Page No. 1 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND ACB
CASES, KARIMNAGAR.
PRESENT: Dr. J.KAVITHA
Judge, Family Court, Karimnagar.
FAC: Spl. Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Karimnagar.
MONDAY, 23RD day of MARCH, 2026 .
CALENDAR CASE NO.87 OF 2015
BETWEEN: The State through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar. ….Complainant.
&
1. Neerella Rajamouli, S/o.Veeraiah, Age: 53 years, Occ: Inspector Survey & Land Records, Karimnagar, Office of the Asst. Director, Survey & Land Records, Karimnagar, R/o.H.No.3-7-556/1, Vavilalapally, Karimnagar, N/o.Chegurthy (V), Karimnagar mandal and district.
2. Kota Ramaswamy, S/o.Mallaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Office Subordinate, Office of the Asst. Director, Survey & Land Records, Karimnagar, R/o.H.No.4-92, Saraswathinagar, Karimnagar Town, N/o.Gumlapur (V), Choppadandi (M), Karimnagar district.
...Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2.
This calendar case has come before me for hearing in the presence of Smt. T.Jyothi, Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar for the complainant, and A.Vishwanath, Advocate for the Accused Officer Nos.1 and 2, and upon perusal of the material papers available on record, and the matter having heard, read over and stood to till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T::
The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar
Range, Karimnagar has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.10/RCT/ACB-
Page No. 2 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
KNR/2012 against the Accused Officers No.1 and 2 to punish them as per law for the offences punishable under sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act).
2(i).The brief case of the prosecution and the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet are that the Accused Officer No.1 worked as
Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar in the office of
Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, Karimnagar for the period from 07.02.2011 to till 06.07.2012 and the Accused Officer No.2 worked as an Office Subordinate in the said office for the period from 29.06.1996 to 06.07.2012, as such, they are public servants as defined under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2(ii). It is further case of the prosecution that the land admeasuring
Ac.2-11 gts in sy.nos. 180/A and 180/B situated at outskirts of
Nallagonda Village of Thimmapur mandal was in the name of one
Kontu Narsaiah who is the grand father of the defacto complainant and that during demarcation of the adjacent land owned by Kavvampalli
Odaiah/PW3, some part of their land got added to such adjacent land necessitating measurement and fixation of boundaries of the aforementioned land of said Kontu Narsaiah for which, an amount of
Page No. 3 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
Rs.300/- was paid by way of challan on 18.08.2010 and representation was submitted in his name to the Accused Officer No.1 requesting to measure and fix the boundaries of the said land.
2(iii). It is further case of prosecution that the Accused Officer No.1 did not measure the said land for long time, as such, on 20.06.2011, during prajavani programme, an application was filed before the District
Collector, Karimnagar by the defacto complainant acknowledging which, a receipt was also issued stating that the said land would be measured and its boundaries be fixed on or before 06.07.2011 after which, just three days prior to the said date, the Accused Officer No.1, who was the then Inspector, visited the site in fit of anger that the defacto complainant had disregarded him and observed the said land by posing as the Assistant Director, and then informed the defacto complainant that he had filed an application addressing the Inspector of
Survey, Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar while he should have actually submitted another application addressing the Assistant
Director, Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar by paying fee through another challan only then, he would come to measure and demarcate their land.
2(iv). It is further case of the prosecution that in pursuance of said
Page No. 4 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 instructions, on 18.08.2011, another application was submitted by the defacto complainant in the name of his father i.e Kontu Kanakaiah to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar by duly paying fees through another challan and then, the Accused Officer
No.1 issued three notices dated 23.04.2012, 14.05.2012 and 24.05.2012 duly fixing the date for measurement and demarcation of the said land on 26.04.2012, 19.05.2012 and 30.05.2012 respectively, but he did not visit the site on any of the said dates leading to the defacto complainant meeting him in the first week of June, 2012 in that regard during which, the Accused Officer No.1 demanded Rs.15,000/- as bribe to visit the site, measure and fix its boundaries in response to which, the defacto complainant expressing his inability to give such amount resulting in the Accused Officer No.1 refusing to visit the site and that the defacto complainant made four or five visits to Accused
Officer No.1 subsequently only to hear such demand for bribe being reiterated and that he was even advised by Accused Officer No.2 to give Rs.15,000/- towards bribe for getting his work done. It is further stated that the defacto complainant met the Accused Officer No.1 again on 03.07.2012 and that the latter firmly demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- leading to the former reluctantly conceding to such demand, as such, instruction was given to give Rs.15,000/- as a bribe to either of the
Page No. 5 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
Accused Officers within three days in order to get a date fixed for measurement and demarcation of said land.
2(v). It is further case of the prosecution that since the defacto complainant was not willing to give any amount towards bribe, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Karimnagar and lodged a report against the Accused Officers
Nos.1 and 2 in pursuance of which, a trap was laid on 06.07.2012 at the office of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar situated in the Collector Complex, Karimnagar and the Accused
Officers Nos.1 and 2 were trapped when the Accused Officer No.1 further demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- from the defacto complainant and even accepted it through the Accused Officer No.2 for the purpose of discharging pending official favour of visiting Ac.2-11 gts of land of the grand father of the defacto complainant situated in sy.nos.180/A and 180/B to measure it, fix its boundaries and submit report to the
Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar.
2(vi). It is further stated that the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- was seized at the instance of the Accused Officer No.2 who produced such amount which was kept underneath the Rexine cover towards right side corner of the top of the table after which, Sodium Carbonate
Page No. 6 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
Solution Test conducted on the both the hands of the Accused Officer
No.2 and the said corner of the table which came into contact with the tainted amount and the test yielded positive results in both the cases.
Subsequently, the arrest of Accused Officers Nos.1 and 2 was affected on 06.07.2012 at 9.45 pm and they were produced before the learned
II Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad on the following day and were then remanded to judicial custody. Later, on 14.08.2012, bail was granted to them and they were released on 15.08.2012 at 10.30 am from Central Prison, Cherlapally. Later, the
Principal Secretary to the Government (VIG-IV.2) Department, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad accorded sanction for prosecution of the Accused
Officers Nos.1 and 2 vide G.O.Ms.no. 170 and 171 both dated 07.05.2014 , hence the charge sheet.
3.The learned II-Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad has taken cognizance of offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the Accused Officers Nos.1 and 2 and CC No.19 of 2014 was assigned to the present case. Subsequently, the said case was transferred to this Court as per proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court bearing ROC.No.240/2010-DII(BLDGS) dated 21.04.2015 and was re-
Page No. 7 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 numbered as CC No.87 of 2015.
4.After appearance of the Accused Officers Nos.1 and 2, copies of documents along with charge sheet are furnished to them as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5.Upon hearing the prosecution as well as the Accused Officers
Nos.1 and 2 and upon considering the entire material available on the record, my learned predecessor in office, on prima facie finding that the
Accused Officers Nos.1 and 2 committed offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, framed charges under the said sections of law against them individually and on the same being read over and explained to them in
Telugu language, they denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.
6.In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P21 and getting marked MOs.1 to 7.
7.After closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the
Accused Officers Nos.1 and 2 are examined under section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure during which, they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the oral and documentary evidence
Page No. 8 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 adduced on the side of the prosecution and reported that there was defence evidence to be adduced on their behalf in support of their case. On behalf of defence DW1 is examined and Ex.D1 is got marked.
8.Both the Accused Officers have filed their separate written statements of defence.
It is submitted by the Accused Officer No.1 that he was not working in the office of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records,
KNR Range, Karimnagar as on 10-08-2010 i.e. when the application for demarcation of land was first submitted, as such, the question of his dodging the matter does not arise and that no application or direction was received from the office of Collector after prajavani programme in pursuance of alleged application submitted by PW1 there and that as on 06.07.2012, no official favour either of the defacto complainant or his father was pending before him and that even the file under Ex.P2 was recovered not from him but from PW3 and that it shows that demarcation was delayed because of the absence of neighbouring land owners and that it was father of PW1 who thereafter stated that he wanted to get the land surveyed not by Accused No.1 but directly by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records and that the tainted
Page No. 9 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 amount was recovered at the instance of the defacto complainant from the table which is in the technical section room of their office and is accessible to everyone in view of the said room not having a door and that the sanction proceedings have been issued against both the
Accused Officers without application of mind on the basis of specimen sanction order received from the office of Director, Anti Corruption
Bureau, Hyderabad and that the charge sheet has been filed without proper investigation.
It is submitted by the Accused Officer No.2 that being an Office
Subordinate, he is not concerned with surveys and demarcations of properties and that no official favour of either the defacto complainant or his father was pending before the Accused Officer No.1 as on 06.07.2012 and that the defacto complainant suddenly offered amount to him by requesting him to hand over the same to the Accused Officer
No.1, but he pushed it away with both the hands after which, the defacto complainant left; that the tainted amount was recovered at the instance of the defacto complainant and that the sanction order against him was issued without application of mind on the basis of draft sanction order sent by the office of Director, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Hyderabad.
Page No. 10 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
9.In support of their case, the Accused Officers Nos.1 and 2 got examined one of their colleagues by name G. Sai Charan who was the then Junior Assistant in the office of Assistant Director, S & LA,
Karimnagar and was present on the date of trap as DW1. Ex.D1 is marked during cross-examination of PW7.
10.Heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution and the Accused Officers Nos.1 and 2. Separate written arguments have been filed by both sides.
11.The learned Special Public Prosecutor, apart from submitting written arguments, placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. State of Maharashtra Vs. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple, 1984 0 AIR (SC) 63,
2. Dr. N. K. Seetharama Sarma Vs. State, 2013 1 ALD (Cri) 431,
3. B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala and another, 2007 2 AICLR 297,
4. State Rep. by Inspector of Police Vs. B. Venkateswara Rao, 2023 0 Supreme (AP) 338,
5. C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P. TH. IP, 2011 0 AIR (SC) 608
6. Syed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka 2012 0 AIR (SC) 3359.
12.The learned counsel for the Accused Officers No.1 and 2 also submitted written arguments and further placed reliance on the
Page No. 11 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 decisions mentioned hereunder:
1. Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1979 AIR (SC)1408,
2. Ram Prakash Arora Vs. State of Punjab, 1973 AIR (SC) 498,
3. State of AP Vs. T. Venkateswara Rao, AIR 2004 SC 1728,
4. Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 CRI. L. J. 2273,
5. Ayyasami Vs. State of T.N., 1992 CRI. L. J. 608,
6. Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1979 AIR (SC) 1191,
7. Jeet Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 Crl. J 846,
8. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 211,
9. State of T. N. Vs. Krishnan and another, 2001 AIR SCW 2415,
10. M.K. Harshan Vs. State of Kerala , 1995 CRI. L. J 3978,
11. State of Lokayuktha, Police, Davanagere Vs. C B Nagaraj,
Criminal Appeal No. 1157/2015,
12. Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979
SC1408,
13. Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs. State of AP, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 585
14. P. Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1040.
15. Vittala Gopala Krishna Vs. State of Telangana, 2019 CRI. L.J. 4025.
Page No. 12 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
16. Har Bharosey Lal Vs. State of UP, 1988 CRI. L. J. 1122.
13.Perused the material available on the record of the case.
14.Now the points for determination are:
1) Whether the prosecution has proved that the Accused
Officers Nos.1 and 2 are public servants within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and whether a valid sanction was obtained to prosecute them for the offenses for which charges have been framed?
2) Whether the prosecution has proved charges framed against the Accused Officers Nos.1 and 2 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt?
3) To what finding or findings?
POINTS No.1 and 2:
15.In view of both the Points No.1 and 2 being interrelated and for convenience of discussion, both the said points are taken up together for consideration.
16.Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, broadly defines a "public servant" as any person in government service/pay, local authority employees, or those remunerated by the government for
Page No. 13 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 public duty.
As seen from the record, it is an admitted fact that as on 06-07- 2012, the Accused Officers No.1 and 2 were holding the posts of
Inspector of Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar and that of office subordinate respectively in the office of Assistant Director, Survey and
Land Records, Karimnagar. Thus, they undoubtedly come under the definition of ‘public servants’ mentioned under Section 2(c) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is also undisputed that after the trap, both the Accused Officers were kept under suspension and subsequently, separate sanction orders vide Exs.P14 and P15 were given.
17.Before proceeding with discussion with regard to various aspects of the case in hand, this Court opines it is necessary that the witnesses examined on both sides and their evidence be introduced in brief.
18.The defacto complainant testified as PW1 that on 10-08-2010, he paid challan of Rs.300/- with an application for survey of the land in the name of his grandfather owing to a dispute with the neighbouring land owner namely K. Odaiah/LW3 after which, in view of no action being taken, an application was submitted during prajavani programme dated
Page No. 14 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 20-06-2011 wherein, it was assured that the land would be surveyed on or before 06-07-2011 and that the Accused Officer No.1 who visited the site, informed that another application had to be given, as such, another challan was paid and application was submitted to Asst.
Direction and notices were given fixing dates for survey, but in vain since the Accused Officer No.1 failed to visit the site and that in first week of June 2012, on questioning about his application, the Accused
Officer No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- and that such demand persisted in spite of his visiting the office on 4 to 5 occasions subsequently and that even Accused Officer No.2 advised him to pay the amount to get his work done and that after such demand being reiterated on 03-07-2012, a complaint was lodged.
This witness further deposed about the pre-trap proceedings, about the incidents that unfolded on the date of trap i.e. reiteration of demand by the Accused Officer No.1 on the said day while the trap party was present in the premises in vantage position, about him giving the bribe amount to Accused No.2 and signaling the officials by wiping his face with hand kerchief. It is then deposed by the witness that after the officials entered the office, he was asked to wait outside and was called again after sometime and that his detailed statement was
Page No. 15 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 recorded and that he also gave statement before Magistrate. The complaint is marked under Ex.P1 and the file consists of his application, photocopies of pattadar passbooks, notices and challans is marked as Ex.P2.
19.The cousin of PW1 who is also the scribe of several representations and applications in Ex.P2 is examined as PW2 and he deposed in similar lines as PW1. It is testified by this witness that in view of no action being taken with respect to application dated 10-08- 2010, another application was given by PW1 during prajavani programme after which, after visit of the Accused Officer No.1 to their site and on being advised by him, yet another application was given addressing the Assistant Director, but in vain and that the Accused
Officer No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- and was supported by
Accused No.2 leading to the complaint being given.
This witness accompanied PW1 on the date of trap, as such, he also deposed about the pre and post trap proceedings and that his statements were recorded by both the ACB officials and the Magistrate.
20.PW3 is the then Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records,
Karimnagar and superior officer of the Accused Officers Nos.1 and 2.
Page No. 16 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
He testified that the Accused Officer No.2 was working as Office
Subordinate, but assisted the Accused Officer No.1 in field work. The stipulated procedure for demarcation of land is stated by him and it is deposed that such process would generally take two months. It is further deposed that the Accused Officer No.1 did not conduct survey as on 06.07.2012 and the application of PW1 was pending for the last one year and that on the date of trap, he was present there and on request of ACB officials, he submitted Ex.P2 which was on the table of
Accused Officer No.1. The service particulars of Accused Officers No.1 and 2 are respectively marked as Exs.P4 and P5.
21.PW4 is one of the mediators and he deposed about pre and post trap proceedings and also about drafting of the Mediators Report-I and
Mediators Report-II. Exs.P6 to P12 and Mos. 1 to 7 are marked through him.
22.PW5 is the Section Officer in Revenue Department. It is deposed by him that after receipt of information regarding trap of Accused
Officers No.1 and 2, they were kept under suspension and that the final report along with model sanction order was received on 27-01-2014 after which, only on verification and on being advised by the Vigilance
Commission, sanction orders under Exs.P14 and P15 were issued
Page No. 17 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 against Accused Officers respectively.
23.PW6 is the Trap Laying Officer and PW7 is the second investigating officer and their examination in chief is all about the investigation done by them in this case. The FIR is marked as Ex.P16 by PW6 and the photostat copy of explanation of Accused Officer No.2, on confrontation and admission by PW7, is marked during his cross- examination as Ex.D1.
24.Sri. G. Sai Charan, who worked as Junior Assistant in the office of Assistant Director, S & LA, Karimnagar from 2011 to 2016 is examined as DW1. He testified that the seats of two inspectors, out of whom, Accused Officer No.1 is one, were situated inside partition wall in the hall and that on 06-07-2012, he signed at Sl.No. 10 of Ex.P9 and that the tainted amount under MO.1 was recovered at the instance of
PW1.
25.It is the case of the prosecution that the land to an extent of Ac.2- 11 guntas in Sy.No. 180/A and 180/B stands in the name of Kontu
Narsaiah who is the grandfather of PW1 despite his demise and that when the owner of neighbouring land by name K. Odaiah/LW3 got his land surveyed on an earlier occasion, some portion of this land was
Page No. 18 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 added to his adjacent land, as such, PW1 intended to get their land surveyed and hence submitted a representation to the Accused Officer
No.1 on 10-08-2010 by duly paying challan of Rs.300/-, but no action was taken. This submission is reiterated during the chief examination of
PWs1 and 2 as well.
In this regard, it has been admitted by PW6 during his evidence that all the applications were given by the father of PW1 namely Kontu
Kanakaiah. Perusal of record also shows that the original receipt dated 10-08-2010 is filed as a part of made up file No.3 under Ex.P10. This document was submitted in the name of late K. Narsaiah while the subsequent applications were all submitted by the father of PW1 namely K. Kanakaiah who duly subscribed his thumb impressions thereon. This individual who submitted several applications is surprisingly not examined at all. He is not even cited as a witness let alone his statement being recorded by the Magistrate or his evidence being recorded by this Court. It is admitted by both PWs 1 and 6 that the said K. Kanakaiah was not examined either during pre or post trap proceedings. It is not even the case of the prosecution that said K.
Kanakaiah was not available or was suffering with ill health since it is deposed by PW1 that his father was ‘hale and healthy’ in May, 2012.
Page No. 19 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
The non-examination of the applicant without furnishing any reason, convincing or otherwise, even if not fatal to the prosecution case, naturally raises suspicion.
As far as the application and challan dated 10-08-2010 being submitted to the Accused Officer No.1 is concerned, it is mentioned in the charge-sheet that the Accused Officer No.1 joined as Inspector in the Office of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records on 07-02- 2011. It is also admitted by PW4 during cross-examination that
Accused Officer No.1 joined on a later date. Further, the Service particulars under Ex.P4 also show that Accused Officer No.1 was promoted and that he joined in the aforementioned position on 07-02- 2011. Ex.P4 also shows that prior to appointment as Inspector, he was working in the office of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records,
Mahabubnagar as Dy. Inspector of Survey. Thus, in view of the fact that the Accused Officer No.1 was admittedly serving as Dy. Inspector of
Survey at Mahabubnagar and was posted as Inspector of Survey on promotion and joined duty on 07-02-2011 i.e. after submission of the application for survey of land of Late K. Narsaiah, this Court holds that the aforementioned submissions cannot be believed. However, mere deposition by PW1 that he submitted the representation dated 10-08-
Page No. 20 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 2010 after payment of challan of Rs.300/- to none but to the Accused
Officer No.1, though found to be contradicting the other evidence available on record, cannot prove to be fatal to the case of Prosecution or cannot be sole ground for doubting the trustworthiness of the entire evidence of PW1 as it has been held in Sukdev Yadav and others Vs.
State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 86 that: ..If the evidence in its entirety appears to be trustworthy, it cannot be discarded merely on the ground of presence of minor variations in evidence.
26.It is further case of the prosecution that due to no action being taken despite submission of representation dated 10-08-2010, PW1 submitted another application to the District Collector, Karimnagar on 20-06-2011 during Praja Vani Programme acknowledging which, receipt was given stating that his land would be measured and demarcated on or before 06-07-2011 after which, Accused Officer No.1 visited the site three days prior to the dead line i.e. 06-07-2011 and asked PW1 to pay challan in the name of Director, Survey and Land
Records in pursuance of which, another challan of Rs.400/- was paid and application was issued addressing the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records after which, notices dated 23-04-2012, 14-05-2012 and 24-05-2012 were given by the Accused Officer No.1 fixing dates for
Page No. 21 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 demarcation on 26-04-2012, 19-05-2012 and 30-05-2012 respectively.
It is contended that despite fixing dates, the Accused Officer No.1 failed to visit the site.
Per contra, it is contended by the defense counsel that after issuance of the aforementioned three notices, the Accused Officer No.1 visited the site twice intending to discharge his official duties, but demarcation could not be carried out due to non-appearance of the neighboring land owners and that subsequently, an application dated 30-05-2012 was filed by said K. Kanakaiah stating that they intend to get the land demarcated through Assistant Director, Survey and Land
Records, but not by an Inspector since objections were raised by the neighboring land owner who got his land demarcated by an Official of the same cadre. It is further contended by the learned defense counsel that after such submission being made by father of PW1 by way of letter dated 30-05-2012, a note was placed by the Accused Officer
No.1 on the same day seeking closure of the file and the entire file along with his note was forwarded to PW3 who then accepted the same thereby ordering for closure of the application.
In this regard, perusal of record shows that the application dated 20-06-2011 was submitted in the name of K. Kanakaiah to the
Page No. 22 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
Collector, Karimnagar and a receipt was issued acknowledging the same. These documents are filed and are marked as document Nos.3 and 4 of Ex.P10. However, the said application is devoid of either the signature or thumb impression of K. Kanakaiah or any Inward number to prove that it was received and acknowledged by the Inward section concerned. Further, neither the collector nor any of his staff members who took part in Prajavani Programme are examined to prove that the
District Collector directed the Assistant Director, Survey and Land records or any other official to look into the matter and do the needful.
Even PW3 did not whisper anything about receiving either the application of PW1 dated 20-06-2011 or any direction from the
Collectorate to complete the survey before 06-07-2011. Had such application been forwarded to the office of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Karimnagar, a prudent witness such as PW3 would have testified about it. It is a settled principle of law that the case of the prosecution cannot be based on mere surmises, conjectures or suspicion. It is a fundamental principle of legal jurisprudence that suspicion however strong, cannot take place of proof. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to prove otherwise, it cannot merely be ‘deemed’ that information about application of K. Kanakaiah was communicated to the office of Assistant Director for further action and
Page No. 23 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 there was a delay on the part of Accused Officer No.1.
It is contended by the Prosecution that on advise of Accused
Officer No.1, another application was submitted by PW1 on behalf of his father addressing the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records on 18-08-2011 after which, three notices were issued, but in vain since the Accused Officer No.1 himself did not visit the site. The said application dated 18-08-2011 and the challan No.22921 drawn for an amount of Rs.400/- are marked as sheets No.2 and 3 of Ex.P8.
However, as stated above, there is no iota of evidence to prove either that the information about application dated 20-06-2011 was communicated to the office of PW3 or that in pursuance of such direction, the Accused Officer No.1 visited the site three days prior to the alleged deadline of 06-07-2011 that too, posing as the Assistant
Director himself. There is also no evidence showing that such alleged earlier application dated 10-08-2010 was closed due to it being addressed to the Inspector while it ought to have been addressed to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land records. Furthermore, there is no evidence to at-least prove that it was the Accused Officer No.1 who advised PW1 to submit another application. However, this aspect is not discussed further in view of it being an admitted fact that another
Page No. 24 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 application accompanying challan of Rs.400/- was submitted on 18-08- 2011 addressing the Assistant Director requesting survey and demarcation of the site. It is also not in dispute that such application was given to PW3 who forwarded the same to section A-3 by placing a note after which, the file was entrusted to Accused Officer No.1, who, as per the evidence of PW3, was one of the two available Inspectors in the office. It is also not in dispute that thereafter, three notices dated 23-04-2012, 14-05-2012 and 24-05-2012 were given by the Accused
Officer No.1 fixing dates for demarcation on 26-04-2012, 19-05-2012 and 30-05-2012 respectively.
It is further case of the prosecution that the Accused Officer No.1 never visited the site. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen from the record that a letter dated 30-05-2012 is filed as sheet No.12 in
Ex.P8. This letter is scribed by PW2 and submitted by father of PW1 addressing the Inspector/Accused Officer No.1 acknowledging that the latter visited the site on two occasions for survey and demarcation in relation to office file No. A3/824/11 in spite of which, the land could not be surveyed due to absence of elders and EO of Lakshmi Narasimha
Swamy temple. Through this letter, the said K. Kanakaiah requested for closure of the file since he intended to get the land measured through
Page No. 25 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
Assistant Director. It is contended by the Prosecution in written arguments that the father of PW1 subscribed his thumb impression on said letter without having proper knowledge of the contents since it is natural for any illiterate person to sign on a document on instruction of public servant with fond hope to get his work done. However, besides putting forth such contentions, that too not in the complaint or through out the evidence, but only in written arguments, nothing is brought on record to prove that said K. Kanakaiah was coerced or induced to subscribe his thumb impression on the aforementioned letter by the
Accused Officer No.1. Further, PW6 also admitted during his cross examination that an application dated 30-05-2012 was submitted by Sri
K. Kanakaiah to the Accused Officer No.1 and the said document is at
Page No.21 of Ex.P3. Thus, the authenticity of the document which stood unchallenged despite being disputed cannot be doubted.
Therefore, it is also proven that the Accused Officer No.1 visited the site on two occasions in pursuance of the notices issued by him and that the survey could not be conducted not because of his absence or negligence, but because of the absence of neighbouring land owners and EO of the temple. It is also proven that on 30-05-2012, the
Accused Officer No.1 refrained from conducting the survey only because of the aforementioned letter being given by the father of PW1.
Page No. 26 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
As seen from page No.13 of Ex.P8 and as admitted by PW3 during cross examination, immediately after receipt of the letter, the Accused
Officer No.1 put up a note file on the very same day i.e. 30-05-2012 seeking that the file may be closed under DD. It is also observed that such note was admittedly received by PW3 on the very same day i.e.
30-05-2012 and his signature was subscribed thereon accepting the report of Accused Officer No.1 thereby closing the file leaving no
official favour pertaining to PW1 pending on the file of Accused
Officer No.1. Page No.14 of Ex.P8 is another letter dated 12-06-2012 which was addressed to Assistant Director, Survey and Land records by father of PW1. It is mentioned in this document as well that the
Inspector was sent for carrying out demarcation of the land, but he was obstructed from carrying out his duty by the neighboring farmers. In this regard, an argument is put forth by the prosecution that the Accused
Officer No.1 who is admittedly public servant ought to have reported to the Police. This contention goes to act as an admission that the
Accused Officer No.1 visited the site on two occasions. All this goes to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused Officer No.1 certainly visited the site on two occasions to survey and demarcate the land despite which, such survey could not be completed due to absence of elders and EO of the temple and due to obstruction of
Page No. 27 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 farmers of neighbouring lands. It is also proven that on 30-05-2012, a letter was addressed by K. Kanakaiah to the Accused Officer No.1 asking him to refrain from demarcating the land and expressing his intention to get the survey done by Assistant Director. It is also proven that immediately on receipt of such letter action was taken without any delay and an office note was put up and the file was closed by PW3.
This leaves no room for consideration of the case of the prosecution that Accused Officer No.1 deliberately refrained from visiting the site to conduct survey.
27.It is further case of the prosecution that after survey not being conducted on the aforementioned three dates, PW1 met the Accused
Officer No.1 again in the first week of June, 2012 asking to update about his work in response to which, the latter demanded an amount of
Rs.15,000/- as bribe for survey and demarcation of the land. It is also stated that the demand persisted even after PW1 visiting the office and meeting Accused office No.1 four to five times subsequently and that he was advised by the Accused Officer No.2 to concede to such demand to get his work done. It is further stated by PW1 that finally, on 03-07-2012, on reiteration of such demand, he agreed to give the amount after which, complaint was lodged and trap was laid on 06-07-
Page No. 28 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 2012 and the tainted amount was recovered from underneath rexine cover of the table and that phenolphthalein test yielded postive results on being conducted on the fingers of Accused Officer No.2 and on corner of table that came into contact with the tainted amount, but yielded negative result when conducted on hands of Accused Officer
No.1. It is specific contention of the prosecution that the Accused
Officer No.2 took the bribe amount on direction of Accused Officer No.1 who repeatedly demanded and accepted such bribe to discharge official favour.
At this stage, it is opined that it is relevant to go through Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (prior to amendment), as such, the same is reproduced hereunder:
Section 13(1)(d): A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct
(d) if he:
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or
(ii) by abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing of pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
Page No. 29 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
Thus, the essential ingredients which are foundational elements to prove the offence of corruption are:
1. Demand of illegal Gratification by the public servant.
2. Acceptance of such illegal gratification and,
3. Recovery of tainted money from the possession of the public servant.
Further, Section 20 of the act deals with presumption where a public servant is found to have accepted undue advantage and this section is enshrined hereunder:
Section 20:
Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or under Section 11, it is proved that a public servant Accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under Section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty imrpoperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under Section 11.
With regard to the said presumption, it has been held in the decision of Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (1) ALD (Crl) 77 (SC) that: …When a public servant is found in
Page No. 30 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 possession of currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein, presumption can be drawn that he accepted the gratification. However, it is a settled principle of law held time and again in catena of judgments including the ones in the matters of Lokayuktha Police
Devanagere Vs. CB Nagaraj, 2025 INSC 736 and Paritala Sudhakar
Vs. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 655 that proof of demand is a mandatory pre-condition to trigger presumption under Section 20 of PC
Act. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions in the matters of M. Rajendran Vs. State, 2011-1-MNW-Crl-602, N.
Thangarajuly and another Vs. State, 2001-1-MLJ-Crl-1050 and AV
Vijayarangan and Others Vs. State, 2010-1-MLJ-541 that illegal gratification is sine qua non for this offence and that mere recovery of tainted amount, in the event of failure to prove the circumstances supporting it, would not result in case of prosecution being proven.
Such inference is reiterated in another relevantly recent decision in the matter of State of Kerala and Another Vs. CP Rao, 2011 6 SCC 450.
Thus, mere recovery of currency notes from any Accused Officer cannot be a ground strong enough to be sole basis for conviction. Such recovery must be backed by a demand. However, such presumption triggered under Section 20 of PC Act is not absolute and is rebuttable and as held in State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, 2013
Page No. 31 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 14 SCC 153, the burden to rebut such presumption lies on the Accused
Officer.
The afore-cited decisions make it clear that to prove that the
Accused Officers in the instant case, committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe. Further, to hold the Accused Officers guilty for commission of offence under Section 7 of the Act, even if it is proven that they were found in possession of the tainted amount, the aspect of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt and only then would it trigger the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.
Before discussing the other aspects such as demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification etc, the aspect of pendency of official favour on the file of Accused No.1, despite being dealt with in brief, is discussed again. In this regard, even as per the case of the prosecution, illegal gratification was first demanded in the month of
June, 2012 when PW1 visited the office of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records asking the Accused Officer No.1 the reason for delay in completion of survey and demarcation of his land. However, as discussed above, the sheet No.12 of Ex.P8 clearly shows that a
Page No. 32 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 letter dated 30-05-2012 was submitted by none other than the father of
PW1 requesting closure of the file since he intended to get survey done by the Assistant Director and not the Inspector. It cannot even the submission of PW1 that he did have knowledge of such letter or of the closure of file since another letter was again submitted on subsequent date and the same got marked as sheet No. 14 of Ex.P8.
This letter is addressed directly to the Assistant Director requesting for completion of survey of the land. When the application of father of
PW1 (sheet No.2 of Ex.P8) stood closed on 30.05.2012 itself the question of pendency of the official favour of father of PW1 relating to file no.A3/824/2011 before the Accused Officer No.1 for discharge does not arise and when there was no official favour pending with the
Accused Officer No.1, non-explanation of the reason, convincing or otherwise, for PW1 meeting Accused Officer No.1 not once but multiple i.e. four to five times that too after seeking closure of file himself through an application of his father definitely unbelievable. It cannot also be the version of the prosecution that this application was taken from said K. Kanakaiah and not PW1 since all the applications are given by said K. Kanakaiah itself. There is not even a single application on record which is submitted by PW1 by duly subscribing his signature. As far as the contention that such letter was taken from
Page No. 33 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
PW1 who is an illiterate by the Accused Officer No.1 is concerned, it has been dealt with and discussed above and it was held that such subsequent submissions devoid of proof would warrant no consideration. It also cannot be their case that after receipt of letter
dated 12-06-2012, PW3 again intended to get the survey done through
one of the two available Inspectors. Even if he intended to do so despite the request of K. Kanakaiah that his land be surveyed by the
Assistant Director himself, there is a remote possibility that such file would have again been entrusted to the Accused Officer No.1 itself for survey and demarcation. Further, no evidence, either oral or documentary is brought on record to that effect. Therefore, the record clearly shows that on the date of alleged demand of illegal gratification, there was no official favour pending on the file of Accused Officer No.1 and the said fact was definitely known to PW1. Furthermore, even during the post trap proceedings, the processing file of PW1 under
Ex.P2 was recovered at the instance of PW3, but not from the
Accused Officer No.1. Although it is deposed by PW3 during his evidence tha he recovered the file from the table of Accused Officer
No.1, he admitted to not having deposed the same before the
Investigating Officer while recording his 161 Cr.P.C statement. Further, even the evidence of PWs4, 7 and 8 shows that the processing file
Page No. 34 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 was recovered from PW3.
It has been held in the decision in the matter of V. Shekhar
Reddy Vs. The State ACB, City Range, CrlA Nos. 1021 and 1022 of
2006 that: …In a trap case relating to the role of a public servant receiving bribe money, prosecution is expected to discharge its initial burden to prove that the public servant in question had capacity to do some official favour in order to demand bribe and that the said bribe amount was received only after demand.
Therefore, in view of absence of any iota of evidence on record and in the light of the supra cited decisions, it is held that prosecution failed to prove pendency of any official favour to be discharged by the
Accused Officer No.1 which, in the instant case, is a precondition to prove the demand for illegal gratification given the fact that following a letter of father of PW1, the file was promptly closed without any delay on the very same day. Thus the aspect of ‘pendency of official favour’ clearly stands dis-proven.
Coming to the next aspect of ‘demand’. As far as this aspect of ‘demand’ of such illegal gratification is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution as seen from charge-sheet and the evidence of material
Page No. 35 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 witnesses that there was demand for illegal gratification by the
Accused Officer No.1 on four to five occasions and that the Accused
No.2 supported him advising PW1 to give such money to get his work done and that on 06-07-2012, during the pre-trap proceedings, the amount of Rs.15,000/- brought by PW1 was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and trap was laid after which, PW1 went to the office of Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records and approached the Accused Officer No.1 who enquired if the bribe amount was brought along with him, as such, there was further demand on the date of trap as well.
Per contra, it is the version of Accused Officers No.1 and 2 that there was no such meetings on any occasion after closure of file on 30-05-2012 and that PW1 came to the office of Assistant Director,
Survey and Land Records on the date of trap, approached the
Accused Officer No.1 asking progress in his file in response to which, the latter informed that he had no official favour pending with respect to the land belonging to PW1 as on that date after which, the former went to the Accused Officer No.2 and tried giving the amount, but the same was pushed away by the Accused Officer No.2 after which, it was deliberately placed on the table only to rope the Accused Officers
Page No. 36 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 in offences they have not committed. Thus, it is their specific contention that there was no demand for such bribe let alone further demand on the date of trap.
In this regard, before discussing any other submission or contention in this aspect, this Court fails to understand as to why PW1 felt the need to visit Accused Officer No.1 not just after his own father writing a representation seeking closure of file on 30-05-2021, but after the file actually being closed on the very same date in pursuance of such representation and even after another letter dated 12-06-2012 (Sheet No. 14 of Ex.P8) was written addressing PW3 requesting for the survey. The reason for PW1 approaching Accused Officer No.1 after the official favour ceasing to exist on the latter’s table remains unexplained. PW1 also goes to submit that he was subsequently demanded for bribe on four to five occasions the specific details of which are again not mentioned. Perusal of record shows that this very contention about four to five subsequent meetings and demand does not find a mention in the 164 Cr.P.C statements of PWs 1 and 2.
Coming to the events that allegedly unfolded on the date of trap, it is admitted by PWs4 and 6 during their cross-examination that PWs 1 and 2 moved inside the office of Assistant Director, Survey of Land
Page No. 37 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
Records from 5:25 PM to 5:45 PM i.e. for 20 minutes while the trap party remained in vantage positions, but they did not know as to where
PWs 1 and 2 moved inside the office i.e. whom they met and what they did. Further, despite it not being the case of the prosecution that the entire technical section was devoid of any individual other than the
Accused Officers and PWs 1 to 3, no other independent witness such as other staff or any visitor is examined for reasons unknown if not to prove that there was further demand of bribe, at-least to prove that
PW1 met or approached the Accused Officer No.1 that day. However, one of the colleagues of the Accused Officers and the then Junior
Assistant whose presence in the premises on the date of trap cannot be disputed in view of his signature being available at S.No.10 of
Ex.P9 is examined as DW1 and his evidence is crucial in deciding this and the forthcoming aspects in this case. He testified that on the date of trap, at about 05:30 PM, he entered the cabin of Accused Officer
No.1 while the latter was present on his seat when PW1 entered asking about the demarcation file and that he left on being informed by the Accused Officer No.1 that the file was not in his custody. Nothing has been elicited during cross-examination of this witness to prove either that he was not present there on the said date or that there was furtherance of demand by the Accused Officer No.1.
Page No. 38 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
As far as the Accused Officer No.2 supporting the Accused
Officer No.1 and advising PW1 to give such amount for getting his work done is concerned, it is submitted by this officer through Ex.D1 to the Investigating Officer that on PW1 trying to give the tainted amount asking to give the same to the Accused Officer No.1, he pushed it away with his hands refusing to take it and that he was thereafter forced to pick such amount and hand it over to the mediator with an intention to falsely implicate him. It is also stated that the recitals of
Mediators Report- II are false. As seen from the record, besides oral evidence that too, only in the chief examination of PW3, no documents such as office order are filed showing that the Accused Officer No.2, who was just an office subordinate as on the date of offence, was directed to assist the Accused Officer No.1. Further, even this contention about Accused Officer No.2 advising PW1 to give bribe amount to get his work done does not find a mention in the 164 Cr.P.C statements of both PWs 1 and 2 and the same is admitted by PW7 during his cross-examination. Even despite all this, if the case of the prosecution is momentarily considered, as stated above, the reason for non-examination of any independent witness who were present during the presentation of tainted amount towards bribe remains unknown. Therefore, on cumulative reading of the evidence brought on
Page No. 39 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 record, this court is of the considered opinion that the aspect of demand by Accused Officer No.1 and the contention that he was supported by Accused Officer No.2 are both dis-proven, as such, cannot be considered.
As far as the aspects of ‘acceptance and recovery of tainted amount from the custody of Accused Officer’ are concerned, it is case of prosecution that on receipt of an affirmative reply from PW1 about the bribe amount, the Accused Officer No.1 asked him to hand it over to the Accused Officer No.2 who in-turn received the amount and hid it underneath the rexine cover of the table. It is their specific contention that positive results of the phenolphthalein test prove receipt of the illegal gratification by Accused Officer No.2 from PW1 in pursuance of instructions of the Accused Officer No.1.
Per contra, it is the contention of defence counsel that the
Accused Officer No.2 never received the tainted amount much less hiding it underneath any rexine cover and that as submitted in Ex.D1, he in fact pushed it away on it being offered by PW1. Another contention specifically put forth by the learned defence counsel that the papers carried by PW1 to the office on the date of incident sent for examination to prove that such papers were devoid of the chemical
Page No. 40 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 powder.
In this regard, admittedly, hands of Accused Officer No.1 were subjected to phenolphthalein test and negative report was obtained.
Coming to the Accused Officer No.2, the test conducted on his hands yielded positive result. However, his contention remains to be that his hands came into contact with the tainted amount not while taking it, but infact, when he pushed it away refusing to take it. No independent witness is examined to show that the Accused Officer No.2 accepted the amount in pursuance of instruction of the Accused Officer No.1 for reasons best known to the prosecution. As far as the recovery of such tainted amount from underneath the rexine cover is concerned, while the prosecution submits that the amount was hidden underneath the rexine cover of the table to prove which, even the contact portion of such table was subjected to the test only to obtain positive result and that such amount was recovered at the instance of Accused Officer
No.2, it is, on the other hand, evidenced by DW1 that such amount was recovered, at the instance of not the Accused Officer No.2, but
PW1 himself that too, not from underneath the rexine cover of the table, but from underneath the newspaper kept on such table in the technical section. As seen from the record, the rexine cover
Page No. 41 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 underneath which the tainted amount was allegedly hidden is not seized for reasons unknown. In the absence of such crucial pieces of evidence, it is but natural for suspicion as to whether the tainted amount was recovered from underneath such rexine cover and that too after it being hidden by Accused Officer No.2 particularly owing to the non-examination of independent witnesses.
It is a settled principle of law upheld in catena of judgments including the recent ones on the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that mere contact with or recovery of tainted money from public servant is not sufficient to prove guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The aspect of ‘demand’ must be proven as pre-condition even if the ’hand wash’ per se, turns pink as it has been held by the Hon’ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court in the decision in the matter K. Narasimha Chary
Vs. State of AP, Crl. Appeal No. 1058 of 1996 that “It is true that whenever a trap is successful, the version of the prosecution gains credence. However, the Supreme Court had time and again sounded a note of caution even in respect of cases where the trap has been proved successfully. It was held that circumstances such as the
Accused Officers coming into contact with the tainted notes in the process of pushing the same from table or thwarting the attempts of
Page No. 42 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 the complainants to thrust the amount into the hands or pocket need to be taken into account. Mechanical acceptance of trap was held to be prone to result in injustice”.
Therefore, burden lies on the prosecution to prove demand for bribe as sine qua non in discharging which, the prosecution in this case failed owing to the fact that the hand wash of Accused Officer
No.1 never turned pink and the Accused Officer No.2 advanced a plausible explanation to counter which, no independent witness is examined for reasons unknown, thereby making it a successful rebuttal.
28.Coming to the validity of Sanction proceedings under Exs.P14 and P15 issued against the Accused Officers No.1 and 2 respectively, it is the case of the prosecution that the sanction orders were issued by the then Prl. Secretary to the Government only after verification of the documents and after obtaining advise of the Vigilance Commission. In support of this contention, the prosecution got examined Section
Officer of the Revenue Department, who is authorized to depose evidence in this case vide Ex.P13 as PW5. It is testified by this witness that after receipt of radio message about the trap, both the Accused
Officers were kept under suspension vide proceedings No.
Page No. 43 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
A5/881/2012 dated 07-02-2012 and that subsequently, a preliminary report was received on 21-07-2012 along with copies of FIR, MR-I and
MR-II. It is further deposed that thereafter, on 27-01-2014, the final report is received after which, only on verification of file by a competent authority i.e. the then Prl. Secretary to the Government and after taking advise of the Vigilance Commission, sanction orders under Exs.P14 and P15 are issued.
Per contra, it is contended by the learned defence counsel that the said sanction proceedings were issued without application of mind and without proper verification of all the necessary documents. PW5 is also subjected to cross-examination with respect to this aspect during the course of which, it is admitted by him that the office of Director
General, Anti Corruption Bureau at Hyderabad did not send certain documents such as representations dated 30-05-2012 and 12-06-2012 submitted by K. Kanakaiah, photostat copies of Made up files No.1 to
3. After such cross-examination, it is revealed by this witness that he worked in the Revenue District Administration Section, but not in the
Vigilance Department at the relevant period of time. However, he denies the suggestion that he is not competent person to depose in respect of Exs.P14 and P15.
Page No. 44 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
In this regard, it is a settled principle of law that has been upheld in catena of judgments including the one in the matter of Md. Iqbal
Ahmed Vs. State of AP, AIR 1979 SC 677 that: “It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the sanctioning authority and the satisfaction arrived by it”.
As seen from the record, the paragraph No. 6 of Exs.P14 and
P15 shows that it is clearly mentioned therein by the then Prl.
Secretary to Government namely B.R. Meena that they hold that the
Accused Officers No.1 and 2 should be prosecuted before Court of law only after carefully examining the material placed before him which includes FIR, Pre Trap and Post Trap proceedings, preliminary report,
Statement of Witnesses, Final Report of Director General, Anti
Corruption Bureau etc. The signature of the then Prl. Secretary is identified by PW5. It has been held in the matter of CBI/SPE Vs. P.
Muthuraman, 1996 SCC Online AP 147 that: “..the signature on the
Page No. 45 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 sanction should be proved either by the sanctioning authority or by his subordinate officer or clerk who has seen the sanctioning authority signing the sanction order or who is acquainted with the signature of the sanctioning authority”. Perusal of record shows that nothing has been elicited during cross-examination of PW5 to prove that he is not conversant with the signature of the issuance authority and is not competent to at-least identify the signature of Sri. B. R. Meena, the then Prl. Secretary to Government thereby proving the signature on the sanction. Therefore, no question can be raised with respect to his competence at-least in respect of the aspect of identification of signature of the issuing authority of Exs.P14 and P15 not only in view of the fact that he appears to be conversant with the signature of the issuance authority, but also considering the fact that he has been authorized to depose in this matter vide Ex.P13 by the Chief Secretary to Government. Further it is held in the matter of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Jiyalal, (2009) 15 SCC 72 that: “The sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions and hence there is a presumption that the same was done in a bonafide manner”.
Even after this, if the defence of the Accused Officers is momentarily considered, it is a settled principle of law that issuance of Sanction order is certainly a mandatory procedural precondition for initiation of
Page No. 46 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 prosecution, but can never be a ground for conviction. The purpose of such sanction proceedings is to shield the government servants against vexatious and frivolous petitions. The role of the Sanctioning authority is only to ensure existence of ‘prima facie’ case against the
Accused Officer, but not to establish the charges beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Such Sanctioning authority issues Sanction proceedings after perusal of record and after getting satisfied that a prima facie case for sanction is made out. This is a mere administrative act, but not a judicial finding of the guilt. Therefore, considering the facts, paragraph No.6 of both Exs.P14 and P15 and the evidence of PW5 who is found to be competent to identify the signature of the Sanctioning authority, it is held that Exs.P14 and P15 are valid Sanction proceedings issued by competent Sanctioning authority i.e. the then Prl. Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vigilance. IV. 2) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh namely
Sri. B. R. Meena.
29.In view of the facts, circumstances, the oral and documentary evidence available on record and the ongoing discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove that an official favour was pending on the file of Accused Officer No.1 as on the date of trap
Page No. 47 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 to discharge which, the Accused Officers No.1 and 2 demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- cash. Therefore, it is held that the presumption under Section 20 stands successfully rebutted and it is also held that the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act are not established beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt thereby making the Accused Officers No.1 and 2 entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the
Accused Officers No.1 and 2.
POINT No.3:-
30.In the light of aforementioned finding of this Court, the Accused
Officers No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and are therefore entitled for acquittal for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, point No.3 is also answered against the prosecution and in favour of the Accused
Officers No.1 and 2.
31.In result, the Accused Officers No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for commission of offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, they are
Page No. 48 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015 acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code.
The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per
Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
MO.3 is ordered to be confiscated to the State by way of depositing into the exchequer and other material objects i.e. Mos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.
Typed and prepared by me and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of March, 2026.
FAC: Special Judge, for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: PW1: K. Srinivas (Complainant). PW2: Kontu Krishna (Ac-compliance of the Complainant and scribe of several applications). PW3: Rathod Dhavuji (The Then Assistant Director, S&LA, Karimnagar). PW4: A. Vidyasagar (Mediator to Pre and Post Trap Proceedings). PW5: M.P. Janardhan Reddy (Official authorized to depose on behalf of Sanctioning authority). PW6 : T. Sudershan (First Investigating Officer and Trap laying Officer). PW7: VV Ramana Murthy (Investigating Officer)
Page No. 49 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
For Defense: DW1: G. Sai Charan (Colleague of Accused Officers present in the premises on the date of trap).
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: Ex.P1 : Complaint given by PW1 to DSP, ACB, Karimnagar. Ex.P2 : Application of PW1, photocopies of pattadar pass books, notices issued and challans remitted (24 sheets) Ex.P3 : Letter of Survey and Land Records Department, Karimnagar. Ex.P4 : Service particulars of the Accused Officer No.1. Ex.P5 : Service particulars of the Accused Officer No.2. Ex.P6 : Signatures of PW4 and LW6/B. Krishnamurthy on copy of report. Ex.P7 : Mediators Report-I Proceedings. Ex.P8 : Processing file of Complainant (15 sheets including docket sheet). Ex.P9 : Office Attendance Register. Ex.P10 : 7 documents in processing file. Ex.P11 : Rough sketch. Ex.P12 : Mediators Report-II Proceedings. Ex.P13 : Authorization letter. Ex.P14 : Prosecution order vide G.O.Ms. No. 170 against Accused Officer No.1. Ex.P15 : Prosecution order vide G.O.Ms. No. 171 against Accused Officer No.2. Ex.P16 : Original First Information Report dated 06-07-2012. Ex.P17 : Signature of the Accused Officer No.1 on RCD dated 07-07-2011. Ex.P18 : Crl.MP.No. 777/2012. Ex.P19 : Crl.MP.No. 883/2012. Ex.P20 : Crl.MP.No. 778/2012. Ex.P21 : Crl.MP.No. 884/2012.
For Defense: Ex.D1 : Photostat copy of Explanation of Accused Officer No.2.
Page No. 50 of 50 Judgment in C.C. No 87/2015
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1: One sealed cover containing sample of phenolphthalein powder used in the MR-1 proceedings. MO.2: One sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in the MR-1 proceedings. MO.3: Tainted amount of Rs.15,000/-. MO.4: One sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in the post trap proceedings. MO.5: One sealed bottle containing right hand wash of Accused Officer No.2. MO.6: One sealed bottle containing left hand wash of Accused Officer No.2. MO.7: One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contacted portion of tainted currency notes top of the table under rexine cover.
FAC: Special Judge, for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.