder to the notes and kept the tainted amount in his left side empty pant pocket. The DSP explained the significance of the chemical test. PW1 was instructed by the DSP not to touch the tainted notes and not to shake hands with AO and if AO receives the amount to give a signal by wiping his wearing glasses. AO telephoned to him and asked about the bribe amount. Then PW1 telephoned to AO that he would come within 10 minutes, by keeping the phone speaker on in front of PW8.

AO asked him to come to Ramakrishna Theater parking place at Abids at 2.30 PM.

17.Accordingly PW1 proceeded to the said place in his vehicle and the other trap party members followed him in their vehicles. They reached there at about 2.30 PM. PW1 parked vehicle in the said theater and paid parking charges of Rs.30/- and he was waiting there itself and telephoned to AO twice, but AO did not pick up the phone. Again on the third time, AO picked up the phone call of PW1 and informed that he would be coming within 10 minutes. Accordingly AO came there within 10 minutes on his bike and asked about money. PW1 gave positive reply and AO did not get

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.13 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 down from the bike. AO asked him to hand over the money, then PW1 took out the money with his left hand and AO received it with his right hand and kept it in h is left side shirt pocket. AO informed that he will not convert the case into Sec.354 PC nor did he intimate it to the Department about the criminal case. Then he gave pre-arranged signal by wiping his glasses.

On that, AO started his motorcycle, meanwhile ACB officials came and stopped him. ACB officials took AO to a room in Aahwanam Hotel, which was near to them. PW1 was asked to sit in the reception of the said hotel, after one hour he was called inside and his version was incorporated. Later his statement was recorded by the Inspector of Police, ACB. He also gave statement before the Magistrate in Secunderabad Court complex. He further stated that in his S.164 CrPC statement he forget to state about payment of Rs.7,000/- to AO.

18.PW8 is the then DSP, ACB, CR2, Hyderabad. According to his version, on 20.04.2013 at 5.00 PM he received Ex.P1 from PW1 and entrusted the same to PW10 for verification, genuineness of Ex.P1 and antecedents of AO. He instructed PW1 to come to his office at 10.00 am on 21.04.2013 along with proposed bribe amount of Rs.20,000/-. PW10 submitted his report stating that Ex.P1 is genuine and AO was not enjoying good reputation. Then, he obtained permission from the competent authority and registered Ex.P1 as case in Cr.No.9/RCT-CR2/2013 and issued

FIR vide Ex.P13 and took up investigation. At about 10.15 AM he sent requisition to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration,

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.14 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Hyderabad to depute two employees to act as mediators. Accordingly,

PW2 and LW2 Babaji Preetham were deputed and they came to his office.

19.PW1 visited his office and introduced him to the mediators and vice-versa. He requested the mediators by supplying Ex.P2 to verify the contents from PW1. Accordingly they verified the correctness of Ex.P2 from

PW1 and attested on Ex.P2. On his enquiry, PW2 produced Rs.20,000/- in

Rs.1000/- denomination. Further on his request, the mediators verified the currency notes and noted the numbers in the proceedings. On his instructions, their Head Constable Ranga Rao prepared sodium carbonate solution in a glass tumbler. Then himself, PW1 and mediators rinsed their hand fingers in the solution and it remained the same. On his instructions, the Head Constable Ranga Rao applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes and kept the currency notes in the left side pant pocket of

PW1.

20.PW8 also deposed the instructions given to PW1, as deposed by

PW1. On his enquiry, PW1 stated that he has no financial transactions with AO. PW8 also deposed about demonstration of phenolphthalein test and significance of chemical test to PW1 and mediators, etc. He has collected samples of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate powders vide

MO2 and MO3, duly packed, sealed and labeled. PW8 and other trap party including PW1 washed their hands with soap and water. The Head

Constable was asked to remain in the office along with phenolphthalein

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.15 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 powder. PW8 collected the sodium carbonate powder and concluded pre- trap proceedings vide Mediators Report-I (Ex.P3), which was drafted by L3

Balaji Preetham. Himself, Inspectors and mediators signed Ex.P3, which was concluded at 1.00 Pm on 21.04.2013.

21.PW8 further deposed that he along with PW1 and mediators waited at their office expecting a call from AO to PW1. PW1 did not receive any call till 2.00 PM. He instructed PW1 to call AO to know the place where he can meet AO. PW1 made a call from his mobile bearing No.9440946826 to AO on his mobile bearing No.9490616852 at 2.15 PM. AO instructed

PW1 to come to parking area of Ramakrishna 70MM theater. Since PW1 made call on speaker mode, PW8, mediators could hear the conversation.

Therefore, they all started to the above place at 2.45 PM. PW1 came in his own car ie., Sunny Nissan bearing No.AP-09CM-1363, whereas he along with trap party proceeded in two cars and two motorbikes at 2.55 PM. PW1 reached in his car to the main entrance of the cinema hall. The trap party took vantage positions near the parking area. At 3.10 PM, AO came to the said parking area on his motorbike and stopped near PW1 and both of them talked together and they found while PW1 giving money to AO with his left hand and AO received the amount with his right hand and kept the same in the left side shirt pocket. At about 3.19 PM, PW1 gave pre- arranged signal. When the trap party is moving towards PW1, AO could smell the trap and left that place by riding on his motorcycle in high speed towards Mojam Jahi Market.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.16 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

22.PW8 further deposed that they could intercept AO at the

Northern side entry gate of the complex and took him to the place where

PW1 parked his car. PW8 instructed PW1 to wait in the nearby Hotel

Aahvanam. PW8 introduced himself and other trap party to AO and enquired about his details and came to know that he is the AO. After knowing their identity, AO started shivering and tried to rub his both hands to his clothes, but PW1 instructed him not to rub his hands to his cloths.

PW8 got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glass tumblers and asked AO to rinse his right hand fingers in the solution, when he did so the solution turned into pink colour. However, the chemical test conducted on the left hand fingers of AO yielded negative.

23.On being questioned by PW8, AO informed that he kept the currency notes in his left side shirt pocket. On his instructions,

PW2/mediator verified the currency notes with Ex.P3 Mediators Report-I and found the numbers tallied. The trap party also found one empty leather cell phone cover in the same shirt pocket and PW8 seized the currency notes from AO vide MO1. Since the parking area was not convenient for further proceedings, he requested the Manager of Hotel

Aahwanam to provide one room and accordingly he has provided Room

No.1022 in the first floor. The trap party and AO proceeded to the said room. PW8 provided one T-shirt to AO and subjected the inner flap of the shirt pocket of AO and leather pouch which came into contact with the tainted currency to chemical test and the test yielded positive result. PW8

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.17 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 got all the resultant solutions transferred into four separate glass bottles, sealed and labeled them with the signatures of trap party. MO5 to MO8 are the resultant solutions. PW8 also seized the remaining sodium carbonate powder (MO4), shirt of AO and leather cell phone pouch (MO9 and MO10) and AO informed that the file was at the drawer of his office table.

24.Then PW8 sent PW9 Inspector of Police, ACB to go and collect the file from Police Station, Abids under separate Mediators Report. PW8 questioned the AO and got incorporated his version in Ex.P5 Mediators

Report-II. Then he called PW1 and confronted with the above version and enquired him before AO and his version was also incorporated in Ex.P5 proceedings. PW8 had drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence vide

Ex.P4 and effected arrest of AO at 9.40 PM. after explaining the grounds of arrest. Ex.P5 was drafted by PW2 and attested by the trap party members, which was concluded at 9.50 PM. PW9 brought the CD file and seizure proceedings from police station which are marked as Exs.P6 and

P10 respectively. PW8 sent the accused for judicial custody and entrusted the remaining investigation to PW10.

25.PW10 deposed that previously he worked as Inspector of Police,

ACB, CR-2 at the relevant point of time. He deposed that on 20.04.2014 at 06.00 PM, PW8 endorsed Ex.P1 to him for verification. After verification of

Ex.P1 genuineness and reputation of AO, he submitted oral report to PW8.

He also participated in the trap proceedings along with PW8 and others.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.18 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Later he took over investigation from PW8. During the course of investigation, he examined PW1 to PW4 and LW2 and recorded their statements and he had re-examined PW1. He collected call data records of

AO and PW1 vide Exs.P15 and P16. On receipt of sanction order vide

Ex.P11 from the Government he has filed charge sheet.

26.PW9 is also the Inspector of Police, ACB, CR-2, Hyderabad during the relevant point of time. He is examined to speak about seizure of Ex.P6 ie., CD file in Crime No.121/2013 of P.S.Abids from PW5. He also seized copy of General Diary vide Ex.P14.

27.PW2 is one of the mediators to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings vide Exs.P3 and P5 respectively. He deposed corroborating the evidence of PW1 and PW8 and the recitals of Exs.P3 and P5 pre-trap and post-trap proceedings.

28.PW3 previously worked as S.I.of Police of Abids Police Station and he is colleague of AO. He deposed that on 21.04.2014 at about 2.45

PM while he was taking lunch at P.S. Abids AO came to him and requested to give his bike for going to Sultan Bazar. Accordingly he gave his motorcycle bearing No.AP-09CP-6049 to the AO. After completing the lunch, he left the police station for patrolling duty. Later he came to know that AO was trapped in a bribery case by ACB officials on the same day.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.19 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

29.PW4 is the then Inspector of police, P.S. Abids. His evidence goes to show that as per their records, AO herein was the Investigating

Officer in Crime No.121/2013 of P.S.Abids for the offences under Sections 506, 509 IPC. On 21.04.2013 he received a phone call from the Inspector of Police, ACB, Hyderabad and informed that AO was trapped in a bribery case at Ramakrishna Theatre, Abids while taking bribe from the accused in the above said crime. The ACB officials asked him to provide CD file in

Cr.No.121/2013, which was registered against PW1 on the complaint lodged by Smt.Jayalaxmi and he instructed his staff to hand over said CD file to ACB officials. He came to know through his Station Writer that the said file Ex.P6 was seized by ACB officials in the presence of mediators.

30.PW5 previously worked as Station Writer at Abids Police Station.

According to him, during 2013 in the evening hours, PW5 called him on phone and asked him to pick up C.D.file in Cr.No.121/2013 ie., Ex.P6 from the drawer of AO herein and make it ready for his examination.

Accordingly PW5 picked up the file from the table of AO and placed it on the table of PW4. Later, he came to know that AO herein was arrested in a bribery case by ACB and the Ex.P6 was seized by ACB officials.

31.PW6 is one of the mediators to the documents under Exs.P7 to

P10. His evidence is that on 21.04.2013 on the instructions of

Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise where he was working as Junior

Assistant, he along with LW10 Sridhar proceeded to ACB office and met

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.20 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

DSP, ACB. The ACB officials took them to Vijayapuri Colony to the house of

AO. AO was not present in the house, but found a lady by name

Smt.A.Vijaya Laxmi, who is wife of AO. After serving search proceedings under Ex.P7 on the wife of AO, they conducted search at the house of AO and ACB officials have seized four files from the house of AO under Ex.P8 inventory proceedings. A copy of Ex.P8 was served on the wife of AO.

Ex.P9 is the search list under which ACB officials have seized four documents from the house of AO. Thereafter all of them proceeded to P.S.

Abids, Hyderabad, accompanied by PW9, where Ex.P6 was seized under cover of Ex.P10 proceedings.

32.PW7 is working as Section Officer, Telangana Secretariat, who deposed regarding sanction order to prosecute the AO. According to him, on 22.04.2013 they received a radio-message fromDSP, ACB, CR-2,

Hyderabad about the trap laid against AO and registration of present case.

Their office also received preliminary report from the DG ACB on 03.05.2013 along with copies of FIR, Mediators Reports I and II. After examination of the record, the government issued a Memo for suspension of AO on 13.05.2012 and AO was placed under suspension. On 21.12.2013 their office received Final Report along with enclosures from

DG, ACB which includes oral and documentary evidence collected by ACB.

On 08.01.2014 they received advice from Vigilance Commission with a direction to prosecute AO. The file was circulated for approval from the concerned Minister and after obtaining approval the file was placed before

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.21 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 the Principal Secretary to the Government, Sri.Anay Mishra, who after examining the entire record issued sanction order vide Ex.P11 and that he can identify the signature of Sri.Ajay Mishra.

33.Based on the above evidence available on record, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor submitted arguments on behalf of the prosecution. It is submitted that in order to prove the case of prosecution,

PW1 to PW10 have been examined, Exs.P1 to P16 and MOs.1 to 10 are marked on behalf of the prosecution during trial. The defacto complainant is examined as PW1 and he deposed supporting the case of prosecution regarding demand of bribe by AO on 13.04.2013 at Traffic Police Station,

Mojam Jahi Market and acceptance of the amount of Rs.7,000/- by AO from

PW1 and totally AO demanded an amount of Rs.30,000/- to do a favour ie., not to add Sec.354 IPC to Crime No.121/2013 of P.S. Abids in which AO is

Investigating Officer against PW1 herein and not to intimate about registration of case to the higher officials of PW1, who is working as

Engineer in AP Housing Board at that time. It is further contended that the evidence of PW1 further reveals that on 18.04.2013 the AO on negotiations reduced the bribe amount to Rs.20,000/- with instructions to pay the same within 2 or 3 days, failing which he would add Sec.354 IPC and further he would inform about the registration of criminal case to the

Department of AO about his involvement in a criminal case. PW1 also deposed about demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of

Rs.20,000/- on the date of trap ie., on 21.04.2013 at Parking area of

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.22 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Ramakrishna cinema hall, Abids, Hyderabad and further phenolphthalein test conducted on the hand fingers of AO, inner linings of shirt pocket and cell phone pouch which came into contact with the tainted currency yielding positive result. Apart from PW2, who is one of the mediators to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings under Exs.P3 and P5, and PW8 who is the then DSP, ACB, CR-2, Hyderabad and trap laying officer, have deposed corroborating the evidence of PW1 with regard to AO receiving tainted amount from PW1 by AO at parking area of Ramakrishna Cinema Hall. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW8, who are material witnesses, is consisting and corroborating on material particulars of demand and acceptance and recovery of MO1 tainted currency.

34.Further the official favour file was seized by PW9 from P.S. Abids under cover of Ex.P10 seizure proceedings ie,. Ex.P6 CD file in Crime

No.121/2013 of P.S. Abids. It is also argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses clinchingly established that the AO herein is

Investigating Officer in Crime No.121/2013 of P.S. Abids which was registered against PW1 herein on the complaint lodged by the Estate

Officer, AP Housing Board Smt.Jayalaxmi. Thus, the prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of demand of illegal gratification, acceptance of the same by the AO from PW1 on the date of trap and PW8 has recovered the tainted currency of Rs.20,000/- from the possession of AO at the scene of offence and the official favour file under Ex.P6 is pending with the AO as on the date of trap. Further the chemical test conducted on the hand

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.23 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 fingers, inner linings of left side front shirt pocket and portion of cell phone pouch which came into contact with the tainted currency yielded positive result. Thus the ingredients of Sec.7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 have been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt by placing cogent and acceptable evidence.

35.It is further submitted that the prosecution also proved the ingredients of Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1988 since the AO being a public servant abused his official position and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself while holding office as ‘public servant’ ie., S.I.of

Police, Abids Police Station and being Investigating Officer in Crime

No.121/2013, as such, the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the AO beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor urged to convict the accused for the offences under sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1988 according to law.

36.In support of its case, the prosecution has relied on the following decisions:

(a) State of Maharashtra vs. Narsingara Rao Gangaram Pimple (AIR 1984 SC 63) wherein it was held that, “in a trap case, the Judge magnified every minor detail or omission to falsify or throw even shadow of doubt on the prosecution evidence, then it would be the very antithesis of a correct judicial approach to the evidence of witnesses in a trap case. Indeed, if such harsh touch stone is prescribed to prove such a case, it will be

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.24 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 difficult for the prosecution to establish any case at all.”

(b) M.Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. (2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 407 (SC)) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “a legal presumption can be drawn under sec.20(1) of the P.C.Act, 1988 when gratification is found accepted by the accused as a renewal for doing a public duty. It is a compulsory presumption. Presumption under sec.114 of the Evidence Act also can be drawn.”

(c) State of M.P. and others vs. Sree Ram Singh (2000 Cri.L.J. 1401

SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “The P.C.Act was designed to curb the illegal activities of the public servants.”

(d) N.K.Seetharama Sarma vs. State (2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 431 (AP)), wherein it was held that, “In the post-trap proceedings appellant merely stated that he did not demand any bribe from complainant and allegations against him are false. Defence theory that money was thrust into fold of his lungi by complainant rightly rejected by trial court as being highly unconvincing.”

(e) K.John Devasahayam vs. State of AP (2004 (1) ALT (Crl.) 280)) wherein it was held that, “Case of the prosecution is that chemical test conducted on the fingers yielded positive results. Bribe amount was recovered. Numbers of the currency notes in the pre-trap proceedings tallied with the notes recorded. The very theory put forth by the appellant that PW1 thrusted the amount into his pocket and ran away is quite unconvincing and unacceptable.”

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.25 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

(f) D.Velayutham vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Salem Town,

Chennai ((2016) 1 SCC (Crl) 105)), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court that, “The trap witnesses can not be treated on par with accomplice/ particeps criminis/ and the trap witness is on a higher pedestal.

Corroboration is not mandatory in case of trap witness.”

(g) Chaitanya Prakash Audichya vs. CBI (2016) 1 SCC (Crl) 186, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification fully established. Testimonies of complainant and panch witness completely consistent. Tainted currency notes recovered from the person of accused and the phenolphthalein test proved positive. The presumption invocable under Sec.20 of the P.C.Act, 1988 stood unrebutted, as such conviction confirmed.”

(h) B.Noha vs. State of Kerala and another (2007 (1) SCC (Crl) 711) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held while referring the judgment in State of AP vs. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000 (9) SCC 752) that, “when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification.”

(i) State vs. Jhan Chand (1984 Crl.J NOC (104) Delhi) wherein it was held that, “Regarding the question as to the capacity of accused to do favour or disfavour at the time of demand of bribe, the fact that he was not in a position to show any favour is of no consequence.”

(j) Dr.Subrahmanian Swamy vs. Dr.Manmohan Singh (2012 CriLJ 1519) wherein it was held that, “The duty of the court is that any Anti

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.26 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Corruption Law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as two constructions are eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetual it.”

(k) Abdul Kaffar vs. State of Kerala (2004 SCC (9) 333) wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “When the stand taken by the AO during trial not taken during post-trap proceedings, first available opportunity, the defence was not genuine.”

(l) Madhukar Bhaskar Rao vs. State of Maharashtra (2001 (1) ALD (Crl) 77 (SC)) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “public servant found in possession of currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder, then presumption can be drawn that he accepted the gratification.”

(m) Subbu Singh Vs. State by P.P. wherein it was held that, “when the money was demanded as bribe and the same is received, Sec.20 of the

P.C.Act comes into play. Once there is a presumption as contemplated under Sec.20 of the P.C.Act, it is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as bribe.”

37.On the other hand, the defence taken by the AO is that he is innocent of the alleged offences and that he has been falsely implicated in the above case. Further the AO neither demanded any bribe from PW1 nor accepted any such amount from him. That PW8 DSP, ACB without verifying the genuineness of Ex.P1 complaint of PW1 or its contents, mechanically

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.27 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 proceeded with the formalities of trap against the AO without there being any verification of antecedents of AO and genuineness of Ex.P1 report.

PW1 had bundle of criminal antecedents and he being accused in many cases as could be seen from Exs.D1 to D5 and cross-examination of PW1.

It is contended that in a trap case, the character of the complainant assumes significance and complainant himself was a law-breaker, therefore his evidence can not be relied upon and no conviction can be awarded basing on such evidence of PW1 and that there had been no verification of demand of bribe before laying a trap and the trap was laid as soon as the complaint was made and rather hurriedly and in this connection he relied upon a decision of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court in Ravindra Mahadevo Kothamkar vs. State of

Maharashtra 2016 (2) AICLR 87.

38.It is submitted that AO was S.I. of Police, Abids Police Station,

Hyderabad who registered a case in Crime No.121/2013 on 08.04.2013 against PW1 herein for the offences under Sections 506 and 509 IPC basing on the complaint lodged by Smt.K.Jayalaxmi, Estate Officer of A.P.

Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad and in the above case the AO was the Investigating Officer and took up investigation. During the course of investigation in the above crime, AO has recorded the statement of four witnesses under sections 161 of CrPC and all of them deposed against

Sri.K.Madhava Reddy ie., PW1 herein and accused in the above crime, who started influencing the AO with local leaders, for which the AO herein

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.28 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 being Investigating Officer did not heed and oblige, as such, PW1 herein bore grudge against the AO and he foisted a false case to eliminate as

Investigating Officer in the above said crime. Further, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and he is an interested and partisan witness who is concerned in the above case to success the trap and in proper case like this court may look for independent corroboration before conviction the AO and relied on a decision reported in Ram Prakash

Arora vs. State of Punjab AIR 1973 SC 498.

39.It is also submitted that PW1 herein being accused in

C.C.No.998/2013 concerning to Crime No.121/2013 of P.S. Abids was convicted by the learned II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad vide Judgment dt.01.04.2013 as per Ex.D1 certified copy of the judgment.

That Exs.D2 to D4 which were confronted to PW1 in cross-examination admitted the same, which shows the conduct of PW1 as he is involved in several cases and that he was suspended from service. Further he also filed a complaint against Smt.K.Jayalaxmi and it was registered as case in

Cr.No.21/RCA-CR2/2013 dt.28.04.2013 and the same was closed by this court as no Disproportionate Assets case is made out against her.

40.It is the further case of the AO that even on the date of trap PW1 called AO through his cell phone, but AO did not respond and on the instructions of PW8 DSP, PW1 called AO thrice and finally the AO responded to the call of PW1 during lunch time. It is further argued that

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.29 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 the true version of AO has not been recorded in post-trap proceedings under Ex.P5 and PW8 got prepared the same as if the AO demanded and accepted the bribe amount from PW1 voluntarily. In fact, PW1 stuffed the tainted amount in the left side shirt pocket of AO inspite of his resistance and relayed the signal to the trap party, immediately the DSP and other trap party caught hold the AO. Absolutely there is no evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the AO had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from PW1.

41.AO also relied on the following decisions:

(a) K.Narsimha Chary vs. State, ACB (2003 CriLJ 3315) wherein the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that, ‘once it is evident that

PW1 for his own reasons was desperate in implicating the accused, it is not at all difficult for anyone to ensure that the hands or parts of his body or apparel of the accused get in contact with the traces of phenolphthalein powder.”

(b) T.Subramanian vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in AIR 2006 SC 836, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that, “mere proof of receipt of money by the accused in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money as illegal gratification would not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.”

(c) Sita Ram vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1975 SC 1432 wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that when story of demand of bribe by the

accused from the complainant was not proved and even story of demand

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.30 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 of money by the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt the rule of presumption that the money was accepted as bribe could not be resorted in order to convict the accused.”

(d) Suraj Mal vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 1408. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in case of bribery mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid it would not be sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in this case is not reliable.”

(e) Jagadish Chandra Malehija vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1990

MPLJ 239), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that, “in a trap case when initial part of the story of demand and offer is found to be untrustworthy, the testimony of complainant can not be accepted.”

(f) C.M.Girish Babu vs. CBI Cochin of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779, wherein it was held that, “mere recovery of money by itself can not prove the charge of prosecution against the accused in the absence of reliable evidence to prove the payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.”

(g) Anand Prakash vs. State of Haryana 2008 CriLJ 1825 (P&H), wherein it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana that, “positive result of phenolphthalein test itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of illegal gratification.”

(h) G.V.Nanjundaiah vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1987

Supreme Court 2402, wherein it was held that, “the testimony of

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.31 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 complainant not found trustworthy, factum of acceptance of bribe not properly established, held guilt of accused not proved.”

(i) Chandrakant Luxman vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 SC 220) wherein it was that, “benefit of highly defective investigation cannot go to the prosecution.”

(j) P.Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (AIR 1971 SC 520) wherein it was held that, “preliminary enquiry is necessary before lodging FIR against a public servant.”

By relying on the above arguments and the above said decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other High Courts, the learned defence counsel submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the AO beyond all reasonable doubt and the demand and acceptance is not proved. Further PW1 involved in a criminal case and his conduct is such that he is a law-breaker. Therefore, he is not trustworthy and basing on his sole testimony and without corroboration of independent evidence, it is unsafe to convict the AO and urged to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against him.

42.In view of the rival contentions of the prosecution and defence, now the oral and documentary evidence placed before this court has to be scrutinized carefully, as to whether the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the AO beyond reasonable doubt?

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.32 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

43.The undisputed fact is that AO is the then S.I. of Police, Abids

Police Station and he is Investigating Officer in Crime No.121/2013 under section 506, 509 IPC registerd against PW1 herein on the complaint lodged by the Estate Officer Smt.Jayalaxmi of A.P.Housing Board. It is also not in dispute that PW1, who is the defacto complainant, worked as

Asst.Executive Engineer, Western Division, Kukatpally at the relevant point of time. According to the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1 report, on 09.04.2013 AO being the Investigating Officer telephoned to PW1 and informed registration of above crime against him. It is also not in dispute that on coming to know about the above crime, PW1 surrendered before the learned II Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s court at Nampally and obtained bail on 12.04.2013.

44.Now the specific case of PW1 is that on 13.04.2013, AO contacted him over cell phone and asked him to meet him at Traffic Police

Station, M.J.Market. On the same day at 2.00 PM, he met AO who demanded bribe of Rs.30,000/- for not adding Sec.354 IPC to the above crime and not intimating about registration of crime to the department of

AO and according to PW1 on the same day, PW1 has paid Rs.7,000/- to the

AO. Absolutely, there is no cross-examination of PW1 by the defence on the above said aspect nor put any suggestions to PW1 contrary to the evidence given by PW1. It is also not in dispute that on 18.04.2013 AO visited the Head Office of PW1 at A.P.Housing Board, Gruhakalpa and recorded statements of witnesses as part of investigation in

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.33 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Cr.No.121/2013. At that juncture, AO said to have demanded the balance amount from AO and pressurized him to pay the amount within 2 or 3 days. As PW1 was not willing to pay the demanded bribe amount to AO he is constrained to file a report under Ex.P1. Though Ex.P1 is undated, but the endorsement of DSP ACB would reveal that he had received the same on 20.04.2013 at 5.00 PM. After receipt of Ex.P1, PW8 entrusted the same to PW10 for verification and submission of report. According to PW10, he verified the genuineness of Ex.P1, reputation of AO and submitted an oral report to PW8. PW10 also made endorsement on Ex.P1 about receiving of the same from PW8 for verification and submission of his report to DSP on 21.04.2013, on which date PW8 had registered the above case and investigated into.

45.On the same day, ie,. on 21.04.2013 two mediators were secured viz. PW2 and LW2 Babji Preetham and drafted Mediators Report-I in the office of PW8 under Ex.P3 from 11.00 AM to 1.00 PM. Thereafter, the trap party and PW1 proceeded to the parking area of Ramakrishna cinema theater, Abids, Hyderabad as AO asked PW1 to come to that place for payment of bribe amount. Accordingly, PW1 and PW8 and other trap party members reached to the scene of offence at about 2.30 PM. After reaching the scene of offence ie,. parking place of Ramakrishna cinema theater,

PW1 made three phone calls to AO, the AO did not receive the first and second calls, however AO responded to the third call of PW1. Thereafter

AO reached the scene of offence on a motorbike of PW3. Even, no

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.34 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 suggestion was put to PW3 by the defence that the motorbike on which AO proceeded to the scene of offence does not belong to PW3. According to

PW1, AO after reaching the scene of offence on his motorbike he asked him to hand over money, then PW1 took out money with his left hand, AO received with right hand and kept it in his left side shirt pocket. The same is incorporated in Ex.P5 post-trap proceedings. Further PW2 and PW8 have also deposed about handing over of bribe amount by AO and receiving of it by AO. Immediately when AO tried to escape on suspicion, the trap party members intercepted him and caught him and chemical test was conducted on his hand fingers, inner linings of shirt pocket and cell phone pouch which came into contact with the tainted currency and the same yielded positive result.

46.Here, it is pertinent to mention that visiting of AO to the scene of offence is neither denied nor disputed. It is also important to mention that the AO miserably failed to explain why he visited the place where the trap was laid ie., parking area of Ramakrishna cinema theater, Abids,

Hyderabad and AO did not deny his visit. No explanation is put forth in respect of recovery of amount from the possession of AO and so also there is no explanation as to how the phenolphthalein test conducted on his hand fingers, inner linings of shirt pocket and cell phone pouch which came into contact with the tainted currency, yielded positive result and how the tainted currency found in his shirt pocket, which entitles the court to draw an adverse inference against the accused as held by the Hon’ble

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.35 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Supreme Court of Indian in Phula Singh vs. State of Haryana in

Criminal Appeal No.2271/2011 dt.03.03.2014. This is a strong circumstance and the above said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

47.PW1 was cross-examined with regard to Exs.D1 to D5. According to Ex.D1, PW1 was convicted in C.C.No.998/2013 relating to Crime

No.121/2013 of P.S. Abids by the II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad for the offence under sections 506, 509 IPC, which was filed by

Smt.K.Jayalaxmi, Estate Officer of A.P. Housing Board. Ex.D2 would reveal that a case in Cr.No.34/2008 was registered under Sec.420 IPC on 23.02.2008 in PS, CCS, Hyderabad against PW1. Further Ex.D3 would reveal that a case in Cr.No.104/2012 dt.16.03.2022 was registered in PS,

Abids for the offences under Secs.409 and 420 IPC, in which PW1 is shown as A3. Ex.D4 is the proceedings under which the Vice-Chairman and

Housing Commissioner, A.P.H.B., Telangana Entity has dismissed the AO from service. Ex.D5 is the proceedings of A.P.H.B. dt.11.12.2015 suspending the PW1 in view of his conviction judgment under Ex.D1.

48.The contention of the learned defence counsel is that in view of

Exs.D1 to D5, the character of PW1 assumes significance as he himself was a law-breaker, therefore his evidence is not trustworthy and no conviction can be based on the sole and uncorroborated evidence of PW1 and stressed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.36 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Ravindra Mahadevo Kothamkar vs. State of Maharashtra 2016 (2)

AICLR 87.

49.Here, it is important to mention that the evidence of PW1 is fully supported by PW2 and PW8, who are material witnesses and participated in the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings vide Exs.P3 and P5. PW2 has no animosity against AO to depose falsehood to the tunes of ACB officials as alleged. It is settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of victim if it is legally acceptable evidence. In this case,

PW1 is subjected to cross-examination by defence, however, his evidence has not been taken and nothing could be elicited from his mouth either to disbelieve or to discard his testimony. Having carefully gone through the material placed before this court, this court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of PW1 is reliable and trustworthy. Just because PW1 was convicted under Ex.D1 and other cases were registered against him, it can not be stated that he is not trustworthy witness and his evidence can be thrown away. The said argument of the defence counsel can not be accepted since the evidence of PW1 is consistent and corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW8, who are material witnesses being mediator to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and trap laying officer respectively.

Apart from that the evidence of PW2 and PW8 is believable since their evidence has not been shaken by the defence in their cross-examination.

More over, as above said, there is no animosity to PW2, who is an independent mediator to depose falsehood against AO herein.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.37 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

50.The defence taken by the AO is that PW1 bore grudge against him as he is Investigating Officer in Crime No.121 of 2013 of P.S. Abids and implicated him in a false case by stuffed the bribe amount in his left side shirt pocket and that the AO neither demanded nor accepted the alleged bribe amount from PW1. Here, it is not out of place to mention that it is not the case of AO that PW1 stuffed the tainted amount in his left side shirt pocket either in P.S. Abids which is work place of AO or at the work place of PW1, either at Head Office Gruhakalpa or at his Kukatpally

Division Office. The scene of offence is located in a parking area of

Ramakrishna Cinema Hall, Abids, Hyderabad. Even AO also did not deny about making of three phone calls by PW1 to him on the date of alleged trap. Assuming for a moment that AO is innocent of offence and he has not demanded any bribe amount from PW1, then what made the AO to come over to parking place of Ramakrishna Cinema Hall, Abids in response to phone call received by him from PW1. If AO had no intention of either demanding or accepting bribe amount from PW1, he would not have responded to the phone call of PW1 or he would not have come to the scene of offence. Therefore, it is a strong circumstance and the said circumstance is supported by evidence of prosecution witnesses that AO demanded and accepted the tainted money of Rs.20,000/- from PW1 on the date of trap at Ramakrishna Cinema Hall parking area.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.38 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

51.Another important aspect for consideration is, assuming for a moment that PW1 stuffed the bribe amount in the left side shirt pocket of

AO, how the chemical test conducted on both hand fingers of AO yielded positive result. There is no explanation from AO in this connection.

Anyhow, it is not in dispute that on the date of trap, The AO came to the scene of offence in response to the phone call of PW1. No prudent

Investigating Officer would act to the directions of an accused in a case, being investigated by him, and come to the place as stated by the said accused ie,. PW1 herein. The phenolphthalein test conducted on the hand fingers of AO yielded positive result and no explanation is offered by the

AO as to how his fingers turned into pink colour. Thus, as held in

M.Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. (2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 407 (SC)), when the gratification is found accepted by the AO, the legal presumption can be drawn under Sec.20(1) of the P.C.Act that such gratification was accepted by AO for doing a public duty. Apart from that, the presumption under Sec.114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act also can be drawn. The said presumption is rebuttal presumption, but in the instant case on hand, the

AO miserably failed to rebut the said presumption either by adducing positive evidence on his behalf or from gathering the circumstances from the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Further the decision in

K.John Devasahayam vs. State of AP (2004 (1) ALT (Crl.) 280)) is squarely applicable to the present case on hand since in the present case on hand the chemical test conducted on the hand fingers yielded positive result, bribe amount was recovered, number of currency notes in the pre-

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.39 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 trap proceedings tallied with the notes recovered, therefore the theory put forth by AO that PW1 stuffed the amount into his pocket and relayed pre- arranged signal to the to the trap party members is not acceptable. When the tainted amount is found in the possession of the public servant, the burden is on the public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification as held by the Apex Court in B.Noha vs. State of Kerala and another (2007 (1) SCC (Crl) 711). As discussed above, the accused miserably failed to discharge the said burden.

52.For the first time, the accused has taken a defence during trial that PW1 stuffed the amount in his left side shirt pocket and relayed signal to the trap party. This defence was not taken during post-trap proceedings under Ex.P5. Therefore, when the stand taken by AO during trial is not taken during post-trap proceedings ie., first available opportunity, the defence was not genuine as held by Apex Court in Abdul Kaffar vs.

State of Kerala (2004 SCC (9) 333).

53.Since the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification from PW1 by AO and the same has been recovered, therefore, the presumption under Sec.20 of the P.C.Act comes into picture.

Once the presumption is drawn in favour of the prosecution, it is for the accused to establish that the amount was not received as a bribe. In other words, the accused has not rebutted the presumption available in favour of the prosecution.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.40 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

54.It is contended by the AO that yielding of positive result of phenolphthalein test is not itself sufficient to prove guilt of illegal gratification. It is true that the phenolphthalein test yielding positive result is one of the circumstances to prove the guilt of the AO. In this case, not only phenolphthalein test yielded positive result, but there is other positive evidence on behalf of the prosecution from the mouth of PW1, PW2 and

PW8 that AO demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- from PW1 on the date of trap. Having carefully considered the judicial pronouncements on which the AO relied, this court finds that they are neither relevant nor applicable to the present facts of the case. On the other hand, this court finds that the judicial pronouncements on which the prosecution has relied, are relevant and applicable to the present case.

55.For the foregoing discussion and in view of the evidence available on record, this court finds that the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- by AO from

PW1 on the date of trap ie., on 21.04.2013 at the parking area of

Ramakrishna Cinema Theater, Abids, Hyderabad. The prosecution also proved the seizure of tainted amount from the possession of AO. The chemical test conducted on the hand fingers, inner linings of left side shirt pocket of AO, cell phone pouch which came into contact with the tainted currency, also subjected to chemical test and the same yielded positive result. Since demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted amount is

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.41 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 proved, presumption under Sec.20 of the P.C.Act comes into picture in favour of the prosecution. Though the presumption is rebuttal presumption, but the AO miserably failed to rebut the said presumption.

The AO being public servant abused his official position and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself while discharging his public duty as S.I.of

Police in Abids Police Station and being Investigating Officer in Cr.No.121 of 2013 in which PW1 is an accused. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved the charges for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly Points Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

56.As a result, AO is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act,1988 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE & ACB CASES : HYDERABAD

57.AO is examined with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him and he stated that already he has been retired from service and that he has no other source of income except half of pension ie,. Rs.35,000/- and that his divorced daughter is living with him and requested to take a lenient view. AO worked as Sub Inspector of Police and while working in Abids P.S. he involved in the above case and having

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.42 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence being socio-economic offence and nature of duties that were discharged by the AO as S.I.of Police, this court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to take a lenient view and to invoke the provisions of Sec.360 of CrPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

58.As a result, AO is sentenced to undergoRigorous

Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act,1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Similarly, AO is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Total fine amount is Rs.10,000/-. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently for AO.

The remand period already undergone by AO (ie., from 22.04.2013 to 14.05.2013) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

MO1 tainted currency of Rs.20,000/- shall be confiscated to

State and other non-valuable material objects ie., MOs.2 to 10 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

AO is informed that an appeal lies to the Hon’ble High Court for

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.43 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014 the State of Telangana, Hyderabad against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 31st day of March, 2023.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE & ACB CASES : HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW1 : K.Madhava Reddy (Complainant). PW2 : Ayyavaripalli Dada Basha (Mediator). PW3 : B.Kantha Reddy (S.I.of Police, CCS, Hyderabad) PW4 : G.Guru Raghavendra Rao (then Inspector of police, PS Abids) PW5 : G.V.Kiran Kumar Yadav (then Constable/Station Writer, PS Abids) PW6: Ravikanth Satish Kumar (then Jr.Asst., P&E Dept. & mediator for seizure of documents vide Exs.P7 to P10) PW7: S.Srinivasulu (Section Office, Home Dept., TS Secretariat) PW8: T.Shankar Reddy (then DSP, ACB, CR-2, Hyderabad / trap laying officer) PW9: B.Anji Reddy (then Inspector of Police, ACB, CR-2, Hyderabad) PW10: R.Niranjan (then Inspector of Police, ACB, CR-2, Hyderabad and IO who filed CS)

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1 dt.20.04.2013. Ex.P2: Copy of Complaint dt.20.04.2013. Ex.P3: Mediators Report-I dt.21.04.2013. Ex.P4: Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence dt.21.04.2013. Ex.P5: Mediators Report-II dt.21.04.2013. Ex.P6: CD file in Crime No.121/2013 of PS Abids (9 sheets) Ex.P7: Search proceeding conducted at house of AO dt.21.04.2013. Ex.P8: Inventory proceedings conducted at the house of AO. Ex.P9: Copy of Ex.P8 served on the wife of AO. Ex.P10: Seizure proceedings drafted at PS, Abids.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.44 Judgment in C.C.No.19/2014

Ex.P11: Proceedings in GO.Ms.No.02 dt.01.07.2014 for prosecution of AO. Ex.P12: Authorization given to PW7 SO, Home Dept., TS Secretariat to depose evidence in court in this case dt.20.09.2021. Ex.P13: Original First Information Report dt.21.04.2013. Ex.P14: Attested Xerox copy of General Diary of P.S. Abids. Ex.P15: Call Details of Cell Phone Nos.9440946826, 9490616852 furnished by BSNL to Addl.DG, ACB, Hyderabad vide Letter dt.28.05.2013. Ex.P16: Call details of mobile No.9652234013 furnished by Bharti Airtel to Addl.DG, ACB, Hyderabad vide Letter dt.16.5.2013.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : Ex.D1 : Photocopy of Judgment in C.C.No.998 of 2013. Ex.D2: Attested copy of charge sheet in Crime No.34/2008 u/s.420 IPC. Ex.D3: Copy of FIR registered in Cr.No.104/2012 u/s.409 & 420 IPC. Ex.D4: Proceedings of the Vice-Chairman & Housing Commissioner, APHB, Telangana in Procds.No.1968/B7/VO/2015 dt.13.08.2015. Ex.D5: Proceedings of the Vice-Chairman & Housing Commissioner, APHB, Telangana in Procds.No.1968/B7/VO/2015 dt.11.12.2015.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : MO1 :Tainted bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.1000x20). MO2 :One sealed cover containing the sample of Phenolphthalein powder preserved during Ex.P3 MR-I proceedings. MO3 :One sealed cover containing sample of sodium carbonate powder preserved during the Mediators Report No.I, Ex.P3. MO4:One sealed cover containing sample of Sodium Carbonate powder preserved during Mediators Report-II Ex.P5. MO5 :Resultant solution of Right hand wash of AO. MO6:Resultant solution of Left hand wash of AO. MO7:Resultant Solution of inner portion of the left side shirt pocket of AO preserved during Ex.P5 proceedings. MO8:Resultant solution of Black colour leather cell phone pouch preserved during Ex.P5 proceedings. MO9:One white cotton half hands shirt of AO. MO10:Black colour leather cell phone pouch of AO.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE & ACB CASES : HYDERABAD

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.1 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SPE & ACB CASES:

HYDERABAD

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2023.

Present:Sri G.Raja Gopal, Prl. Spl. Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases, FAC-I Addl.Spl.Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

CALENDAR CASE No. 35 of 2015

Name of the Complainant : The State through Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Warangal Range, Warangal.

Crime No.: Cr.No.14/ACB-WRL/2008.

Offence: The charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 34 I.P.C.

Name of the Accused : AO-1 Challa Venkateshwarlu, s/o.Ramulu, Officers Aged 65 years, Occ:Principal, APSWRS&JC, Jakaram of Warangal District, R/o.H.No.5-5-189/243/4/C/6, Mustafanagar, Khammam.

AO-2 Gummadi Raghu, s/o.Samuel, Aged 35years,Occ:Superintendent APSWRS&JC, Jakaram, Warangal District, R/o.Flat No.306, Madhuvani Apartments, Waddepally, Warangal District.

Plea of the Accused AOs : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: AO1 and AO2 are found guilty.

Result: As a result, AO1 and AO2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 r/w Section 34 IPC and they are convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C. AO1 and AO2 are questioned and heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, AO1 and AO2 are sentenced to

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.2 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 r/w S.34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, AO1 and AO2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Similarly, AO1 and AO2 are sentencedtoundergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 r/w S.34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, AO1 and AO2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Total fine amount is Rs.10,000/- each for AO1 and AO2.Both the above sentences shall run concurrently for AO1 and AO2. The remand period already undergone by AO1 (ie., from 21.10.2008 to 07.11.2008) and AO2 (ie,. From 21.10.2008 to 12.11.2008) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The tainted currency of Rs.10,000/- each (MO7 and MO10) shall be confiscated to State and other non-valuables ie., MO1 to MO6, MO8, MO9, MO11 to MO13 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time. AO1 and AO2 are informed that an appeal lies to the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

Name and particulars of AO-1 Challa Venkateshwarlu, s/o.Ramulu, Accused Officers Aged 65 years, Occ:Principal, APSWRS&JC, Jakaram of Warangal District, R/o.H.No.5-5-189/243/4/C/6, Mustafanagar, Khammam.

AO-2 Gummadi Raghu, s/o.Samuel, Aged 35years,Occ:Superintendent APSWRS&JC, Jakaram, Warangal District, R/o.Flat No.306, Madhuvani Apartments, Waddepally, Warangal District.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.3 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 28.02.2023 in the presence of Smt.A.L.Manogna, learned Special Public Prosecutor, ACB,Hyderabad and Sri.Badeti Venkata Rathnam, learned counsel for AOs, upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented through Inspector of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Warangal Range, Warangal has filed charge sheet in

Crime No.14/ACB-WRL/2008 against AO1 and AO2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988) (Herein-after will be referred as ‘P.C.Act’ for convenience sake) and Section 34 of I.P.C.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as under :

AO1 worked as Principal, Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare

Residential School & Junior College (APSWRS&JC), Jakaram, Mulugu

Mandal of Warangal District from 18.07.2008 to 20.10.2008 and AO2 worked as Superintendent in same institute from 16.06.2008 to 20.10.2008. By virtue of the posts held by them, they fall under the category of ‘public servant’ as defined under section 2(c) of the P.C.Act, 1988.

3.PW1 was allotted catering contract to the APSWRS&JC,

Jakaram for the year 2008 to supply food provisions and providing food to the pupil by cooking as per menu vide proceedings dt.21.06.2008 of

Joint Collector, Warangal. The catering bill meets amount

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.4 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 approximately to Rs.2,50,000/- every month. AO2 being the

Superintendent of School prepares the catering bill every month and forwards along with Bank cheque to AO1. AO2 was demanding PW1 an amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe every month to prepare catering bill and to forward the bill and cheque to AO1. Further AO1 was also demanding PW1 an amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe every month to put signature on the cheque to issue him. PW1 expressed his inability to pay the same due to loss and difficulties in maintenance of mess, but

AO1 and AO2 advised him to adjust from payments by reducing quality and quantity of food provided to the students. PW1 did not agree for their proposal. Then AO1 and AO2 reiterated their earlier demand for payment of bribe of Rs.10,000/- each every month. As AO1 and AO2 harassed PW1 in preparing the bill for the month of August, 2008 and to issue cheque, PW1 paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- each as bribe. To prepare the mess bill approximately Rs.2,50,000/- for the month of

September, 2008 by AO2 and issue cheque by AO1, both of them demanded PW1 an amount of Rs.10,000/- each as bribe. PW1 requested them that he could not meet the expenditure for the food provisions and not getting any profits, as such he can not pay the demanded bribe amount to them. If they still insist him to pay the bribe amount, he is ready to withdraw his contract. On that AO1 issued cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- from the total catering bill amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- for the month of September on 13.10.2008. When PW1 approached AO1 and AO2 and requested for payment of balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, both of them reiterated the earlier demand of

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.5 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 payment of bribe amount to sanction the balance bill amount. On 18.10.2008 at about 10.00 AM, PW1 approached AO1 and AO2 in their office and requested for preparing and issue of cheque for the balance bill amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. When PW1 approached AO2, he reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.10,000/- and then only he will process the bill and forward the same along with cheque to AO1. Similarly, AO1 also demanded PW1 and told him that on payment of Rs.10,000/- only he will issue the cheque. As there was no other go, PW1 accepted the demand and told them that he will come to school and pay the demanded amount within two days. As PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe to AO1 and AO2, he approached DSP, ACB, Warangal Range ie.,

PW4 and lodged a written report and requested to take necessary legal action against AO1 and AO2.

4.On receipt of the report from PW1, confidential enquiries were made by PW4 with regard to genuineness of the report and reputation of AOs and found that the report of PW1 was genuine and

AOs were not enjoying good reputation. As such, a case in Crime

No.14/ACB-WRL/2008 under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 was registered on 20.10.2008 at 9.00 AM and investigated into. During the course of investigation, PW4 secured the services of mediators, namely

PW2 and LW3 U.Satyanarayana and after observing necessary formalities organized a trap on 20.10.2008 against AO1 and AO2.

5.During the trap, on 20.10.2008 when PW1 went to the office

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.6 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 room of AO1, he demanded and accepted tainted currency of

Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from

PW1. Then, PW1 proceeded to the office room of AO2, who also demanded and accepted tainted currency of Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from PW1.

6.When sodium carbonate test conducted on left hand fingers of AO1, it yielded positive result and tainted currency of Rs.10,000/- was seized at the instance of AO1 from his wearing pant front left side pocket in the presence of mediators. The inner flap of pant pocket of

AO1 was also subjected to chemical test and it yielded positive result.

Both the hand fingers of AO2 also proved positive when subjected to sodium carbonate solution test. The tainted currency of Rs.10,000/- was seized at the instance of AO2 from his wearing shirt left side pocket in the presence of mediators. The inner flap of shirt pocket of

AO2 was also subjected to chemical test and it yielded positive result.

All the material documents and records connected to the official favour were seized during the post-trap proceedings on 20.10.2008.

Thereafter, AO1 and AO2 were arrested on 20.10.2008 at about 06.30

PM and 6.35 PM respectively and produced AO1 and AO2 before this court and later they were released on bail on 07.11.2008 and 12.11.2008 respectively.

7.During the course of investigation, PW4 examined PW1 and subsequently the case was entrusted to PW7 who examined PW5 and

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.7 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 recorded his statement. Learned III Additional Junior First Class

Magistrate, Warangal recorded the statement of PW1 under S.164 of

CrPC.

8.The investigation disclosed that AO1 and AO2 have demanded and accepted Rs.10,000/- each, total Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from PW1 on 20.10.2008 by abusing their official position to do official favour to PW1 in preparing the bill for balance amount of Rs.98,888/- for the month of September, 2008 and thus they have committed offences punishable under

Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and Section 34

IPC.

9.The Chairman and Secretary, APSWREI Society, Hyderabad being the competent authority to remove AO1 and AO2 from service has accorded sanction to prosecute them in court of law.

10.Cognizance of the offence taken under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and Section 34 IPC against AO1 and AO2 by the then II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad on 26.03.2011.

11.On appearance of AO1 and AO2 before this court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Upon hearing both sides, AO1 and AO2 were examined u/s.240 of Cr.P.C. by

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.8 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 explaining the accusation levelled against them in brief, for which they denied the accusation. Therefore, charges for the offences under

Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 and Section 34 IPC have been framed against AO1 and AO2, as under:

“FIRSTLY: That you AO1 and AO2 being public servants employed as Principal and Superintendent of APSWRS&JC college, Jakaram respectively, on 20th day of October, 2008, in furtherance of common intention, as per your earlier demand, demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- each from complainant Kurakula Vidyasagar, catering contractor of the college, as a motive or reward, to prepare the mess bill for the balance amount for the month of September, 2008 and to forward the papers with bank cheque and to sign on the cheque and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance;

SECONDLY: That you AO1 and AO2 on or about the above mentioned date, time and place, in furtherance of common intention, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing your positions as public servants obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.10,000/- each from the defacto complainant Kurakula Vidyasagar, catering contractor of the college, as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, to prepare the mess bill for the balance amount for the month of September, 2008 and to forward the papers with cheque and to sign on the cheque, and thereby you have committed an offence specified under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act read with Section 34 of IPC and within my cognizance.”

The said charges have been read over and explained to AO1 and AO2 in vernacular language and both of them denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12.During the course of trial, PW1 to PW7 are examined and

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.9 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

Exs.P1 to P20 and M.Os.1 to 12 have been marked on behalf of the prosecution. Exs.D1 to D12 are marked on behalf of the accused.

13.After closure of prosecution evidence, AO1 and AO2 are examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material available against them in the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution. Both the accused denied the said incriminating circumstances. AO1 and AO2 stated that the sanction was accorded mechanically without verifying any record and basing on the resolution passed by the Mess Committee every month A2 has prepared the bills and that without conducting any enquiries PW6 filed false charge sheet. Both the accused have chosen to file their written statement and chosen to adduce defence evidence. Thereafter one B.Devender is examined as DW1 in chief on 22.08.2022, but he did not turn up to face cross-examination by the prosecution, as such his evidence was eschewed on 17.10.2022. Therefore, there is no oral evidence adduced on behalf of AOs.

14.Heard arguments from both sides. Learned Special Public

Prosecutor has filed written arguments u/s.314 of CrPC. Perused the record.

15.Now the points that arise for consideration in this case are :

1) Whether the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- each by AO1 and AO2 from PW1 to do any official favour as alleged?

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.10 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

2) Whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the AO1 and AO2 for the charges levelled against them beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) To what relief?

16.Points Nos.1 and 2 are inter-related with each other, as such both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.

Points Nos.1 and 2:

17.As above said, to substantiate the case of prosecution, as many as seven witnesses in all are examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW1 is the defacto complainant and set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report before PW4 on 18.10.2008. PW2 is one of the mediators to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. PW3 is the sanctioning authority who accorded sanction to prosecute AO1 and

AO2 herein. PW4 is the then DSP, ACB, Warangal Range, Warangal who issued FIR and trap laying officer. PW5 is the Zonal Officer, APSWRI-I,

Warangal, who spoke about the procedure for preparation of bills and duties of AO1 and AO2. PW7 is the subsequent Investigating Officer and PW6 is the Inspector of Police, ACB, Warangal Range who filed charge sheet.

18.The story of the prosecution as unfolded by the testimony of prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as under:

PW1 being the defacto complainant deposed that in the year 2008 he was allotted contract work by the Joint Collector, Warangal for

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.11 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 providing food to the APSWRC&JC, Jakaram, Mulugu Mandal of

Warangal District. As per the said contract, he used to prepare food and provide it to the inmates of the school and college everyday. The bill for every month was about Rs.2,50,000/-. The catering bills and cheques were used to be prepared by AO2 who was the Superintendent and sent to AO1 for affixing his signature being the Principal. Every month, AO2 used to prepare bill along with cheque and as such he demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- for preparation of bill and cheque to forward the same to AO1. He paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the month of August, 2008 to AO2. On that only AO2 issued cheque for the month of August. On 13.10.2008 he approached AO2 for September month bill of Rs.2,50,000/- and AO2 demanded Rs.10,000/- for preparing the bill. On the same day, he approached AO1 and complained the same, but AO1 also demanded an amount of

Rs.10,000/- for him also for affixing signature on the cheque. PW1 informed AO1 that he would pay the amount within 2 or 3 days as he was not in a position to pay the amount since he was not getting any profit out of it. Both AO1 and AO2 reiterated their demand for amount and they also asked him to save the amount in the supply of food to the students. PW1 stated that it is not proper to do such an act and nothing can be saved in that catering work. He though that giving bribe is not proper and decided to approach the ACB officials.

19.On 18.10.2008 PW1 went to the DSP, ACB, Hanumakonda and lodged report under Ex.P1. DSP asked him to come to his office on

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.12 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 20.10.2008 in the morning along with proposed bribe amount of

Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly he went to the office of DSP, ACB on 20.10.2008 at about 9.00 AM. At that time, DSP called two mediators and introduced them to him and vice-versa. The DSP furnished a copy of his report to the mediators, who have verified and enquired him and

PW1 stated that the contents of his report are true. PW1 produced the proposed bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- in Rs.500/- denominations. The mediators noted down the serial numbers of the currency notes. On enquiry he informed that he has no financial transactions or enmity with AO1 and AO2. One of the constables applied white powder to the notes and that constable made the amount in two bundles each

Rs.10,000/- and kept the two bundles of tainted currency in his empty left side shirt pocket. PW1 was instructed by DSP not to give shake hand with AO1 and AO2 and pay the amount to AO1 and AO2 only on their demand and not otherwise and in case AOs accept the amount to come out and give a signal by wiping his face with kerchief. DSP got demonstrated the chemical test and explained the significance of the chemical test.

20.On the same day, at about 11.00 AM they all proceeded to the AOs office at Jakaram in two Tata Sumos and reached there at 12.45 PM and stopped their vehicles at a distance of 200 mts. Away from the office of AOs. The DSP once again reiterated the earlier instructions to PW1. At about 1.00 PM he entered the office of AO1 and

AO2. The DSP and other trap party members were at outside of the

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.13 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 school in vantage positions, watching the events. Firstly, PW1 entered the room of AO1 at 1.05 PM and AO1 was found sitting in the chair and

AO1 asked him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount of

Rs.10,000/-. PW1 gave answer affirmatively. AO1 asked him to give the amount, then PW1 gave one of the bundles to AO1 and AO1 received it with his left hand and kept in his left side pant pocket.

21.PW1 further deposed that from there he went to the room of

AO2, who was present and sitting in his room. AO2 also asked him whether he brought the demanded bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- and he gave reply positively. He gave the amount to A2, who received it with his right hand and counted with his both hands and kept it in his left side shirt pocket. Then PW1 came out of the office and gave pre- arranged signal to the trap party members. Immediately some of the trap party members rushed to the room of AO1 and some of them went to the room of AO1 and PW1 was asked to wait at outside the office.

After five minutes he was called inside and his version was incorporated. The DSP, ACB examined and recorded his statement.

After six months he gave a statement before the Magistrate at

Warangal under S.164 of CrPC. The attested copy of Joint Collector proceedings is Ex.P2.

22.PW4 is the then DSP, ACB, Warangal at the relevant point of time. His evidence is that on 18.10.2008 at 1230 hours he received

Ex.P1 from PW1 and having gone through the contents of his report, he

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.14 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 instructed PW1 to come on 20.10.2008 at morning, so that he can conduct discrete enquiries about the genuineness of the complaint and reputation of AO1 and AO2. He has conducted discrete enquiries and found Ex.P1 was genuine and the reputation of AO1 and AO2 was bad.

On 20.10.2008 he registered a case in Crime No.14/ACB/-WRL/2008 under Section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 after duly completing the formalities and obtaining oral permission from the competent authority issued FIR under Ex.P17. He secured two mediators viz. PW2

Sri.B.Anjaneyulu and U.Satyanarayana (LW3) whose evidence is given up. Then PW4, mediators and two Inspectors assembled in his office room in Warangal and called PW1 into his room and introduced him to the mediators and vice-versa. Copy of Ex.P1 report, which is Ex.P8, was shown to the mediators, who have gone through the contents of the same and enquired with PW1. PW1 admitted the contents of Ex.P1 as true and it was given voluntarily. Therefore, the mediators attested on Ex.P8. On being questioned by him, PW1 stated that he was not having any type of monetary transactions with AO1 and AO2. On his instructions, PW1 produced two wads of currency notes intended to be given to AO1 and AO2 one each. On his request, one of the mediators verified one wad of currency notes and noted down the denomination ie., Rs.500/- x 20 amounting to Rs.10,000/- and another verified the second wad of currency notes and noted down the denomination ie,.

Rs.500/- x 20 amounting to Rs.10,000/-. He instructed the constable to apply a thin layer of phenolphthalein powder to the above said currency notes one by one. Accordingly he did the same and put them

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.15 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 in the left side shirt pocket of PW1, one after another ensuring that nothing else is available in the shirt pocket. He instructed PW1 to go to the office of AOs and pay the tainted amount to them on their demand, but not otherwise. He also instructed PW1 not to shake hands prior and after giving the tainted amount to AOs and that after demand and acceptance of tainted amount by both AOs he should come out to a visible place and give a signal to the trap party by wiping his face with hand kerchief. He demonstrated phenolphthalein test before the mediators, PW1 and other trap party members and explained its significance. Samples of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate ie,.

MO1 and MO2 were preserved in two separate sealed covers, attested and labeled by the mediators. The constable who applied phenolphthalein powder was asked to stay back in the office along with phenolphthalein powder. Later all the trap party members washed their hands with soap and water, so that they do not carry any traces of phenolphthalein powder. The Mediators Report-I vide Ex.P9 was commenced at 9.30 AM and concluded by 11.00 AM on 20.10.2008, which was scribed by LW3 mediator.

23.After completing Ex.P9 proceedings all the members of trap party, mediators including PW1 started at 11.15 AM from his office in

Warangal in a Government Tata Sumo vehicle to the office of AOs situated in Jakaram village. At about 1245 PM they reached the outskirts of Jakaram, where once again he reiterated the earlier instructions to PW1. PW1 got down the vehicle at about 1.00 PM and

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.16 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 proceeded on foot to the office of AOs. All the trap party members took vantage positions after following PW1. They have seen PW1 entering the office at 01.03 PM. At about 1.20 PM, PW1 was seen coming out of the building of AOs and gave pre-arranged signal.

Immediately he along with other trap party members rushed into the building, entered into the room of Principal, APSWRS&JC Jakaram and found a person sitting in his chair. Then he introduced himself and mediators after ascertaining his name as Ch.Venkateswarlu, Principal of

APSWRS&JC Jakaram (AO1) and disclosed the purpose of their visit.

While the Inspector, ACB, Adilabad Mr.Kiran Kumar with his staff were present in the office room of AO1, then himself, the DSP ACB Warangal and his staff with mediators proceeded to the room of AO2, which is nearby and found a person sitting in his chair. After entering into the room of AO2, PW4 introduced himself and mediators and disclosed the purpose of their visit and ascertained his name as Gummadi Raghu (AO2) Superintendent of APSWRS&JC, Jakaram, later he got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers and requested AO1 to rinse his both hand fingers in two separate solutions.

When he did so, the left hand wash turned into pink colour and right hand wash remained colourless. Then he questioned AO1 whether he just demanded and accepted any amount from PW1 and his version was incorporated. Thereafter, on his request AO1 produced the wad of currency notes from his left side front wearing pant pocket. On his request, one of the mediators verified the said currency notes and found them to be tallied with the numbers mentioned in Ex.P9 amount

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.17 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 to Rs.10,000/-. He seized the said currency notes in the presence of mediators vide MO7. Then he got prepared another sodium carbonate solution and subjected portion of the pant, which came into contact with the tainted currency to the test, which also yielded positive. He preserved all the three solutions in separate glass tumblers vide MO3,

MO4 and MO8. He also seized the pant of AO1 vide MO9.

24.Then he got prepared sodium carbonate solution in two separate glass tumblers, requested AO2 to rinse his hand fingers in the said solution separately. When he did so, both solutions turned into pink colour. He questioned AO2 whether he just demanded and accepted any bribe amount and version of AO2 is incorporated by the mediators. He asked AO2 to produce the bribe amount which he accepted from PW1, then AO2 took out the wad of currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and produced before the mediators, who verified and found tallied with that numbers mentioned in Mediators

Report-I vide Ex.P9 amounting to Rs.10,000/-. He seized the said amount vide MO10. He also subjected the contact portion of the shirt pocket of AO2, which came into contact with the tainted currency to the test, which yielded positive result. He seized all the said solutions in separate bottles duly labeled, attested by mediators vide MO5, MO6 and MO11. He also seized shirt of AO2 which is MO12. Then he called

PW1 inside the office and his version was incorporated by the mediators in Mediators Report-II vide Ex.P14.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.18 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

25.Later he confronted the version of PW1 with AO1 and AO2 and their versions were also incorporated by the mediators in Ex.P14.

On his instructions, AO2 produced the connected files, they are (1)

Proceedings RC. No.RSH/PRL.CON.01/2008 dt.21.06.2008 of Joint

Collector / Chairman, District Purchasing Committee, Warangal, (2) Diet

Attendance for the month of September, 2008, (3) Note File for payment of catering for the month of June, 2008 to September, 2008, and (4) Receipt vide Cheque No.340236. On his instructions, AO1 produced two Attendance Registers before the mediators under

Exs.P11 and P12 ie., the Teachers Attendance Register and Non-

Teaching Staff Attendance Register for the year 2008-09. Then he seized the above registers. The samples of sodium carbonate powder was seized in separate cover duly labeled, attested and sealed. He also drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P13.

Thereafter, AO1 and AO2 were arrested. Ex.P14 Mediators Report-II was commenced at 2.30 PM and concluded at 6.40 PM. A copy of Ex.P14 was served to both AOs under their acknowledgments. He also recorded statement of PW1 on the same day. Later on AOs were produced before the court and they were sent to judicial custody. Later on as per the directions of his superiors he handed over the investigation to PW7 Inspector of Police, ACB, Warangal for further investigation.

26.PW7 deposed that earlier he worked as Inspector of Police,

ACB, Warangal during the relevant point of time. According to him, he

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.19 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 took up the investigation from PW4, examined and recorded the statement of PW5, obtained service particulars and job chart of AO1 and AO2 from Zonal Officer, Warangal vide Exs.P18 to P20. After that he handed over CD file to PW6 for further investigation.

27.PW6 stated that previously he worked as Inspector of Police,

ACB, Warangal Range during the relevant point of time and he took up investigation in this case from PW7 on his transfer. He has verified the investigation conducted by PW7 and after receiving sanction order under Exs.P15 and P16 he filed charge sheet.

28.PW2 is one of the mediators to pre-trap and post-trap proceedings along with LW3 U.Satyanarayana and he deposed in tune with pre-trap and post-trap proceedings under Ex.P9 and Ex.P14 and corroborating the evidence of PW4, who is trap laying officer.

29.PW3 is presently working as Joint Secretary, Social Welfare

Residential Educational Institutions Society for the State of Telangana.

His evidence is that their office received a radio message from ACB officials regarding the trap of AO1 and AO2. Basing on that AO1 and

AO2 were placed under suspension by his Secretary. Their office also received a preliminary report along with copy of FIR, Mediators

Reports-I and II and also received final report. The entire file was sent to Law Department and Vigilance Commissioner. After receiving their advice, the Secretary issued proceeding for prosecution of AO1 and

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.20 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

AO2 and that he can identify the signature of the Secretary

Smt.Damayanthi. The sanction proceedings of AO1 and AO2 are marked as Exs.P15 and P16 respectively.

30.PW5 previously worked as Zonal Officer, Zone-V, APSWREI

Society, Warangal he speaks about the procedure for preparation of bills and duties of AOs. According to him, as per the procedure,

Superintendent of the concerned college of APSWREI Society has to prepare all the bills and the cheque will be issued by the Principal basing on the resolutions and approval of the Mess Committee.

31.Basing on the above evidence, the submission of the learned

Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution is that, according to evidence of PW1, AO1 and AO2 demanded to pay bribe of

Rs.10,000/- every month towards preparation of catering bill and issuance of cheque. PW1 also paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to AO1 and AO2 each in the month of August, 2008. Again in the month of

October, to clear the bill of September, AO1 and AO2 repeated their demand for Rs.10,000/- each as bribe. PW1 approached both accused on 13.10.2008 and 18.10.2008 and requested them that he can not pay the bribe but AO1 and AO2 reiterated their earlier demand of bribe.

On 20.10.2008 on the date of trap, AO1 and AO2 demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.10,000/ each from PW1. Thus, the prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of demand by examining PW1.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.21 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

32.It is further submitted that the acceptance of illegal gratification by AO1 and AO2 is the second ingredient of S.7 of the

P.C.Act, 1988. On the date of trap, AO1 and AO2 demanded and accepted bribe separately in their chambers from PW1. After receiving signal from PW1, PW4 and trap party members rushed into the room of

AO1 conducted chemical test on the hand fingers of AO1 which yielded positive result and seized the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from his wearing left side pant pocket. The inner linings of pant pocket also subjected to chemical test and the same also yielded positive. The chemical test conducted on the both hand fingers of AO2 yielded positive and the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was seized from his shirt pocket. Chemical test also conducted on the inner flap of left side shirt pocket of AO2 which also yielded positive. The oral evidence of PW1,

PW2, mediator and PW4 trap laying officer would clinchingly prove the acceptance of tainted currency of AO1 and AO2 each Rs.10,000/- from

PW1 and accordingly the prosecution has proved the seizure of bribe amount under MO7 and MO10. The seizure of tainted currency also incorporated by the mediators in the post-trap proceedings under

Ex.P14 and the contents of Ex.P14 is corroborated by the evidence of

PW2 and PW4. Thus, the prosecution has proved acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification from the possession of AO1 and AO2. It is also argued that the prosecution proved the official favour pending with AO1 and AO2. According to PW5, the Superintendent ie., AO2 prepares the bills every month and forwards the bills along with cheque to the Principal/AO1 and AO1 issues the cheque basing on the

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.22 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 resolution and approval of the Mess Committee. During the post-trap proceedings, AO2 has produced Exs.P3 to P10. AO1 has produced

Exs.P11 and P12. Therefore, the official favour documents were seized from the possession of AO1 and AO2 and the September, 2008 mess bill was not completely paid to PW1 being the contractor. Thus, it is argued that the prosecution has proved demand, acceptance, recovery and pendency of official favour by placing oral and documentary evidence.

33.It is further argued that in the present case, AO1 worked as

Principal, AO2 worked as Superintendent, APSWRS&JC, Jakaram of

Warangal. Therefore, both of them are public servants, as defined under Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The AOs have obtained pecuniary advantage from PW1 as illegal gratification and that obtaining amount is without any public interest. The evidence of prosecution witnesses shows AO1 and AO2 colluded intentionally and kept pending the part of catering bill for the month of September, 2008 of PW1 to demand bribe amount from him. Thus, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of S.13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1988 punishable under Section 13(2) of P.C.Act.

34.It is further submitted that evidence of PW1 shows that AO1 and AO2 had common intention and acted in furtherance of common intention and that both of them demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 on the date of trap. Thus, the

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.23 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 ingredients of S.34 IPC have been proved against both the accused.

Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor urged that the prosecution has proved its case against AO1 and AO2 beyond reasonable doubt and they may be punished according to law for the charges levelled against them.

35.On the other hand, the submission of learned defence counsel is that AO1 and AO2 are innocents of the charges levelled against them and both of them neither demanded nor accepted illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from PW1. It is the contention of the defence that the hostels were closed during Dussara vacation from 01.10.2008 to 12.10.2008 and the school was re-opened on 13.10.2008. All the bills upto August, 2008 were paid to PW1 and further an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by way of cheque towards advance/part of the September month bill. It is contended that on 13.10.2008 PW1 requested AO1 to pay atleast part of his bill as he does not have money to purchase groceries and that AO1 advised to purchase the same from New Sambasiva Kiran and General Stores on credit basis and that he would put a word and give a letter to the owner of the above Kirana shop and PW1 can pay the amount after encashment of the advance cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- and PW1 accordingly purchased groceries from the above Kirana shop on 13.10.2008 vide Bill N.416 for an amount of Rs.20,170/-. On the date of trap, PW1 has placed said Rs.20,000/- on the table of AO1 payable to

Kirana Store and in the meanwhile ACB officials rushed and seized the

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.24 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 said amount and it was not seized either from the possession of AO1 and AO2 as alleged by the prosecution. That PW1 foisted a false case against AO1 and AO2. The so-called seized amount is payable towards grocery charges to New Sambasiva Kirana and General Stores, Mulugu.

It is contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prov demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by AO1 and AO2.

36.In support of his case, the learned defence counsel relied on the following decisions:

1) Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1971 MLJ (Cri) 1).

2) Gulam Mohd. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1980 SC 1558).

3) Rabindranath Kumar Dey vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1977 SC 170).

4) Trilok Chandra Maurya vs. State (2011 (2) ALD (Crl) 672 (AP)).

5) B.Doraiswamy vs. State of A.P. (2003 (1) ALD (Crl) 656 (AP)).

6) P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs. Dist. Inspector of Police & another (AIR 2015 SC 3549).

7) B.Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2014 (2) ALD (Crl) 73).

8) State of Punjab vs. Madan Mohanlal Verma (2013 CriLJ 4050).

9) N.Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021 CriLJ 1353).

10) Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) (AIROnline 2022 SC 1160).

11) K.Narsimhachary vs. State, ACB (2003 CriLJ 3315).

37.The learned defence counsel urged that since the prosecution miserably failed to prove any of the charges levelled

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.25 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 against AO1 and AO2 beyond reasonable doubt and with an ulterior motive a false case has been registered against both the accused and by relying on the above decisions he urged to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against them.

38.By way of reply arguments, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no ill motive for PW1 to foist a false case against AO1 and AO2 and also there is no grudge against them. AO1 newly joined as Principal, as such, he has no acquaintance with the grocery shop owner, therefore the question of his recommending to the grocery shop owner to give groceries on credit basis to PW1 worth

Rs.20,000/- and odd does not arise. Even it is not admitted but assumed that the recovered amount of Rs.20,000/- is payable to the grocery shop owner, then PW1 ought to have given a single wad of currency notes of Rs.20,000/-, but the trap laying officer ie,. PW4 has recovered Rs.10,000/- each from the possession of AO1 and AO2 each, which itself is sufficient to show that the amount is not meant for payment to New Sambasiva Kirana and General Stores, Mulugu and it is the illegal gratification amount and thus none of the judgments relied upon by the defence counsel are applicable to the present case on hand and urged to convict the AOs accordingly.

39.In the light of the above rival arguments of the prosecution and defence, now the entire case available on record has to be scrutinized carefully.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.26 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

40.PW1 is the defacto complainant and set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 report before PW4 on 18.10.2008 at 1230 PM.

The contents of Ex.P1 would reveal that he was assigned contract by the proceedings of Joint Collector, Warangal dt.21.06.2008 to supply food to the students of APSWRS&JC at Jakaram. The approximate bill every month is Rs.2,50,000/-. The Superintendent (AO2) prepares the bill and cheque and forwards the same to the Principal (AO1) for issuance of the cheque. Every month AO1 and AO2 demanding

Rs.10,000/- each towards bribe for preparation of bill and handing over of cheque. He paid such bribe amount for the month of August bill. For preparation of September bill for about an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-,

AO1 and AO2 demanded each Rs.10,000/- towards bribe. PW1 requested them that he can not pay such bribe amount as the contract is not profitable to him. On the request of PW1, AO1 issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 13.10.2008 towards part of

September bill. He approached AO1 and AO2 for several times for the remaining bill of Rs.1,00,000/- and they reiterated the earlier demand of Rs.10,000/- each towards bribe. As he was not interested to pay bribe amount he set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1. He also deposed the said facts in his chief examination.

41.Cross-examination of PW1 goes to show that the duty of

Principal is that after receiving Caretaker’s report and Mess committee

report, he will prepare the bill and pay the amount by way of cheque.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.27 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

He admits that at the time of payment of bill for the month of June, 2008, AO1 and AO2 did not ask any amount and that he submitted an application for payment of bill amount for the month of July, 2008 on 18.08.2008 for an amount of Rs.2,21,835/- and the same was paid on the same day itself. He also admits that he submitted application for payment of bill amount for the month of August, 2008 on 16.09.2008.

At the time of payment of bill amount for July, no amount was asked by

AO1 and AO2. He also admits that for the month of August, 2008 he was paid Rs.2,29,254/- on the date of his application itself. He further admits that A2 calculated the amount @ Rs.1.40 ps. per border as he used firewood. PW1 denies the suggestion of the defence that he exerted pressure on AO2 not to calculate @ Rs.1.40 ps. but to pay @

Rs.1.65 ps. per border which is applicable for preparing food on gas stove, for which AO has not accepted and that he used filthy language against AO2 and also threatened him that he would file a complaint

before the court of law as if he abused him in the name of caste being

Erukala (ST). He also denies that AO1 and AO2 did not ask for payment of amount in respect of bill for the month of August, 2008. Further he voluntarily added that he paid Rs.10,000/- each to AO1 and AO2. Ex.P1 also reveals payment of Rs.10,000/- bribe to each AO1 and AO2. PW1 denies that he stated in his S.161 CrPC statement that he paid for the month of July and August, 2008, Rs.10,000/- to each AO1 and AO2.

The said statement is marked as Ex.D1. He also denies that he stated in his S.164 CrPC statement he paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- each for the month of June, 2008 and the said portion is marked as Ex.D2.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.28 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

42.PW1 admits that payment for September bill will be paid in the month of October only and the school was closed from 01.10.2008 to 12.10.2008 for Dussara vacation and the school was re-opened on 13.10.2008 and that the Caretaker has submitted the boarders list to the Principal on 30.09.2008 and that he has filed application on 13.10.2008 requesting the payment. PW1 further admits that the

Principal informed him that the payment will not be made unless the

Mess committee resolution will be received and that no resolution was passed by Mess committee and submitted to the Principal as on 13.10.2008. He further admits that on 13.10.2008 he submitted to the

Principal that he is penniless on the day for arranging food to the

boarders unless the cheque is paid. He denies that the Principal (AO1) informed him that he can arrange the food grains worth Rs.20,000/- and odd for the day for preparation of food to the boarders and that

PW1 accepted for the proposal and went to a shop along with official letter of the Principal to provide credit bill of food worth Rs.20,000/- and odd and later the Principal convened the meeting of the

Committee, Caretaker and students and stated that the contractor has expressed his inability to provide food to the boarders until the cheque was paid and the Mess Committee members suggested to calculate the total amount to be paid tentatively and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as an advance on that date and the remaining amount shall be paid after passing of the proper resolution. PW1 admits that in the After Noon on 13.10.2008 the Principal (AO1) issued a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- as an advance for the payment of the bill of September, 2008 and he passed

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.29 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 a receipt for the said amount vide Ex.P3.

43.Here, it is important to mention that a suggestion was put by the defence counsel to PW1 stating that the demand was made by AO on 13.10.2008 and he gave complaint to the ACB officials on 18.10.2008, for which PW1 replied positively. This suggestion indicates demand of AO on 13.10.2008. PW1 voluntarily added that in between 13.10.2008 and 18.10.2008 he was asking the AO to do his work. PW1 further positively deposed that on 13.10.2008 before filing of application vide Ex.P1, AO1 and AO2 demanded the bribe amount. It is not in dispute that at the request of PW1, AO has issued a cheque for

Rs.1,50,000/- towards advance payment for the month of September, 2008 and obtained receipt under Ex.P3 from PW1. On 13.10.2008 he supplied food to the boarders after fetching the provisions from outside

Kirana and prepared food.

44.The defence taken by AO1 and AO2 categorically denied by

PW1 in his cross-examination that on 13.10.2008 AO1 informed him that he would give a letter to one Kirana shop for getting provisions on credit basis for Rs.20,000/- and odd. A bill bearing No.416 dt.13.10.2008 from New Sambasiva Kirana and General Stores, Main

Road, Mulugu for Rs.20,170/- is confronted to PW1 and PW1 stated that the signature shown to him does not belong to him. PW1 admits that as per Ex.D3 there are lapses on his part for not supplying food in proper time and caused inconvenience to the students which is dt.14.8.2008.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.30 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

On perusal of Ex.D3, it is found that no incriminating material against accused or favourable matter in favour of the accused, is available in

Ex.D3 and the contents are also not so serious except that on 14.08.2008 Pw1 has not provided food to the students in timely. Ex.D4 is the Mess committee resolution dt.06.09.2008. The Committee has passed certain resolutions under Ex.D4 with regard to providing food to the students and this court did not find any incriminating material in the said document. Ex.D5 is a contradiction wherein PW1 gave statement before the Magistrate that when he met AO1, AO2 was also present in his room and he asked PW1 whether did he bring

Rs.10,000/-.

45.PW1 further denies that the amount of Rs.20,000/- paid by him was towards grocery purchased by him on 13.10.2008 from New

Sambasiva Kirana and General Stores, Mulugu and that as on the date of trap, he gave Rs.20,000/- to AO1 asking him to pay that amount to

New Sambasiva Kirana and General Stores since he put a word to him to supply groceries on 13.10.2008 on credit basis and that AO1 refused to take that amount and asked PW1 to pay directly at the above Kirana shop and PW1 kept the said amount on his table, etc. Here it is important to mention that there is no evidence brought on record to show that AO1 gave a letter to New Sambasiva Kirana and General

Stores, Mulugu to provide groceries worth Rs.20,170/- to PW1 on credit basis. Here, it is also important to mention that the accused have examined one B.Devender of New Sambasiva Kirana and General

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.31 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

Stores, Mulugu as DW1 in chief-examination on 22.08.2022, to prove alleged supply of groceries to PW1 on credit on 13.10.2008. But subsequently he did not turn up to face cross-examination, therefore his oral evidence including Ex.D12 credit bill dt.13.10.2008 has been eschewed. Even there is no evidence forthcoming to show that AO1 addressed a letter to New Sambasiva Kirana and General Stores,

Mulugu to provide groceries to PW1 on credit basis worth Rs.20,000/- as pleaded by them. Therefore, it appears that the defence taken by the accused is only an after-thought. In the case of S.Abdul Kaffar vs.

State of Kerala in Appeal (Crl) Case No.436 of 1997 dt.18.12.2003, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “when the stand taken by the AOs during trial not taken during the post-trap proceedings ie., at the first available opportunity the defence was not genuine.” In the instant case, the defence which was pleaded by the AOs before this court had not taken during the post-trap proceedings. Therefore, the defence taken by the AOs that PW1 has placed wad of currency notes of Rs.20,000/- in a single bundle on the table of PW1, which is payable to the New Sambasiva Kirana and General Stores at Mulugu, is not genuine, not believable and not acceptable. PW1 in his Ex.P1 report categorically stated about demand made by AO1 and AO2 each for

Rs.10,000/- for payment of his Mess Bill for the month of September, 2008 payable in October, 2008.

46.Further the evidence of mediator, who is examined as PW2 and the trap laying officer, who is examined as PW4 goes to show that

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.32 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

PW4 has seized an amount of Rs.10,000/- each from the possession of

AO1 and AO2 vide MO7 and MO10. Since the amount of Rs.10,000/- each vide MO7 and MO10 seized respectively from the possession of each accused, the seizure also falsifies the defence taken by the accused that PW1 kept the amount of Rs.20,000/- on the table of AO1.

Further when chemical test conducted on the hand fingers of AO1, the left hand wash turned into pink colour, however, the right hand was remained colourless since PW1 categorically deposed that AO1 received bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- with his left hand and kept it in his left side pant pocket. When the left side pant pocket of AO1 which came into contact with tainted currency subject to chemical test it also yielded positive result.

47.Further chemical test was conducted on both hand fingers of

AO2 yielded positive result. According to PW1, he handed over tainted currency to AO2, he received it with his right hand and counted with both hands and kept it in his left side shirt pocket. The inner linings of shirt pocket of AO2 which came into contact with tainted currency is subjected to chemical test, which also yielded positive result. The seizure of MO7 and MO10 and the yielding of chemical test positive on the hand fingers of AO1 and AO2 and their clothes which came into contact with the tainted currency, is a strong circumstance that AO1 and AO2 demanded and accepted the tainted currency of Rs.10,000/- each from PW1. Though PW2 was subjected to lengthy cross- examination, but nothing worthwhile could be elicited from his mouth

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.33 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 to disbelieve his version. PW2 categorically denies the suggestion of the defence that entire amount of Rs.20,000/- was available on the table of AO1 only and the same was not recovered from AO1 and AO2 as stated by him. He also denies that AO1 gave spontaneous explanation to the effect that Pw1 kept Rs.20,000/- on his table, who had to repay the same to the Kirana shop at Mulugu for the provisions that were received on credit on 13.10.2008 by PW1 himself on the letter given by the Principal to the shop. In fact, the oral evidence of

PW2 is corroborating with the recitals of Ex.P14 post-trap proceedings with regard to production of tainted currency of Rs.10,000/- by AO1 from his left side pant pocket. Similarly it is also corroborated with regard to production of amount from the left side shirt pocket of AO2.

48.Similarly PW4, the trap laying officer, denies the suggestion that PW1 had requested AO1 to arrange food grains and supply on credit basis as the advance bill under Ex.P3 will take time to clear and that the Principal had requested New Sambasiva Kirana and General

Stores, Mulugu to supply the required food grains to PW1 to supply food to the students on 13.10.2008 and the food supply given to PW1 vide Bill No.416 dt.13.10.2008 for Rs.20,170/- and the said bill bears signature of PW1 as buyer’s signature. Similarly when the said bill is confronted to PW1 in his cross-examination he also denied his signature on the said bill. Though PW4 also subjected to cross- examination by defence, but nothing worthwhile could be elicited from his mouth.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.34 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

49.From the above said oral evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW4 coupled with Exs.P1, P14 and MO7 and MO10, it is clearly established that AO1 and AO2 demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- each from PW1 for passing September 2008 mess bill payable in October, 2008.

50.Since the demand and acceptance is proved, therefore the decisions in P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs. Dist. Inspector of Police & another (AIR 2015 SC 3549) and B.Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. (2014 (2) ALD (Crl) 73) has no relevancy and not applicable to the facts of the present case. So also the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

N.Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021 CriLJ 1353); Neeraj

Dutta vs. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) (AIROnline 2022 SC 1160) and B.Doraiswamy vs. State of A.P. (2003 (1) ALD (Crl) 656 (AP)).

51.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

Indian in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of U.P., the decision relied upon by the defence counsel in Sirajuddin vs. State of Madras (1971 MLJ (Cri) 1) that suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations has to be made has relevancy.

52.The contention of the learned defence counsel is that Pw1 is interested and partisan witness and this court has to look for independent corroborative evidence before convicting the accused

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.35 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 persons and relied on a decision in State of Punjab vs. Madan

Mohanlal Verma (2013 CriLJ 4050). Here, it is important to mention that nothing is brought on record to show that PW1 is interested and partisan witness. His evidence is consistent and corroborating on the material particulars and he has no grudge against AO1 and AO2 and more over AO1 newly came to that particular institution, hence there can not be any ill-intention on the part of PW1 to implicate AO1 and

AO2 falsely in the above case. Though PW1 is subjected to lengthy cross-examination, and his evidence has been shaken and not brought on record to show that he is interested and partisan witness.

53.In fact, Exs.D3, D4, D6 to D11 are filed by the prosecution and they were confronted to the prosecution in the cross-examination and marked in ‘D’ series. But on a careful consideration of these exhibits marked on behalf of the accused, nothing could be found favourableto his case.

54.PW3 deposed regarding sanction proceedings under Exs.P15 and P16 to prosecute the AOs before the court of law. PW3 in his cross- examination admitted that he was not working in the office when the proceedings under Exs.P15 and P16 were issued by the office and that he has no personal knowledge of filing records under Exs.P15 and P16.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the sanction order is only an administrative order and that for purpose the author of the document, Smt.Damayanthi who is the then Chief Secretary who issued

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.36 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 proceedings, need not be examined. It appears that there is some force in the contention of learned Special Public Prosecutor.

55.In Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat [AIR 1976 SC 1497] it is held that “if it is established that the public servant accepted gratification which was not his legal remuneration, the statutory presumption under S.20 of the P.C.Act was attracted in full force and the burden is shifted on to the accused to show that he had not accepted the said money as a motive or reward.” In B.Noha vs. State of Kerala and another (2007 (1) SCC (Crl.) 711) it is held that, “when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant, the burden is on the public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification.” In the instant case on hand, it is established that the AO1 and AO2 are found in possession of illegal gratification and that the prosecution has established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by them from PW1. Since the ingredients of S.7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 is satisfied, therefore the presumption under S.20 of the P.C.Act, 1988 comes into picture in favour of the prosecution. However, the said presumption is rebuttal and the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material on record, it is found that the accused persons failed to discharge the said presumption by bringing on record evidence, circumstances or direct.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.37 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

56.For the foregoing discussion and in view of the material available on record, this court finds that the prosecution has successfully proved the demand of illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- each by AO1 and AO2 from PW1 for preparing bill and issuance of cheque towards mess charges for the month of September, 2008. The prosecution also successfully proved acceptance of the bribe amount by AO1 and AO2 by placing cogent evidence of chemical test and the evidence of PW2 and PW4 including recovery of the same from the possession of AO1 and AO2 vide MO7 and MO10. Thus, it is not out of place to mention that as on the date of trap, the bill for the month of

September, 2008 was partly paid and the bill for the remaining amount is pending with the AO1 and AO2 ie., official favour is pending with them. Since AO1 and AO2 being public servants, in furtherance of their common intention, demanded and accepted pecuniary advantage of

Rs.10,000/- each from PW1, without any public interest, on the date of trap ie., on 20.10.2008, they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

57.As a result, AO1 and AO2 are found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 r/w

Section 34 IPC and they are convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of March, 2023.

sd/-

Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

FAC-I.Addl.Special Judge for SPE&ACB Cases

Hyderabad.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.38 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

58.AO1 and AO2 are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

AO1 stated that his wife was expired in the year 2010 due to heart-attack and his two sons are not settled well and that he is not keeping good health as there are blocks in his blood vessels of brain and not getting pension also. Therefore, AO1 requested to take a lenient view.

Similarly AO2 stated that he is having two daughters who are studying B.Tech First Year and Intermediate Second Year respectively and he is not getting pension and that he has been dismissed from service and requested to take lenient view.

59.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence being socio-economic offence, this court finds that it is not a fit case either to apply the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or S.360 of CrPC or to take a lenient view.

Hence, in the circumstances of the case, AO1 and AO2 are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under

Section 7 of the P.C.Act, 1988 r/w S.34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, AO1 and AO2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Similarly, AO1 and AO2 are sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.39 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015 of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988 r/w S.34 IPC, in default of payment of fine, AO1 and AO2 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Total fine amount is Rs.10,000/- each for AO1 and AO2.

Both the above sentences shall run concurrently for AO1 and

AO2.

The remand period already undergone by AO1 (ie., from 21.10.2008 to 07.11.2008) and AO2 (ie,. From 21.10.2008 to 12.11.2008) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

The tainted currency of Rs.10,000/- each (MO7 and MO10) shall be confiscated to State and other non-valuables ie., MO1 to MO6,

MO8, MO9, MO11 to MO13 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

AO1 and AO2 are informed that an appeal lies to the Hon’ble

High Court for the State of Telangana against the conviction and sentence passed by this court.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I of the Prl.ACB Court, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of March, 2023.

sd/-

Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

FAC-I.Addl.Special Judge for SPE&ACB Cases

Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW-1Sri K.Vidyasagar (defacto complainant ) PW-2Sri Doma Adi Reddy (Mediator for Mediator Reports I & II)

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.40 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

PW-3Sri M.Pullaiah, Joint Secretary, APSWREI Society ( Issued prosecution orders against AOs) PW-4Sri T.Janardhan, DSP, ACB, Warangal Range (issued FIR and Trap laying officer) PW-5Sri B.Krishnamurthy (Zonal Officer, APSWREI Society, Warangal who speaks about procedure) PW-6Sri S.Raghavendra Rao, Inspector of Police, ACB, Warangal (IO filed charge-sheet against AOs) PW-7Sri J.Surender Reddy, Inspector of Police, ACB, Warangal Range (who conducted further investigation)

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE / ACCUSED : NIL. **Evidence of DW1 and Ex.D12 eschewed. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex. P1Original complaint of PW1 Dt.18.10.2008. Ex. P2Proceedings of Joint Collector/Chairman, District Purchase Committee, Warangal Dt.21.6.2008. Ex. P3Receipt for Rs.1,50,000/- cheque dt.13.10.2008. Ex. P4Note-File showing Rs.81,709/- was paid for the month of June, 2008 dt.17.07.2008. Ex. P5Note-File showing Rs.2,51,088/- was paid for the month of July, 2008 dt.18.08.2008. Ex. P6Note-File showing Rs.2,29,264/- was paid for the month of August, 2008 dt.16.09.2008. Ex. P7Note-File showing Rs.2,48,888/- was paid for the month of September, 2008. Ex. P8Copy of Complaint/Report of PW1, Dt.18.10.2008. Ex. P9Mediator Report-I Dt.20.10.2008 Ex.P10Diet Chart of APSWRS&JC Jakaram for September, 2008 (1) Sheet. Ex.P11Teachers Attendance Register for the year 2008-2009. Ex.P12Non-Teaching attendance Register for the year 2008-2009. Ex.P13Rough sketch Dt. 20.10.2008 Ex.P14Mediators Report-II, Dt.20.10.2008 Ex.P15Sanction Proceedings of Secretary AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions society (Regd) Hyderabad of AO1

Dt. 03.06.2010.

Ex.P16Sanction Proceedings of Secretary AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions society, (regt) Hyderabad of AO-2,

Dt. 01.05.2010.

Ex.P17First Information Report Dt.20.10.2008.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.41 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

Ex.P18Covering letter of Zonal Officer, Zone-V, APSWREI Society, Warangal Dt.14.11.2008. Ex.P19Service particulars and Job chart of AO-1, Dt.14.11.2008 Ex.P20Service particulars and Job chart of AO-2, Dt.14.11.2008

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE/ACCUSED:

Ex.D1Portion of 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, Dt. 17.1.2009 at Pg.2. Ex.D2Portion of 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, Dt. 17.1.2009 at Pg.1. Ex.D3Mess Committee Meeting resolution dt.14.8.2008. Ex.D4Mess Committee Meeting resolution dt.6.9.2008. Ex.D5Portion of 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, Dt.17.1.2009 (at Pg.3&4). Ex.D6G.O.Ms.No.1 of Social Welfare (A1) Dept, Dt. 2.1.1987. Ex.D7Circular of APSWREI Dt. 25.5.2006 showing appointment of Mess committee. Ex.D8Circular of APSWREI Dt. 8.9.2008 showing caretaker and his duties. Ex.D9Circular of APSWREI Dt. 8.9.2008 showing procedure to prepare catering bill. Ex.D10 Proceedings of the Joint Collector/Chairman, Dist.Purchase Committee, DSWREI Society, Warangal dt.21.06.2008 showing appointment of contractor and showing rates of gas and firewood. Ex.D11 Circular dt.26.05.2008 of the APSWREI Society, Hyderabad showing catering contract with provisions.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO-1Cover containing the sample of Phenolphthalein Powder. MO-2Cover containing the sample of Sodium Carbonate Powder. MO-3Left hand wash of AO1. MO-4Right hand wash of AO1. MO-5Right hand wash of AO2. MO-6Left hand wash of AO2. MO-7Tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- seized from AO1. MO-8Resultant Solution of Inner Linings of pant pocket of AO1. MO-9Pant of AO1. MO10Tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- seized from AO2. MO11Resultant Solution of Inner Linings of shirt pocket of AO2. MO12Shirt of AO2.

I Addl. SPE&ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.42 Judgment in C.C.No.35/2015

MO13Remaining Sodium Carbonate Powder.

sd/-

Principal Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB Cases,

FAC-I.Addl.Special Judge for SPE&ACB Cases

Hyderabad.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.1 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE & ACB CASES: HYDERABAD

Thursday, the 22nd day of September, 2022

Present:Sri G.Raja Gopal,

Principal Special Judge for trial of

SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

CALENDAR CASE No. 49 of 2007

Name of the Complainant: The State through Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, City Range-II, Hyderabad.

Crime No.: Cr.No.3/ACB-CR-2/2006.

Offence: The charges under Sections 7,13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO-1 & AO-2.

Name of the Accused Officer: AO-1 Shaik Mahaboob Subhani. AO-2 M.Subash Chandra Bose (Case withdrawn)

Plea of the Accused Officer: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found guilty.

Result: As a result, AO1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) of P.C.Act,1988 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) Cr.P.C.As a result, AO1 is sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of

Rs.5000/-for the offence under

Section 7 of the P.C.Act,1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Similarly, AO1 is

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.2 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 sentenced to undergoRigorous

Imprisonment for a period of Five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/ w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Total fine amount is Rs.10,000/-. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently for AO1.

The remand period already undergone by AO1 (ie., from 04.02.2006 to 28.02.2006) shall be set off under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C. AO1 is informed that he has got a right to file appeal against the Judgment before the

Hon’ble High Court.

MO1 tainted currency of Rs.5,00,000/- (500/- X 1000) shall be confiscated to

State, MOs.2 to 9 (Samples of Sodium

Carbonate Powder, Phenolphthalein

Powder in MR-I; Sodium Carbonate powder in MR-II; Resultant Solutions of right and left hand fingers wash of AO1,

White cover printed as HSBC which was used to carry tainted amount, Digital

Taperecorder CENIX, and CD-R, both containing conversation between AO1 and PW1) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.3 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

Name and particulars of AO-1: Shaik Mahaboob Subhani, Accused Officers S/o.Late. Shaik Akber Saheb, Age: 67 years, Occ:S.I.of Police, Palakole Police Station, West Godavari District.

AO-2: M.Subash Chandra Bose. (Case against AO2 is withdrawn as per orders in Crl.R.C.No.320/2012 dt.03.07.2012 of the Hon’ble High Court)

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12.09.2022 in the presence of Sri.N.Srinivas, learned Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, Hyderabad and Sri.K.Ravindra Babu and Sri.M.Jangaiah, learned Counsel for AO1, upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The complainant represented by Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range-2, Hyderabad has filed charge sheet against AO1 and AO2 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (here-in-after will be referred as ‘P.C.Act’ for convenience) r/w Section 34 IPC in Crime

No.3/ACB-CR2/2006.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet is as under:

AO1 worked as Sub Inspector of Police, Palakollu Rural Police

Station, West Godavari District from 22.07.2004 to 03.02.2006 and AO2 worked as Circle Inspector of Police, Palakollu Circle, West Godavari District from 08.09.2004 to 06.02.2006. By virtue of the post held by them, they fall under the category of ‘public servants’ as defined under Section 2(c) of

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.4 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 the P.C.Act.

3.PW1 being the defacto complainant, namely Smt.Paruchuri

Sumana, involved in a kidnap case vide Crime No.32/2005 under Sections 365, 341, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC along with others at Palakollu Rural Police

Station, West Godavari District. She was arrested on 21.12.2005 by

Palakollu Police. After PW1 released on bail, she received number of phone calls from AO2 stating that he would help her to get out of the case and directed her to bear the expenses and asked her to contact AO1. In the second week of January, 2006, AO1 contacted her over phone number 23552096 and demanded to pay Rs.5 Lakhs as per the instructions of AO2.

On 20.01.2006 AO1 came over to residence of PW1 and asked money at the instigation of AO2 to make the case favourable. Somehow, PW1 postponed to next date. On 21.01.2006 AO1 once again came to her house in uniform in night and demanded money, but PW1 asked some time to arrange the said amount.

4.On 01.02.2006 AO1 again contacted her on the above phone at 3.30 PM and at 11.30 PM and the same were recorded by PW1. On 02.02.2006 AO1 contacted on phone number 9391133441 and stated that he was being pressurized by AO2 and demanded an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as bribe to show favour by himself and AO2 in Crime No.32/2005 of

Palakolu Rural Police Station. AO1 further informed that he would come to

Hyderabad to receive the bribe on his behalf and on behalf of AO2 on

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.5 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 03.02.2006. As PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount to Accused

Officers, she lodged a report with the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Anti Corruption Bureau, City Range-2, Hyderabad on 02.02.2006 at 11.00

AM and requested to take necessary action against the Accused Officers.

The DSP, ACB, CR-2, Hyderabad registered a case in Crime No.3/ACB-

CR2/2006 under Section 7 of P.C.Act on 03.02.2006 at 12.15 PM after due verification and investigated into.

5.AO1 was trapped in the presence of two mediators, namely,

G.Parameshwar Rao (LW4) and Gopala Swamy Vasudevan (LW5) (both died, both not examined) lead by DSP, ACB, CR-2, Hyderabad when he demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs from PW1 as illegal gratification for showing official favour on 03.02.2006 at the residence of

PW1. The Phenolphthalein test conducted on the both hand fingers of AO1 gave positive result and tainted amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was seized from the possession of AO1. AO1 was arrested on 03/04.02.2006 at 1.00 AM and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. AO2 was arrested on 06.02.2006 at 7.30 PM by DSP, ACB, CR-2, Hyderabad (PW5). The learned

IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (LW9) recorded the statement of

PW1 and J.Vinod Reddy (LW2) under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

6.During the course of investigation, PW5 the DSP, ACB, CR-2,

Hyderabad recorded statements of PW1, J.Vinod Reddy (LW2), R.Sathi

Babu (LW3), PW3, PW7, etc.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.6 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

7.AO1 contacted PW1 and informed her that AO2 was pressurizing him to contact her for negotiations regarding the case so as to dilute the case at the time of charge sheet and to close the case in case of compromise. The conversation between PW1 and AO1 was recorded by

PW1. On the request of ACB officials, the Digital Tape-recorder was handed over to the ACB officials, who have seized the same. Further PW1 stated that AO2 contacted her over phone thrice and told that there were ways and means to get out of the case and also informed her to contact AO1 in this case.

8.The Government of Andhra Pradesh being the competent authority to remove the Accused Officer from government service accorded sanction of prosecution for AO1 and AO2 vide G.O.Ms.No.141 and 142 dt.22.06.2007 of Home (SC.A) Department respectively.

9.Cognizance was taken by the then Presiding Officer of this Court for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the

P.C.Act read with 34 of IPC against AO1 and AO2.

10.As per the orders in Crl.R.C.No.320 of 2022 on the file of Hon’ble

High Court, the case against AO2 is withdrawn under Section 321 of Cr.P.C.

and thereby he was discharged.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.7 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

11.On appearance of AO1 before this Court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the material before this Court,

AO1 was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. by explaining accusation levelled in brief, for which he denied the same. Therefore, charges for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act were framed, read over and explained to AO1. He denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

12.During the course of trial, PW1 to PW8 are examined, Exs.P1 to

P18 and M.Os.1 to 9 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, AO1 is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

by explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution. AO1 denied the same and reported that he would file Written Statement and adduce defence evidence on his behalf.

13.AO1 has filed Written Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

However, AO1 did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

14.Heard arguments from both sides. Prosecution also filed Written

Arguments.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.8 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

15.Now the points that arise for consideration in this case are:

1) Whether the prosecution has proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.5 Lakhs from PW1 by AO1?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved its case against AO1 for the charges levelled against him beyond reasonable doubt?

POINTS NOs.1 & 2:

16.Points Nos.1 and 2 are inter-related with each other, as such both points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.

17.To substantiate the case of prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses are examined. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 is the then Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, who refused to grant Casual Leave to AO1. PW3 is the then Deputy Superintendent of

Police, ACB, Vijayawada who recorded the statement of PW2. PW4 is the

Section Officer in the Office of the Principal Secretary to Government,

Home Department, Secretariat of Andhra Pradesh, who deposed about according sanction to prosecute A1 and A2. PW5 is the Investigating

Officer. PW6 to PW8 are the Nodal Officers of BSNL, Reliance India

Communications Limited, Bharti Airtel respectively. Learned Special Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Jakkula Vinod Reddy (LW2). The mediators, G.Parameshwar Rao (LW4) and Gopala Swamy Vasudevan (LW5) are not examined in view of their death.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.9 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

18.The story of the prosecution as unfolded the testimony of witnesses, in brief, is as under:

PW1 Smt.Paruchuri Sumana is the defacato complainant and she set the criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1 before the DSP, ACB,

City Range, Hyderabad under Ex.P1 on 02.02.2006 at 11.00 AM. Her evidence goes to show that in 2004 she purchased a property in Moinabad admeasuring 16 Acres after verification of title deeds from Mr.Vajranath.

Subsequently, a case was filed by Mr.Somaraju and others claiming the said land. PW1 got an ex-parte injunction against Mr.Somaraju and others.

Keeping this in mind, wife of Somaraju filed a false kidnap case in Palakollu against her and Jakkula Vinod Reddy (LW2) and they were arrested on 21.12.2005 and subsequently they got bail. Once they came back to their home, they were called on their phones bearing Nos.040-23552096 and 9391133441 by Mr.Subhani, Sub-Insepctor of Police (AO1) of Palakollu

Police Station and Circle Inspector Bose of Palakollu Police Station (AO2).

There were about 10 to 15 calls made continuously by AO1 and on multiple occasions by AO2, also spoke from AO1 phone. They also called them many times from unidentified numbers and AO1 explained that

Palakollu case will be made in their favour after a bribe amount of Rs.5

Lakhs was to be paid to AO1 and AO2. Both of them continuously spoke to them on phones and on receipt of bribe amount Palakollu case will be diluted, ultimately Palakollu case ended in acquittal.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.10 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

19.During that period, AO1 was continuously calling PW1 over phone and demanded her to pay bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs and AO2 was also pursuing AO1 for making PW1 to give the bribe amount. On 20.01.2006 AO1 came to her house in the After Noon and reiterated their demand of Rs.5 Lakhs to dilute her case. AO1 also came on 21.01.2006 in the night in uniform and explained that it is to be done immediately. AO1 contacted PW1 on 01.02.2006 at around 3.30 PM and 11.00 PM on phone bearing No.23552096 and also on 02.02.2006 on phone bearing

No.9391133441. PW1 recorded his call received on 01.02.2006 and the recorder was later given by her to DSP. After receiving the call on 02.02.2006 PW1 was very disturbed and feared of her life and she was not willing to pay the bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs, she contacted ACB office on 02.02.2006, met the DSP and explained to him all the events and also gave a written report under Ex.P1. According to PW1, the DSP ie., PW5 asked her to come with bribe amount that was demanded by AOs, on 03.02.2006 to the ACB office.

20.Accordingly on 03.02.2006 at about 11.00 AM PW1 went to the

Office of PW5 along with the proposed bribe amount. DSP enquired her whether she got the bribe amount and he introduced PW1 to mediators.

The DSP then asked PW1 to give the packet of money of Rs.5 Lakhs to the mediators. The mediators counted the amount which is in Rs.1000/- denomination and noted down the serial numbers and then DSP gave her report to the mediators, upon which the mediators read the report and

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.11 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 asked her if the complaint was given by her, she acknowledged the same and confirmed that the contents were true. On the instructions of DSP, a constable has applied some chemical powder to the notes and put it back in the cover and gave it to PW1. Then DSP asked the constable to get two glasses of solution and asked PW1 and mediators to dip their hand fingers and when they did so there was no change in the colour of the solution.

The constable who applied the chemical powder to the curency notes dipped his fingers in the same solution it turned into Pink folour. All of them washed their hands and the solution was destroyed. DSP instructed

PW1 not to touch the notes at any point of time which were kept in the cover and he also instructed that PW1 should give the amount of Rs.5

Lakhs to AO1 only upon his demand and AO1 accepts the amount she should give a missed call from the phone to his phone.

21.At about 3.30 PM they left from ACB office. One mediator accompanied PW1 in her car and another mediator was with the DSP and the staff in the car of DSP. They rushed to her house situated at Road

No.49, Plot No.974 of Jubilee Hills. Then the DSP instructed that PW1 should be in the ground floor when AO1 comes and DSP along with his staff will be at the first floor of the same house. She further deposed that

AO1 called Mr.Vinod Reddy (LW2) and spoke to both of them on phone and asked whether the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was ready and that he was waiting at Jubilee Hills Check Post and need to be picked up as he did not have a vehicle. Vinod Kumar Reddy (LW2) has taken Qualis car of PW1 to

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.12 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 pick up AO1 from Jubilee Hills Check Post. At around 6.15 PM AO1 walked into her house and upon entering asked PW1 whether bribe amount of

Rs.5 Lakhs was ready. PW1 handed over the cover with the money of Rs.5

Lakhs in Rs.1000/- denomination to AO1. AO1 took out the money from the cover, counted with both hands and asked to bring a small bag to carry it. Meanwhile Vinod Kumar Reddy (LW2) gave a missed call to DSP from phone no.9391133441. PW1 got up to get the required bag for AO1.

As PW1 walked out, DSP along with staff and mediators came to the room and told her and Vinod Kumar Reddy (LW2) to wait in the next room until some formalities with AO1 are completed. They waited for about one-and- half hour. DSP came back to them along with mediators and mediators asked her what happened inside with AO1. PW1 explained to the mediators about the whole incident and they noted down on some paper.

After that DSP also noted the entire incident as told by her. PW1 handed over the recorded conversation on an instrument Cinex to the DSP. After two weeks she was asked to give her statement before the Magistrate.

22.PW5 Sri.M.Yohan is the then DSP, ACB, City Range-2, Hyderabad.

His evidence goes to show that on 02.02.2006 at 11.00 AM he received

Ex.P1 from PW1 and he made an endorsement that the case will be considered after verifying the genuineness of the complaint. He asked

PW1 to come on the next day ie., 03.02.2006 along with proposed bribe amount. He obtained permission from the Director General, ACB to proceed with the case and on the basis of telephonic permission from DG,

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.13 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

ACB he registered Ex.P1 of PW1 as a case in Crime No.3/ACB-CR2/2006 u/s.7 of P.C.Act and issued FIR vide Ex.P7 and took up investigation on the same day. On the same day, on his request the Assistant Commissioner

Endowment Department, Ujjaini Mahankali Temple, Secunderabad has provided two mediators on the next day, namely G.Parameshwar Rao (LW4) and Gopala Krishna Vasudevan (LW5). On 03.02.2006 both of them appeared before him. PW1 along with J.Vinod Reddy (LW2) attended

before him. He has introduced PW1 to the mediators and vice-versa. He

furnished copy of Ex.P1 to the mediators and asked them to enquire PW1 about the contents of her complaint. On enquiry by them, PW1 confirmed the contents of her report. The mediators have attested the copy of complaint in token of their verification of the contents and it is Ex.P8. On enquiry, PW1 stated that she brought proposed bribe amount and she produced the amount in Rs.500/- x 1000 denomination. He requested one of the mediators to note down the serial numbers of the currency notes.

Accordingly mediators noted the numbers in the report ie., Mediators

Report-I vide Ex.P9. Then PW5 instructed his constable to apply

Phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and accordingly he applied the powder and laid five bundles of the currency notes, kept in a white cover and handed over the same to PW1 with instructions to hand over the amount to AO only on his demand. He demonstrated and explained the significance of chemical test to the mediators and PW1. He requested the said constable who applied Phenolphthalein powder to stay back in the

Office along with remaining Phenolphthalein powder. PW5 instructed PW1

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.14 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 to go to her house at Jubilee Hills and pay the amount only on demand made by AO. He also instructed that in case AO accepts the bribe amount she should give a signal by making the phone call to him. The remaining

Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein powder (MO2 and MO3) were seized and sealed with the attestation of mediators. The proceedings were reduced to writing in Mediators Report-I which was concluded at 3.30

PM. PW5, his Inspectors and mediators attested Ex.P9 Mediators Report-I.

Thereafter all of them started at 3.40 PM in a Government vehicle and proceeded towards house of PW1 and reached house of PW1 at 4.30 PM and parked their vehicles nearby the house of PW1 and entered her house and took vantage position at first floor of the building. PW5 reiterated his earlier instructions to PW1.

23.Evidence of PW5 further goes to show that at 6.10 PM he received a missed call from J.Vinod Reddy (LW2). PW1 also came to the first floor and informed about the payment of bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to AO1. Immediately they all rushed to the ground floor of the house where they found AO1. PW5 disclosed his identity to AO1 and on knowing his identity AO1 started shivering and tried to lock the bribe amount which was in his hands in the glass teapoy, which was infront of him. On the enquiry of PW5, AO1 revealed his name as Shaik Mahaboob Subhani, working as S.I.of Police, Palakolu Police Station of West Godavari District.

PW5 introduced the mediators to AO1. Immediately he got prepared

Sodium Carbonate solution, and on his request, AO1 rinsed his both hand

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.15 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 fingers separately in the two glass tumblers. When he did so the solution tuned into pink colour. The solution in two glass tumbles transferred into separate bottles, sealed ad labeled and attested by mediators (MO5 and

MO6). He asked one of the mediators to verify the numbers of the currency notes which were under the Teapoy. A mediator, by name Vasudevan (LW5) verified the numbers of the currency notes in five bundles and found them tallied with that of Ex.P9 Report. He seized the tainted amount in the presence of mediators (MO1). He questioned AO1 whether he demanded and accepted bribe from PW1 and version of AO1 was incorporated in Ex.P11 Mediators Report-II. He also incorporated the version of PW1 and J.Vinod Reddy (LW2) in Ex.P11 Report.

24.PW5 further deposed that the sample of Sodium Carbonate

Powder used in the chemical test (MO4) was seized, sealed, labeled and attested by mediators. He also seized the cover (MO7) in which the bribe amount was paid to AO1. PW1 handed over the CD (MO8) in which her conversation with AO1 was recorded and seized the said CD. MO9 is the

CD-R on which the conversation between AO1 and PW1 was recorded/converted. He prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence vide Ex.P10 and effected arrest of AO1. Ex.P11 Mediators Report-II was concluded at 1.00 AM on 04.02.2006 and a copy of Ex.P11 was furnished to AO1 and obtained his signature. He also recorded the statement of

PW1, Rolla Sathi Babu (LW3). He has produced AO1 before the Court. He also addressed letters to the Nodal Officers for furnishing Call Data

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.16 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

Records of PW1, LW2, AO1 and AO2 and obtained Call Data Records. He also got recorded statements of PW1 and J.Vinod Reddy (LW2) under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally. After obtaining sanction orders under Exs.P5 and P6, he filed charge sheet against AO1 and AO2. Ex.P12 is the letter received from Superintendent of

Police, West Godavari District dt.19.03.2006 with the details of mobile phones of AO1 and AO2. Exs.P13 to P15 are the reports received from

Reliance Informm Com., Bharati Cellular Limited and BSNL respectively with regard to phone numbers of PW1. Exs.P16 and P17 are the Call Data

Records of AO1 and AO2 respectively. Ex.P18 is the permission received from DG, ACB dt.17.02.2006.

25.PW2 Sri.R.Shiva Rama Raju, the then Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Narsapuram, West Godavari District from 2004 to 2006. He deposed that during that period AO2 was working as Circle Inspector of

Police, Palakollu Circle and AO1 was working as S.I.of Police, Rural Police

Station which are under his jurisdiction. On 02.02.2006 AO1 telephoned and requested for sanction of Casual Leave as he was not feeling well. He told AO1 that the leave can be sanctioned and asked him to forward his leave application through the Circle Inspector, Palakollu. After 3 or 4 hours, AO2 spoke to him on telephone and told him that ASI of Palakollu

Rural Police Station was already on sick leave and he can not forward the leave application of AO1 as a Habeas Corpus petition is pending before the

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, after that leave can be granted to

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.17 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

AO1. PW2 asked AO2 to inform the matter to AO1 and no leave would be granted on that juncture. Subsequently AO1 never spoke to him regarding his leave matter. The leave application of AO1 was not forwarded to him by AO2 and kept the leave application with him.

26.PW3 K.Mahipal previously worked as DSP, ACB, Vijayawada from

December, 2005 to December, 2006. According to him, on 03.02.2006 he received instructions from PW5 to conduct house searches and also collect documents relating to this crime. Accordingly he conducted house search of AO2 in Palakollu and also collected documents mentioned in search list from Palakollu Police Station. Ex.P2 is the Inventory proceedings along with search list. Subsequently on 04.02.2006 he examined PW2 and recorded his statement. Ex.P3 is the leave letter of AO1. Ex.P4 is the

General Diary of Palakollu Police Station (Rural).

27.PW4 Smt.K.Vasantha Lakshmi is working as Section Officer,

Home Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. She deposed about according sanction to AO1 and AO2 vide Exs.P5 and P6 by the then Principal Secretary to Government Sri.P.V.Naidu.

28.PW6 Sri.N.Srinivasulu is working as Sub Divisional Engineer,

BSNL, Hyderabad. According to his evidence, in response to the letter received from ACB, Hyderabad they have obtained information from the

Accounts Section, BSNL with regard to landline number 23552096 which

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.18 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 was appearing in the name of PW1. Ex.P15 is the letter received from the

Accounts Officer.

29.PW7 S.Madhusudan Gupta is the Nodal Officer of Reliance

Communications, Hyderabad. According to his evidence, the then Nodal

Officer Sri.H.Jaya Kiran submitted information with regard to mobile number 9391133441 to the DSP, ACB which was obtained in the name of

Vinod Kumar Reddy (LW2). Ex.P13 is the letter addressed by the then

Nodal Officer.

30.PW8 Sri.V.V.Narayanan is the Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel,

Hyderabad. According to him, their office has furnished information to

PW5. As per the letter dt.14.03.2006 he confirmed address particulars of

Vinod Kumar Reddy (LW2) in respect of mobile number 9866201234 vide

Ex.P14.

31.The submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the complainant is that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 as against AO1 by placing cogent evidence. It is argued that the evidence of PW1 and PW5 is consistent and corroborating with each other on material particulars and that AO1 was trapped in the presence of two mediators ie., G.Parameshwar Rao (LW4) and Gopala

Swamy Vasudevan (LW5) when he demanded and accepted the bribe of

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.19 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

Rs.5 Lakhs from PW1 towards illegal gratification for showing official favour on 03.02.2006 at the residence of PW1. It is further argued that the phenolphthalein test conducted on both hand fingers of AO1 gave positive result and the tainted amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was seized from the possession of AO1 in the presence of mediators, thereby AO1 was apprehended red-handedly. It is also argued that since demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by AO1 from PW1 is proved, as such presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act would come into picture.

However, the said presumption is rebuttal presumption. AO1 has miserably failed to rebut the said presumption and prayed to convict the Accused

Officer for the charges levelled against him according to law. The prosecution has relied on the following decisions in support of their case:

1) State of A.P. vs. K.China Swamy ((2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 335).

In this case a trap was laid and accused was caught red-handed with bribe money and conviction was upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

2) D.Velayutham vs. State rep.by Inspector of Police, Salem Town,

Chennai ((2016) 1 SCC (cri) 105).

The gist of the said decision is the trap witness is not to be treated on par with accomplice. The trap witness is on a higher pedestal and corroboration is not mandatory in case of trap witness.

3) Chaitanya Prakash Audichya vs. CBI ((2016) 1 SCC (cri) 186).

The gist of the decision is when the testimonies of complainant and panch witnesses are completely consistent, tainted currency notes

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.20 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 recovered from the person of accused and phenolphthalein test proved positive, presumption under Section 20 of the Act stood unrebutted.

4) B.Noha vs. State of Kerala and another (2007 (1) SCC Crl.711).

In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring the judgment in State of AP vs. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000 (9) SCC 752) held that when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on the public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification.

5) State vs. Jhan Chand (1984 Crl.J. NOC (104) Delhi).

The above said decision is regarding the question as to the capacity of accused to do favour or disfavour at the time of demand of bribe, the fact that he was not in a position to show any favour is of no consequence.

6) M.Narsinga Rao vs. State of A.P. (2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 407 (SC)).

In this case, it was held that a legal presumption under Section 20 of P.C.Act can be drawn that such gratification is accepted by the accused.

7) Madhukar Bhaskar Rao vs. State of Maharastra (2001 (1) ALD (Crl) 77 (SC)).

In this case, it was held that the word ‘gratification’ means any payment for giving satisfaction to a public servant who received it and public servant found in possession of currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein, presumption can be drawn that he accepted the gratification.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.21 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

8) State of Maharashtra vs. Narsinga Rao Gangaram Pimple (AIR 1984 SC 63).

It was held that in a trap case, the Judge magnified every minor detail or omission to falsify or throw even shadow of doubt on the prosecution evidence, then it would be the very antithesis of a correct judicial approach to the evidence of witnesses in a trap case. In deed, if such harsh touch stone is prescribed to prove such a case it will be difficult for the presumption to establish any case at all.

32.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for AO1 argued that AO1 is innocent of alleged offences and that neither he demanded nor accepted alleged illegal gratification of Rs.5 Lakhs from PW1. It is further argued that on 01.02.2006 and 02.02.2006 PW1 called AO1 to her residence in connection with kidnap case registered in Palakollu Police

Station to furnish information in the kidnap case and that AO1 came to the house of PW1 to get the information about her co-accsued who were not arrested by them and that PW1 tried to hand over Rs.5 Lakhs to AO1 to dilute the kidnap case and she tried to hand over money by removing from a cover and that AO1 resisted to receive the same with his both hands stating that it is not possible and the amount was fallen on the Teapoy. He also submitted that the so-called mediators are not examined and only the evidence of PW1, who is interested in this case, is available on record and basing on the uncorroborated evidence of PW1 it is unsafe to come to a conclusion regarding the version of prosecution case against the accused.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.22 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

33.While saying so, he relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in N.Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamilnadu (2021 Crl.J. 1353) wherein it was held that ‘mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act. It was also further held that the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the P.C.Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of offence under

Section 7 of the P.C.Act and not the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the P.C.Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the

P.C.Act, that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand.’ While relying on the above said decision, learned Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove alleged demand of bribe by AO1 from PW1, therefore, the alleged recovery of tainted currency of Rs.5 Lakhs is of no consequence in the absence of demand.

34.It is also argued that there is no evidence on record to show that

AO1 demanded bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs on 01.02.2006 and 02.02.2006. There is also no record to show that the voice was recorded by PW1 on 01.02.2006 and that there was no official favour pending with the AO1 in respect of PW1 or J.Vinod Reddy (LW2). AO1 was not empowered to dilute the kidnap case registered against PW1 being S.I.of

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.23 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

Police of Palakollu Police Station. PW1 implicated AO1 in the above case with collusion of J.Vinod Reddy (LW2) and filed a fasle report under Ex.P1 against AO1. Further the accused registered a case in Crime No.387/2005 of Palakollu Police Station (kidnap case), as such both PW1 and J.Vinod

Reddy (LW2) developed grudge against accused herein in connection with their arrest in kidnap case and also to dilute the kidnap case by creating fear in the mind of accused and foisted a false case against him. The alleged bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was not recovered from the possession of accused. The alleged telephonic conversation recorded in MO8 was not produced at the time of lodging Ex.P1 report or at the time of Mediators

Report-I to verify the genuineness of Ex.P1. Thus, urged to acquit AO1 for the charges levelled against him.

35.In view of the rival contentions or prosecution and accused, now it is just and proper to scrutinize the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and also to scrutinize the documentary evidence placed before this Court to ascertain whether the prosecution has proved the demand of illegal gratification of Rs.5 Lakhs by AO1 from PW1 or not.

36.The undisputed facts of the case are that PW1 and J.Vinod

Kumar (LW2) are accused persons in Crime No.32/2005 of Palakollu Police

Station, which is a kidnap case and both of them were arrested on 21.12.2005 and released on bail on 28.12.2005. AO1 was working as S.I. of

Police in Palakollu Rural Police Station at the relevant point of time. It is

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.24 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 also an admitted fact that on 21.12.2005 a case was registered against

PW1 and J.Vinod Reddy (LW2) in Jubilee Hills Police Station in Crime

No.387/2005 on the report lodged by AO1 on the allegation that both of them resisted their arrest and manhandled AO1.

37.According to PW1 on 01.02.2006 and also on 02.02.2006 she has received phone calls to her landline number and also mobile number of J.Vinod Reddy (LW2) ie., 23552096 (Landline) and 9391133441 respectively and that PW1 said to have recorded the call received on 01.02.2006, but there is no record or evidence before this Court to the said effect. Similarly, PW1 in her Ex.P1 report or in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. did not mention the phone numbers from where she received calls from accused. MO8 and MO9 ie, Digital Taperecorder Cinex containing alleged conversation between AO1 and PW1 and CD-R containing alleged conversation between AO1 and PW1 have been marked, but the same are not proved according to law. It is not out of place to mention that MO8 and

MO9 were neither referred to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and opinion nor the same were displaced before the court nor the verbatim of conversation was reduced into writing. It is the settled principle of law that mere marking of exhibit or a material object does not amount to proof and the same and the prosecution has to prove MO8 and

MO9 according to law, but prosecution failed to prove the same.

Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that MO8 and MO9 have no sanctity in the eye of law.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.25 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

38.Now the specific case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2006 also she received call from AO1 demanding bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to dilute her case in Crime No.32/2005 of Palakollu Police Station at the time of filing charge sheet or compromising the matter. As PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount she approached the ACB office on 02.02.2006 and lodged Ex.P1 report and set the criminal law into motion. According to

PW1 and PW5, PW1 was instructed to come to ACB office on the next day.

ie., on 03.02.2006 along with proposed bribe amount. Accordingly on 03.02.2006 PW1 appeared before PW5 along with proposed bribe amount.

PW5 introduced the mediators to PW1 and vice-versa. On the request of

PW5, PW1 produced the bribe amount before the mediators and one of the mediators noted down the denomination and currency note numbers in

Pre-trap proceedings ie,. Ex.P9. A perusal of Ex.P9 would reveal that Pre- trap proceedings were commenced at 12.30 PM and concluded at 3.30 PM on 03.02.2006. The recitals in Ex.P9 reveal that in case accused demands and accepts the bribe amount PW1 should come out and give signal by cell phone to DSP. PW1 in her chief-examination stated that after demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.5 Lakhs, LW2 gave a missed call to DSP,

PW5 also confirmed the same. PW5 further stated that PW1 also came to the first floor and informed about payment of bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to AO1, who were in vantage position at first floor of the house of PW1.

Immediately the trap party, including PW5, rushed to the ground floor and caught hold AO1 and later seized the bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs from

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.26 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

PW1, which is MO1, in Rs.1000/- denomination. PW5 has conducted

Phenolphthalein test on both hand fingers of AO1 and the solution turned into Pink colour. It is one of the circumstances that accused has received tainted currency from PW1. The Post-trap proceedings were drafted in

Ex.P11 as Mediators Report-II. The said proceedings were commenced at 6.30 PM on 03.02.2006 and concluded at 1.00 AM on 04.02.2006. The recitals of Ex.P11 would reveal that the trap party members took vantage position in the first floor of the house of PW1. At about 6.10 Pm, PW5 received missed call from J.Vinod Reddy (LW2), which was a pre-arranged signal. Meanwhile, PW1 also came to the first floor and informed about the payment of bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs to the accused herein.

Immediately, the trap party entered into the ground floor and PW5 disclosed his identity to the AO and ascertained the particulars of AO. The report further reveals that the chemical test conducted on both hand fingers of accused herein yielded positive result and that immediately the

ACB officials caught hold the accused he dropped five bundles of currency notes on the glass Teapoy. One of the mediators, Vasudevan (LW5) took the currency notes and verified the numbers of currency notes with Ex.P9 and found tallied and the same were seized by DSP.

39.The evidence on record further reveals that on 03.02.2006

before accused coming to the house of PW1 for collection of the bribe

amount, the accused called PW1 and J.Vinod Reddy (LW2) on phone and asked whether the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was ready and that he was

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.27 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 waiting at Jubilee Hills Check Post and he needs to be picked up as he did not have a vehicle, as such J.Vinod Reddy (LW2) had taken Qualis car of

PW1 and picked up the accused herein from Jubilee Hills Check Post and at about 6.15 PM AO1 walked into the house of PW1 and asked PW1 whether the bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs is ready, upon which PW1 handed over the money of Rs.5 Lakhs in Rs.1000/- denominations to the accused and that accused counted the bundles with his both hands and asked PW1 to provide a small bag to carry the amount. That is how the accused reached to the house of PW1. The evidence of PW1 to that effect stands unrebutted since there was no cross-examination except putting some bald suggestions which were denied by PW1.

40.After conducting Phenolphthalein test, seizure of tained currency amount by DSP, he questioned the accused whether he had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs. The spontaneous statement of accused was that there is a case in Crime No.32/2005 u/s.365 IPC registered against PW1 and Vinod Reddy (LW2) and others and that during investigation PW1 and Vinod Reddy (LW2) were arrested at Jubilee Hills and at the time of arrest the above said two persons along with other persons obstructed and assaulted him and his Circle Inspector, upon which they lodged a complaint in Jubilee Hills Police Station and took the above two accused persons ie,. PW1 and Vinod Reddy (LW2) to Palakollu Police

Station and remanded them to judicial custody. After release from the jail,

Vinod Reddy (LW2) contacted him and requested to close the case,

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.28 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 whereupon the Circle Inspector instructed him to negotiate with them informing that they will dilute the case at the time of charge sheet and requested again to negotiate with PW1 and Vinod Reddy (LW2) regarding payment of money by them for diluting and compromising of the case.

Accordingly, he contacted Vinod Reddy (LW2) over phone and with PW1 who came forward to pay Rs.15 Lakhs for closing the case and that he has been in contact with Vinod Reddy (LW2) for the last three days regarding payment of money. Vinod Redy (LW2) also contacted his Circle Inspector over phone, at that time AO1 was with Circle Inspector, he applied for two days Casual Leave as his wife was not doing well and the Circle Inspector refused his leave and directed him to go to Hyderabad to collect the amount from PW1 and Vinod Reddy (LW2), accordingly he left Palakollu by bus on 02.02.2006 and reached Hyderabad at about 10.00 AM on the next day ie., 03.02.2006, stayed at his son’s room in Krishna Nagar and again contacted Vinod Reddy (LW2) and asked him to come down to Jubilee Hills

Check Post and accordingly he came to Jubilee Hills Check Post from where he was taken by to the house of Vinod Reddy (LW2) in qualis vehicle belonging to Vinod Reddy (LW2) and after coming to the house PW1 gave

Rs.5 Lakhs (5 bundles of Rs.1000/- denomination) which he accepted with both hands and when he was about to leave the premises, ACB officials came and caught hold of him. The above said version is corroborated by version of PW1 in her evidence. Though PW1 and PW5 were cross- examined at length but nothing worthwhile could be elicited from their mouth either to disbelieve their evidence or to discard their testimony.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.29 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

On the other hand, their evidence is consistent and corroborating with each other on material particulars and also corroborating with documentary evidence ie,. Pre trap and Post trap proceedings, etc.

41.Here, it is important to mention that, according to evidence of

PW2, no Casual Leave was granted to the accused on 03.02.2006 and 04.02.2006 to go for treatment. Ex.P3 is the leave application of the accused herein. The said factum is also reflected in Post-trap proceedings.

In spite of refusing to grant leave, accused herein came down to

Hyderabad from Palakollu on 03.02.2006 on which date trap was laid by the ACB officials at the house of PW1.

42.Now coming to the evidence of PW6, the Landline phone bearing

No.23552096 is in the name of PW1 is not in dispute. Similarly the evidence of PW7 that mobile number 9391133441 was obtained in the name of Vinod Reddy (LW2) is also not in dispute and not denied by the accused. Similarly the evidence of PW8 is to the effect of confirming the address of Vinod Reddy (LW2) as per ex.P14.

43.There is no dispute that the accused herein being Sub-Inspector of Police in Palakollu Police Station is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C.Act, 1988. To prosecute a public servant sanction is required and according to the oral evidence of PW4, the then Principal

Secretary to Government Sri.P.V.Naidu has accorded sanction to prosecute

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.30 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 the accused herein under Ex.P5. There is no dispute regarding according sanction to prosecute the accused herein by the competent authority.

44.From the oral evidence of PW1 and PW5 coupled with the Post trap proceedings under Ex.P11, it has been established that accused herein has demanded bribe amount of Rs.5 Lakhs from PW1 and he also accepted the same and the same was seized by PW5 under Ex.P11 proceedings.

45.The contention of accused herein is that no official favour is pending with him pertaining to PW1 and he being in a position of Sub

Inspector of Police of Palakollu Rural Police Station is not in a position to do any official favour, but in Indu Dayal Das Advani Vs. The State of

Bombay (AIR 1952 Bombay 58) it has been held that ‘Section 7 of the P.C.Act does not require that the public servant must himself have the power or must himself be in a position to perform the act or show favour or disfavour, for doing or showing, which the bribe has been paid to him.’

In N.Narsing Rao vs. State of A.P. (Crl.Appeal No.719 of 1995 dt.12.12.2000) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that ‘Whether in any trial for an offence punishable under Section 7 or 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

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.31 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 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.’ ‘It was also further held that Section 114 of Indian Evidence

Act says that the Court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. That illustration can profitably be used in the present context as well when prosecution brought reliable materials that accused pocket contained Phenolphthalein smeared currency notes when he was caught hold by ACB officials.’

In State of A.P. Vs. Kamaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000 (9) SCC 752) it was held that ‘when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification.’

The above said judgment was also referred in B.Noha vs. State of

Kerala and another (2007) (1) SCC (Crl) 711).

46.The spontaneous version given by accused herein, which was incorporated in Post trap proceedings under Ex.P11 goes to show that on

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.32 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 the instructions of his Circle Inspector he came down to Hyderabad to collect the bribe amount from PW1 and Vinod Reddy (LW2). Now the defence taken by the accused herein is one of total denial and it is his case that he came to the house of PW1 to collect information in the kidnap case regarding the absconding accused persons, but to that effect he has not produced any warrant given by his superiors and PW2 also did not depose anything that on 03.02.2006 the accused came down to Hyderabad for the purpose of investigation in the kidnap case pending against PW1, Vinod

Reddy (LW2) and others in Palakollu Rural Police Station. In fact, the

Casual Leave applied on 03.02.2006 and 04.02.2006 was refused by the superiors of accused herein and inspite of that he came down to

Hyderabad. The visit of accused to the house of PW1 on 03.02.2006 ie,.

on the date of trap, is not in dispute and, in fact, the accused admitted his visit to the house of PW1, but for other purpose, ie., as part of investigation. In Phula Singh vs. State of HP (Crl.Appeal No.2271 of 2011 dt.03.03.2014 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that ‘When AO miserably failed to explain the reason why he visited the place where the trap was laid and even did not deny his visit, no explanation in respect of recovery of amount from his possession and no explanation as to how his fingers turned into Pink colour, entitles the Court to draw an adverse inference against accused.

The accused has a duty to furnish explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding any incriminating material that has

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.33 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 been produced against him. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the Court, then the accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is being recorded.

However, in such an event, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law, as held in Ram Naresh vs. State of

Chattisgarh (AIR 2012 SC 1357). The above said decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court squarely applicable to the present case on hand.

Here, it is also important to mention that according to the defence when PW1 and Vinod Reddy (LW2) were arrested, they assaulted the police officials and manhandled them, as such, a crime was registered against them in Jubilee Hills Police Station on 21.12.2005 in Crime

No.387/2005. When such is the case, how the accused is expected to come to the house of PW1 without the help of local police and without any warrant, etc. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the defence taken by the accused herein is only an after-thought to circumvent the case of prosecution. In S.Abdul Kaffar vs. State of

Kerala (Crl.Appeal No.436 of 1997 dt.18.12.2003) the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that ‘When the stand taken by the AO during trial not taken during Post trap proceedings ie., at the first available opportunity, the defence was not genuine.’

The above said decision also squarely applicable to the present

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.34 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 case since the accused herein did not take any such defence immediately after the trap and, on the other hand, he admitted that he came down to the house of PW1 for collection of bribe on the instructions of his Inspector on his behalf and on behalf of his Circle Inspector.

47.As aforesaid, the demand and acceptance has been proved through the evidence of PW1 and PW5 along with documentary evidence.

If it is established that the public servant accepted gratification which was not his legal remuneration, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act get attracted and the burden will be shifted on to the accused to show that he had not accepted the said money as motive or reward, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel vs.

The State of Gujarat (AIR 1976 SC 1497). It was also held in the said decision that ‘The burden on the accused is to be discharged by bringing on record the evidence circumstantial or direct, which establishes with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by the accused, other than as a motive or reward.’

The presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act is rebuttal presumption but the accused miserably failed to rebut the said presumption either by direct or circumstantial evidence or with the material placed on record. The State vs. A.Prathiban (Crl.Appeal Case

No.842 of 2003 dt.09.10.2006) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.35 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 ‘Every acceptance of illegal gratification whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by Section 7 of the

P.C.Act, but if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, 1988.’

Some simple discrepancies have been elicited from the mouth of PW1 in her cross-examination, but that simple discrepancies can not be given much importance or weightage as held by the Apex Court in Appa

Bhai vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1988 SC). Further a witness can not be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident as held in State of Karnataka vs. Suwaranamma and another in Crl.Appeal No.785 of 2010 dt.14.10.2014.

48.Since in the case on hand the demand and acceptance has been established by the prosecution, therefore the judgment relied upon by the accused in N.Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamilnadu (2021 Crl.J. 1353) is not applicable and not useful to the accused.

49.In view of death of the mediators to the Pre trap and Post trap proceedings they could not be examined on behalf of the prosecution.

However, the evidence of PW1 and PW5 is consistent and corroborating with each other on material particulars. Therefore, the non-examination of mediators on behalf of prosecution is not fatal. In D.Velayutham vs

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.36 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

State rep. by Inspector of Police, Salem Town, Chennai, reported

in (2016) 1 SCC (Crl) 105 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India that the trap witness is on a higher pedestal and corroboration is not mandatory in case of trap witness.

50.With the foregoing discussion and in view of the material placed

before this Court, it is found that the prosecution has proved its case

against the accused herein, ie., AO1 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988.

51.As a result, AO1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act,1988 and he is convicted u/s.248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2022.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE & ACB CASES : HYDERABAD

52.I have questioned AO1 and heard him with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on them for the offences under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act,1988.

I have also heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the complainant and Counsel for AO1. AO1 represented that his wife is a Cancer patient and his two sons and daughter are not settled

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.37 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007 in life and that he is suffering with Blood Pressure and Diabetes, etc. and requested to take a lenient view.

On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that maximum punishment as available under Law may be awarded since the Accused Officer is a Police Official and he has to protect the person and properties of citizens, instead of that he resorted to illegal activities and requested to impose maximum punishment.

53.In Dr.Subramanya Swamy vs. Dr.Manmohan Singh and

Another (Civil Appeal No.1193 of 2012 dt.31.01.2012 Supreme

Court) it was held that ‘Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the

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.’

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.38 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the offence committed by AO1 being Sub Inspector of Police, this

Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to take either lenient view or to extend the benefit of provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

54.As a result, AO1 is sentenced to undergoRigorous

Imprisonment for a period of Two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act,1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Similarly, AO1 is sentenced to undergoRigorous

Imprisonment for a period of Five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

Total fine amount is Rs.10,000/-. Both the above sentences shall run concurrently for AO1.

The remand period already undergone by AO1 (ie., from 04.02.2006 to 28.02.2006) shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. AO1 is informed that he has got a right to file appeal against the Judgment

before the Hon’ble High Court.

MO1 tainted currency of Rs.5,00,000/- (500/- X 1000) shall be confiscated to State, MOs.2 to 9 (Samples of Sodium Carbonate Powder,

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.39 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

Phenolphthalein Powder in MR-I; Sodium Carbonate powder in MR-II;

Resultant Solutions of right and left hand fingers wash of AO1, White cover printed as HSBC which was used to carry tainted amount, Digital

Taperecorder CENIX, and CD-R, both containing conversation between AO1 and PW1) shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2022.

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE & ACB CASES : HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW1 : Sumana Paruchuri (Complainant).

PW2 : R.Siva Rama Raju, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narsapuram, West Godavari District, A.P. (Circumstantial Witness).

PW3 : M.Mahipal Reddy, DSP, ACB, Vijayawada (Conducted house search of A2 at Palakollu, West Godavari District).

PW4 : K.Vasantha Laxmi, Section Officer, Home Department AP Secretariat, Velagapudi.

PW5 : M.Yohan, DSP, ACB, CR-2 (Investigating Officer).

PW6: N.Srinivasulu, Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Hyderabad.

PW7: S.Madhusudhan Gupta, Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication, Hyderabad.

PW8: V.V.Narayana, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, Hyderabad.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1 dt.02.02.2006.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.40 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

Ex.P2: Inventory Proceedings along with search list dt.4.2.2006 conducted at house of AO2 at Palakollu.

Ex.P3: Leave Letter of AO1 dt.02.02.2006 submitted to sdpo, Narsapur Sub Division, Narsapur.

Ex.P4: General Diary of Police Station, Palakollu Rural.

Ex.P5: Sanction Order for prosecution of AO1 vide G.O.Ms.No.141 dt.22.06.2007 Home (SC.A) Dept.

Ex.P6: Sanction Order for prosecution of AO2 vide G.O.Ms.No.142 dt.22.06.2007 Home (SC.A) Dept.

Ex.P7: First Information Report dt.03.02.2006.

Ex.P8: Copy of Complaint dt.03.02.2006.

Ex.P9: Mediators Report-I dt.03.02.2006.

Ex.P10: Rough Sketch of the Scene of Offence dt.03.02.2006.

Ex.P11: Mediators Report-II dt.03.02.2006.

Ex.P12: Letter dt.19.03.2006 received from Supdt.of Police, West Godavari District with details of mobile numbers of AO1 and AO2.

Ex.P13: Report dt.13.03.2006 from Reliance Communications.

Ex.P14: Report dt.14.03.2006 from Bharti Cellular Ltd.

Ex.P15: Copy of letter received from BSNL with regard to Phone Number of PW1 dt.16.03.2006.

Ex.P16: Call Data Record of AO1.

Ex.P17: Call Data Record of AO2.

Ex.P18: Permission received from DG, ACB dt.17.02.2006 to pay trap against AO1 and AO2.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

Prl. ACB Court, Hyderabad Page No.41 Judgment in C.C.No.49/2007

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

MO1 :Tainted bribe amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (500/- x 1000).

MO2 :One sealed cover containing the sample of sodium carbonate powder preserved in separate cover.

MO3 :Sample of phenolphthalein powder preserved during the Mediators Report No.I.

MO4 :Sample of sodium carbonate powder preserved during the Mediators Report No.II.

MO5 :Resultant solution of left hand wash of AO1.

MO6:Resultant solution of right hand wash of AO1.

MO7:White cover printed as HSBC which was used to carry tainted amount.

MO8:One digital tape recorder CENIX containing conversation between AO1 and PW1.

MO9:CD-R on which conversation between AO1 and PW1 was recorded (converted).

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE & ACB CASES : HYDERABAD