Sri Kumar Vivek

1C.C. No 90/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:KUMAR VIVEK, District & Sessions Judge

Wednesday, the 31st July, 2024

CALENDER CASE NO.90 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

The State through the Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar. ….Complainant. &

Chinthapatla Lachanna, S/o. Narayana, Age: 57 years (as per chargesheet), Occ: Inspector of Police, Wankidi police station, Adilabad District. R/o. Sanjaynagar, Adilabad District. N/o Gimma village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District. …Accused Officer.

This calendar case has come before me on 16.07.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Kishore Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar for the complainant, and Sri E.Madhusudhan Rao, learned Advocate for the accused officer, 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 doth the following:

:: JUDGMENT::

1.The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.07/ACB-KNR/2013 against the accused officer to punish him as per law for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 with the following allegations relevant for this case:

That the accused officer worked as Inspector of Police, Wankidi

Police Station, Adilabad district for the period from 08.06.2012 to till 2C.C. No 90/2015 11.02.2013 and he is a public servant as defined under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; that one Uppula Krishna is the son of the informant and on 05.02.2013 their relative by name Sirikonda

Sunitha lodged a report against said Uppula Krishna before the Wankidi police station alleging that he attempted to commit rape upon her and accordingly a case as in Cr.No.14/2013 under sections 448 and 354 of the

Indian Penal Code was registered against said Uppula Krishna by the accused officer; that on 06.02.2013 the police officers of Wankidi police station took said Uppula Krishna to the police station and on the same day the informant went to Wankidi police station and approached the accused officer who abused her and also indiscriminately beat said

Uppula Krishna; that since 06.02.2013 the informant has had been daily approaching the accused officer with a request to release said Uppula

Krishna or to produce him in the Court for judicial remand and the accused officer demanded Rs.20,000/- as a bribe from her for producing said Uppula Krishna in the Court for judicial remand; that the accused officer threatened the informant to keep said Uppula Krishna for days’ together in the police station and beat him; that in spite of expression of her economic inability to give Rs.20,000/- as a bribe to the accused officer, the accused officer refused to produce said Uppula Krishna in the

Court for judicial remand without receiving said bribe amount; that on 09.02.2013 the informant again approached the accused officer at

Wankidi police station and on her persistent request the accused officer 3C.C. No 90/2015 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/- and demanded said amount for producing said Uppula Krishna in the Court for judicial remand immediately; that the accused officer further informed the informant to not to come to Wankidi police station without said bribe amount and that he would produce said Uppula Krishna in the Court for judicial remand whenever she brings the demanded bribe amount; that finding no other alternative the informant reluctantly agreed to give the said Rs.10,000/- as a bribe on Monday, i.e., on 11.02.2013 to the accused officer and returned; that as the informant was unwilling to give bribe to the accused officer as such she approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar and lodged a report against the accused officer that was scribed by her another son by name

Uppula Srinivas; that on 11.02.2013 in the afternoon hours the accused officer was trapped by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar at his residential quarters situated in the premises of Wankidi police station when he further demanded and voluntarily accepted Rs.10,000/- as a bribe amount from the informant for discharging pending official favour; that the phenolphthalein test conducted on both the hands of the accused officer by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar in the presence of mediators yielded positive result and the tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- was seized by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagr 4C.C. No 90/2015

Range, Karimnagar when the same was produced by the accused officer from a black colour plastic cover that was kept on the table in the front room of his residential quarters at his instance; that the accused officer was arrested on 11.02.2013 at 10.00 pm and produced before the

Special Court at Hyderabad on 12.02.2013 at 1.10 p.m. and subsequently the accused officer was enlarged on bail and released from the Central

Prison, Cherlapally, Hyderabad on 28.03.2013 at 7.30 p.m.; that the

Principal Secretary to the Government, Home (SC-A) Department, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad is the competent authority to remove the accused officer from service and said Principal Secretary to the Government accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused officer before the Court of law vide Memo No.44/SC-A/A2/2013-2 dated 01.05.2014; and that the trap amount of Rs.10,000/- was reimbursed to the informant vide cheque no.718529 dated 17.07.2013, hence the charge sheet.

2.The learned II-Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB cases,

Hyderabad has taken cognizance of the charge sheet against the accused officer for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and assigned C.C.

no.24/2014 to the present case.

3.After appearance of the accused officer the copy of the documents filed along with charge sheet are furnished to the accused officer by the learned II-Additional Special Judge, for trial of SPE & ACB cases, 5C.C. No 90/2015

Hyderabad according to section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4.Subsequently C.C. no.24/2014 was transferred to this Court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad bearing ROC.no.240/2010-DII(BLDGS) dated 21.04.2015 and the same is numbered as C.C. no. 90/2015.

5.Upon hearing the prosecution as well as the accused officer and upon considering the entire materials available on the record, this Court primafacie found that the accused officer committed offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and accordingly charges under the said sections of law are framed against the accused officer and the same are read over and explained to the accused officer in the Telugu language to which he denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 11 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P16 and MOs.1 to 7. Exs.P15 and 16 are exhibited during cross-examination of DW1 upon his admission.

7. After the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused officer is examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure

Code and whilst such examination the accused officer denied the incriminating circumstance appearing in the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, and reported defence 6C.C. No 90/2015 side evidence.

8.The accused officer has filed separate written statement of defence denying the allegations of the prosecution against him besides submitting that he did not illegally detain said Uppula Krishna from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013 at Wankidi police station and that he handed over the custody of said Uppula Krishna to one Md.

Raheemuddin, Police Constable no.1401 of Wankidi police station on 11.02.2013 at 12-00 noon for producing said Uppula Krishna before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad for judicial remand, and

without conducting proper discreet enquiry and investigation he has been implicated in the present case; that there are material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses (PWs.1 to 5 and

7) from their previous statements; and that PW8 is a stock mediator of

Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar.

9.In support of his defence, the accused officer has examined DWs.1 to 3, and Exs.D1 to D11 are exhibited. Exs.D1 to D6 are exhibited during the course of cross examination of PW1, Ex.D7 is exhibited during the cross examination of PW2, Ex.D8 is exhibited during the cross examination of PW3, Ex.D9 is exhibited during the cross examination of

PW5, and Ex.D10 is exhibited during the cross examination of PW7.

Ex.D11 is exhibited through DW1.

10.Heard oral arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant and 7C.C. No 90/2015 the accused officer. Written arguments also filed on behalf of the accused officer.

11.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases,

Karimnagar has relied on the decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India between State of Maharashtra Vs. Narsingrao

Gangaram Pimple reported in AIR 1984 SC 63; Dr. N.K.

Seetharama Sarma Vs. State reported in 2013 1 ALD (Crl) 431;

B.Noha Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2006) 8

Supreme 616; Syed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2012 SC 3359;Madhukar Bhaskarao JoshiVs.State of

Maharashtra reported in AIR 2001 SC 147; and Vinod Kumar Garg

Vs. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 SC 1797, and the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High

Court betweenState rep. by Inspector of PoliceVs.

B.Venkateswara Rao reported in 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 338.

12.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused officer has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between Meena Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 5 SCC 21, and Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1979 SC 1408, and the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court between

K.Narasimha Chary Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2004 (1) ALD (CRI) 516.

8C.C. No 90/2015

13.Perused the materials available on the record of the case.

14.Now the points for determination are :

1Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused officer is a public servant within the meaning of section 2(c) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the accused officer for the offenses for which charges are framed against him, is required?

2Whether official favour of producing son of the informant by name Uppula Krishna before the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Asifabad (hereinafter referred to as Court for the sake of brevity and convenience) in crime no.14/2013 of Wankidi police station was pending for discharge before the accused officer with effect from 06.02.2013 to till arrival of the informant to the residential quarters of the accused officer after 1:25 pm on 11.02.2013?

3Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused officer demanded initially Rs.20,000/- as a bribe from the informant for discharging pending official favour and subsequently reduced the same to Rs.10,000/- on 09.02.2013 and later on 11.02.2013 after 1.25 pm at his residential quarters in pursuance of his earlier demand of bribe, voluntarily and 9C.C. No 90/2015 consciously accepted Rs.10,000/- as a bribe from the informant?

4Whether the prosecution has proved charges framed against the accused officer beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt?

5To what finding or findings?

POINT NOS. 2 AND 3

15. Since these points are interconnected with each other hence this

Court intend to answer them together.

INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES

16. PW1 is the informant. PWs.2 and 4 are the then Head Constables, and PWs.3 and 5 the then Constables who worked in the Wankidi police station. PWs.6 and 7 are the sons of PW1. PW8 is one of the mediators in whose presence PW9 conducted pre and post trap proceedings on 11.02.2013. PW9 is examined on the side of the prosecution to prove formal order regarding permission to prosecute the accused officer

before the Court of law under Ex.P13. PW10 is the trap laying officer.

PW11 is the investigating officer who assisted PW10 during pre and post trap proceedings in laying trap against the accused officer, conducted further investigation, and filed chargesheet in this case upon completion of investigation. DW1 is the then Additional Superintendent of Police (Operations), Adilabad and the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry conducted against the accused office. DW2 is the then Deputy 10C.C. No 90/2015

Superintendent of Police, D.T.C, Adilabad and the Presenting Officer in the departmental inquiry conducted against the accused officer. DW3 is the then Police Constable attached to the office of DW1.

ADMITTED FACTS

17. PWs.6 and 7 are the sons of PW1. PW6 is the scribe of Ex.P1. A case as in crime no.14/2013 under sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal

Code was registered by the accused officer against PW7 on the basis of report of one Sirikonda Sunitha on 05.02.2013. The Wankidi police station is situated in the extremists hit area and the residential quarters of the accused officer is situated within the premises of Wankidi police station.

Initiation of departmental enquiry against the accused officer inter alia in relation to allegations against him for illegally detaining and ill treating

PW7 in connection with demand of bribe, DW1 conducting said enquiry as an Enquiry Officer and DW2 participating in the said enquiry as a

Presenting Officer, and the exoneration of the accused officer of the articles of charge framed in the said departmental enquiry by DW1 vide enquiry report under Ex.D11.

OFFICIAL FAVOUR

18.The evidence of PW1 is that in the back drop of the report of one

Sirikonda Sunitha lodged before the Wankidi police station on 05.02.2013 against PW7 alleging commission of rape upon her, on 06.02.2013 two constables came from Wankidi police station and took 11C.C. No 90/2015 away PW7 to said police station; that she also went to Wankidi police station and saw that PW7 was being ill treated by the accused officer, and she requested the accused officer to produce PW7 in the Court for which the accused officer demanded Rs.20,000/- as a bribe from her and when she expressed her economic inability on that the accused officer informed her that until fulfillment of his demand of bribe by her he will not produce PW7 in the Court; that she was visiting Wankidi police station every day and meeting the accused officer and requesting him to produce PW7 in the Court but the accused officer was insisting for payment of bribe amount; and that on 09.02.2013 on the repeated request of PW1 the accused officer reduced the bribe amount to

Rs.10,000/- and stated to PW1 that until payment of said bribe amount to him he will not produce PW7 in the Court and to not to visit the police station till such payment is made; and that finding no other way PW1 reluctantly agreed to give bribe of Rs.10,000/- to the accused officer on 11.02.2013.

19.PW2 has deposed before this Court that after registration of crime no.14/2013 under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code against PW7 on 05.02.2013, on the following date at 11:30 am the accused officer called him and instructed to bring PW7 from the house of one Shyam Rao in

Ambedkarnagar by going along with PW3, and both of them went to said place and brought PW7 and handed over him to the accused officer and since then to till 11.02.2013 PW7 was not produced in the Court for 12C.C. No 90/2015 judicial remand and PW1 was daily coming to the police station for producing PW7 in the Court for judicial remand.

20. The core defence of the accused officer is that he apprehended PW7 in crime no.14/2013 of Wankidi police station registered under section 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code on 11.02.2013 at 10:30 am at

Sonapur village and brought him to Wankidi police station and at 12:00 noon on the said date effected his arrest by issuing arrest memo and handed over his (PW7) custody to PW5 for producing him (PW7) in the

Court for judicial remand, and he had no knowledge about that PW1 would meet him on 11.02.2013 hence question of keeping official favour pending before him for discharge to till relay of pre-arranged signal by

PW1 to the trap party members from his residential quarters does not arise, and that he has been implicated in this case on account of inimical disposition of PWs.2 to 5 against him.

21.A suggestion has been given to PW1 that in order to release her son from the police station and to pressurize the accused officer she approached the Anti Corruption Bureau and tainted amount was kept on the table to implicate the accused officer on the advice of some of the

Constables who were inimical to the accused officer. The said suggestion given to PW1 is misplaced one for twin reasons. To begin with, when according to the accused officer he signed the remand case diary under

Exs.P4/P9 at 12:00 noon on 11.02.2013 and handed over custody of PW7 to PW5 for production of PW7 in the Court for judicial remand, the 13C.C. No 90/2015 accused officer has become functus officio, and he cannot release PW7 hence question of PW1 approaching him for release of PW7 does not arise. Additionally the said suggestion contradicts the above core defence set up by the accused officer as it indicates that even on the date of PW1 approaching the office of PW10 i.e., 09.02.2013 as well as to till arrival of PW1 to his residential quarters in the afternoon hours on 11.02.2013 the official favour of producing PW7 in the Court for judicial custody was pending before the accused officer for discharge.

22.According to the accused officer Exs.D1 to D6 materially contradicts testimony of PW1 before this Court regarding illegal detention of PW7 by the accused officer from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013 and demand of bribe from her to produce PW7 in the Court for judicial remand. Ex.D1 is said to be entire statement of PW1 recorded in the departmental enquiry conducted against the accused officer by DW1, and Exs.D2 to D6 are the relevant portions of the alleged statement of PW1. PW1 in her cross- examination before this Court refused to admit the contents of Ex.D1 as her statement when the same was read over to her. On the other hand,

DW1 admits Exs.D1 to D6 as the voluntary statement of PW1 recorded during the course of departmental enquiry. DW1 volunteers in his cross- examination that statements of PWs.1 and 7 and said Sirikonda Sunitha were scribed by his subordinate on his dictation. DW1 states in his cross- examination there is no mention in their statements that the same were scribed by his subordinate on his dictation. DW1 denies suggestion of the 14C.C. No 90/2015 learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar that the alleged statements of PWs.1 and 7 and said Sirikonda Sunitha were not scribed by his subordinate on his dictation, and the same were brought into existence by him in collusion with the accused officer without examining PWs.1 and 7 and said Sirikonda Sunitha.

23.DW2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that deposition of

PWs.1 and 7 and said Sirikonda Sunitha were recorded on the dictation of

DW1 with the assistance of the Typist, and the same were typed verbatim and they contain true and voluntary account of their versions.

DW2 states in his cross-examination that signatures of PW.1 and said

Sirikonda Sunitha are not present on their respective statements, that there is no mention in the statements of PWs.1 and 7 that said statements were scribed by DW3, and there is no signature of DW3 or a constable by name Santosh on the said statements stating that they scribed said statements of PWs.1 and 7, and their contents were explained to them.

24.DW3 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on the dictation of DW1 he scribed the statements of PWs.1 and 7 and another Constable by name Santosh scribed the statements of other witnesses examined by

DW2. DW3 has stated in his cross-examination that the statements of

PWs.1 and 7 do not disclose that the same were scribed by him on the dictation of DW1, that his signature as a scribe of the said statements is not present on the said statements, that the statement of said Sirikonda 15C.C. No 90/2015

Sunitha also do not disclose that the same was scribed by the said

Constable Santosh, that signature of said Santosh as a scribe of the statement of said Sirikonda Sunitha is not present, and that signature of said Sirikonda Sunitha is not visible on her statement.

25.PW1 volunteers in her cross-examination that the accused officer and DW1 forcibly obtained her signature on Ex.D1. There is no cross- examination of PW1 by the accused officer on the point that the contents of Ex.D1 were read over and explained to her in the Telugu language by

DW1 and after admitting the same as true, correct and voluntary account of her version, she signed on the same. PW1 states in her cross- examination that she did not complain before higher officers that her signature was obtained by force. PW1 is an agriculturist whose son (PW7) was facing criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and the accused officer and DW1 were senior police officers. Therefore, possibility that PW1 would complaint against them before their superior officers is remote one.

26.It is pertinent to note that on perusal of alleged statement of PW.1 under Ex.D1 it is noticed that it is not a typed statement as deposed by

DW2 in his examination in chief but it is hand written one. Be that as it may, admittedly alleged statement of PW1 do not bear signature of DW3 as its scribe as well as there is no recital therein that the same was scribed by DW3 on the dictation of DW1. The alleged statement of PW1 16C.C. No 90/2015 under Ex.D1 also reveals that signature of PW.1 is not present on each and every sheets, and the same is present only at the end of her alleged statement on the last sheet. The alleged statement of PW.1 under Ex.D1 further discloses that the same is bereft of any certificate that its contents were read over and explained to PW1 in the Telugu language by

DW1 and after admitting the same as true, correct and voluntary account of her version, PW1 signed on the same. In the circumstance of the case as appreciated in foregoing lines mere admission by PW1 in her cross- examination regarding presence of her signature on last sheet of Ex.D1 does not ipso facto amount to proof of contents of Ex.D1. Similar latches are also noticed by this Court in the alleged statement of PW7 that is forming part of Ex.D11. Even signature of said Sirikonda Sunitha is not present on her alleged statement that is forming part of Ex.D11. These facts leave no iota of doubt in the mind of this Court that departmental enquiry was designedly conducted with a view to ensure exoneration of the accused officer of the articles of charge framed against him, and to achieve said objective the alleged statement of PW1 under Ex.D1, also statements of PW7 and said Sirikonda Sunitha have been brought into existence with diluted version. This Court has no hesitation to hold that

Ex.D1 does not contain voluntary verbatim version of PW1. When veracity of Ex.D1 as true and voluntary account of version of PW1 is shaken in toto, the same looses its evidentiary value to contradict the testimony of PW1 before this Court.

17C.C. No 90/2015

27.DW1 admits during his cross-examination that without perusal of any of the documents pertaining to this case against the accused officer he recorded a finding in enquiry report under Ex.D11 that the Anti

Corruption Bureau personnel did not act with clean hands and adopted fair methods during the so called successful trap. On perusal of enquiry report under Ex.D11 it is noticed that DW1 made such finding on the basis of alleged testimonies of the witnesses in the departmental enquiry.

Without taking glance of the documents drafted and collected during course of inquiry and investigation in the instant case it was not proper on the part of DW1 to record such finding in inquiry report under Ex.D11.

28.The findings recorded by DW1 in the enquiry report under Ex.D11 for exonerating the accused officer are not relevant in the present case in view of the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State (NCT of

Delhi) Vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported in (2012) 9 SCC 685 at para 24 as “ In fact, there are precedents, to which we have referred to above, that speak eloquently a contrary view i.e. exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. On principle also, this view commends us. It is well settled that the standard of proof in a department proceeding is lower than that of criminal prosecution. It is equally well settled that the departmental proceeding or for that matter criminal cases have to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced therein. Truthfulness of the evidence in the criminal case can be judged only after the evidence is adduced 18C.C. No 90/2015 therein and the criminal case can not be rejected on the basis of the evidence in the departmental proceeding or the report of the inquiry officer based on those evidence.”

29. PW3 has stated on oath before this Court that on 05.02.2013 a case was registered against PW7 before the Wankidi police station and on the following date the accused officer instructed him and PW4 to go to the place of PW7, apprehend him and produce him in the police station and accordingly both of them went to Ambedkarnagar and caught PW7 and produced him before the accused officer; that from the said date onwards to till 11.02.2013 PW1 was coming to the police station and requesting the accused officer to produce PW7 in the Court for judicial remand but the accused officer did not do so; that on 11.02.2013 at 1.30 pm PW1 came to the police station and went to the quarters of the accused officer and after few minutes the Anti Corruption Bureau personnel came to the police station and trapped the accused officer.

30. PW3 has admitted during the course of his cross examination that he did not state before that PW1 was coming to police station every day from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013 and requesting the accused officer to send her son to the Court for judicial remand and on 11.02.2013 PW1 came to the quarters of the accused officer. PW3 denies deposing in

CC.no.162/2015 before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Asifabad. Ex.D8 contradiction is not relevant for deciding the present case. However, PW3 admits during the course of his cross 19C.C. No 90/2015 examination that during the tenure of the accused officer he was charged for unauthorized absence for seven days and he lost his pay for seven days. He has denied suggestion of the accused officer that he was frequently applying for permission and the accused officer was refusing the same, and since the accused officer imposed punishment of loss of pay hence he developed grudge against him and for that reason he is deposing false against him. In view of material improvement in the evidence of PW3 from his previous statement and on account of inflicting penalty upon him of loss of pay for seven days by the accused officer it is not safe to rely on the evidence of PW3 for believing his testimony regarding illegal detention of PW7 by the accused officer at Wankidi police station from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013 and during the said period visit of PW1 to said police station and meeting the accused officer in connection with her request to produce PW7 in the Court for judicial remand.

31. PW4 has deposed before this Court in his examination-in-chief that on 06.02.2013 while he was at the police station PWs.2 and 3, as per the instructions of the accused officer, brought PW7 to the Wankidi police station and since then to till 11.02.2013 afternoon hours PW7 was detained in the police station and he was kept as Guard In-charge from that date on-wards to till 11.02.2013; that from 06.02.2013 PW1 was coming to the police station and meeting the accused officer for producing PW7 in the Court for judicial remand; that on 11.02.2013 PW1 20C.C. No 90/2015 came and met the accused officer in his quarters; and that after PW1 met the accused officer in his quarters, the Anti Corruption Bureau personnel came and trapped the accused officer. PW4 has admitted during the course of his cross examination that he deposed in CC.no.162/2014 that on 11.02.2013 alone PW7 was in their custody and prior to that he was not in their custody and after sending PW7 to remand, trap was laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau personnel. The said admission made by PW4 in his cross examination contradicts his entire testimony before this Court thereby rendering of the same unworthy of credit.

32. PW7 has testified before this Court in his examination-in-chief that a report was lodged against him under sections 354 of the Indian Penal

Code before the Wankidi police station on 05.02.2013 and on 06.02.2013 while he was present in the house of his in-laws, two police constables of

Wankidi police station came there and informed him that the accused officer had called him and they took him to the police station; that the accused officer abused him in the filthy language and beat him with a stick and tied him with a chain at the police station; that on the same day PW1 came to the police station and met the accused officer and requested the accused officer to produce him in the Court for judicial remand on that the accused officer demanded Rs.20,000/- as a bribe from PW1 for doing so; that the accused officer stated that if PW1 did not bring the amount he would keep him (PW7) in the police station and beat him for days’ together; that PW1 was regularly coming to the Wankidi 21C.C. No 90/2015 police station and requesting the accused officer to produce PW7 in the

Court for judicial remand but the accused officer was reiterating his earlier demand; that on 09.02.2013 while he was present in the police station PW1 came there and met the accused officer and expressed her inability to give Rs.20,000/- as a bribe and requested him to reduce the bribe on that the accused officer reduced the bribe amount from

Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-; that PW1 informed the accused officer that she would arrange the said amount on 11.02.2013; and that on 11.02.2013 PW1 came to the police station in the afternoon hours in order to hand over the bribe amount to the accused officer.

33. Ex.D10 is the deposition of PW7 in CC.no.371/2013 before the

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad. PW7 has deposed in the said

calendar case as Police Wankidi took me to police station. On the same day they released me and again on the next day they called me to police station. One constable slapped me. On the date of incident ACB personnel came to me and took me to Wankidi police station. From there they took me to court. They drafted one complaint and I given the same to Magistrate, Asifabad.

34. Ex.D10 materially contradicts the testimony of PW7 before this

Court regarding his continuous illegal detention from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013 afternoon hours in the Wankidi police station. What is captivating on perusal of Ex.D10 is that PW7 turned hostile in the said calendar case and he did not support the case of the prosecution.

22C.C. No 90/2015

35. In Ugar Ahir Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1965 SC 277 the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as “ The maxim falsus in uno, falsus

in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. Therefore, in the light of above dictum unreliable testimony of PWs.3, 4 and 7 would not belie entire case of prosecution regarding illegal detention of PW7 at

Wankidi police station from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013.

36.The evidence of PW1 in her examination-in-chief about illegal detention of PW7 from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013 by the accused officer and her daily visit to the Wankidi police station requesting the accused officer to produce PW7 in the Court for judicial custody is corroborated in all material particulars with the sterling testimony of

PW2. There is no denial of the testimony of PW2 by the accused officer in the cross-examination of the former about illegal detention of PW7 from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013 by the accused officer.

37.PW2 admits in his cross-examination that he did not state in his section 164(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement that from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013 PW1 daily visited the police station. The learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that said omission in 23C.C. No 90/2015 previous statement of PW2 renders his entire testimony unworthy of credit. No suggestion has been given to PW2 on behalf of the accused officer that he did not state in his previous statement under section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013

PW1 daily visited the police station.Thus it is not the defence of the accused officer that PW2 has materially improved his testimony before this Court on the above aspect from his previous statement under section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Had PW2 also deposed about said fact in his section 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement then the accused officer would have made the same as an occasion to raise a point that PW2 was tutored to state said fact hence he deposed like a parrot before the learned Magistrate reiterating his previous statement under section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh

reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 held that ‘Normal discrepancies are bound to occur in all criminal cases in the depositions of the witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence.’ Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple supra it is held that magnification of every minor detail or omission to falsify or throw even a shadow of doubt on the prosecution evidence is very antithesis of a correct judicial approach to the evidence of witnesses in a trap case.

38.The learned counsel for the accused officer has further argued that 24C.C. No 90/2015

PW2 states in his cross-examination that he was on guard duty on 06.02.2013 and 07.02.2013 hence evidence of PW2 that he along with

PW3 went to apprehend PW7 cannot be relied upon. The accused officer has brought on the record of the case during cross-examination of PW4 that for every three hours guards will be changed. Hence PW2 was on guard duty on 06.02.2013 and 07.02.2013 but not round the clock.

Possibility of PW2 proceeding along with PW3 to apprehend PW7 on 06.02.2013 when he was not on guard duty, cannot be ruled out.

39.PW2 admits in his cross examination that he deposed in C.C.

no.162/2015 before the learned First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Asifabad that after handing over PW7 to the accused officer in the police station in the said case he along with one Ramesh went to Gandhi police station, Hyderabad for investigation in another case. Thus the accused officer has himself brought on the record of the case that PW2 had handed over PW7 to him. There is no cross-examination of PW2 by the accused officer on the premise that PW2 was busy investigating another case at the Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad from the date of handing over of PW7 to him to till 11.02.2013 hence he had no chance of observing PW1 daily visiting Wankidi police station from the date of apprehension of PW7 by him to till 11.02.2013 and requesting the accused officer to produce PW7 in the Court for judicial custody.

Therefore, in the circumstances of the case said omission and admission in the testimony of PW2 would not belie his testimony regarding daily 25C.C. No 90/2015 visit of PW1 to Wankidi police station from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013 in connection with her request to the accused officer for producing PW7

in the Court for judicial custody.

40.The accused officer in order to probabilise his defence that much

before arrival of PW1 to his residential quarters on 11.02.2013 he

discharged pending official favour by issuing arrest memo and handed over custody of PW7 to PW5 for his production in the Court for judicial remand, is heavily relying on an entry made under Ex.D9 in the Sentry

Relief Book as well as on the version of PW5 in his cross-examination that on 11.02.2013 he took PW7 to the hospital at about 12:15 pm to 12:20 pm before producing him in the Court.

41.Exs.P4/P9 is the remand case diary file of PW7. It inter alia contains arrest/court surrender form of PW7 as well as notice under section 50(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Name of PW1 is noted on said arrest/court surrender form as a witness but signature of PW1 is not present therein. The signature of PW7 is also not present on said arrest/court surrender form. Said notice under section 50(1) of the

Criminal Procedure Code is addressed to PW1 but the same also does not contain her signature. These facts are admitted by DWs.1 and 2 in their respective cross-examination.

42.According to section 41-B of the Criminal Procedure Code the memorandum of arrest shall be attested either by a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality 26C.C. No 90/2015 where arrest is made, and countersigned by the person arrested. The requirement of said section of law was not complied with by the accused officer. Therefore, it is incomprehensible as to how the accused officer without complying with said mandate of law claim that he effected arrest of PW7 at 12:00 noon on 11.02.2013, and thereafter custody of PW7 was handed over to PW5 for producing the former in the Court for judicial custody.

43.The accused officer has also brought on the record of the case during cross-examination of PW5 that every police station maintains a

General Diary in which every details regarding arrival of police officers and the visitors are recorded. Ex.P5 is the extract of Station House

General Diary of Wankidi police station dated 11.02.2013. There is no entry in Ex.P5 that on 11.02.2013 the accused officer along with his staff rushed to Sonapur village of Wankidi mandal to the house of PW7 for apprehending PW7, and brought him to the police station at 12:00 noon.

Had the accused officer left Wankidi police station along with his staff for going to Sonapur village of Wankidi mandal on 11.02.2013 for apprehending PW7 and brought him to said police station at 12:00 noon certain corresponding entry would have found place in Ex.P5.

44.Ex.P6 is the extract of Prisoner Search Register of Wankidi police station. The date of remand of PW7 is not noted therein, however, the same shows that an entry regarding production of PW7 before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad was made and the said extract was

27C.C. No 90/2015 signed by the accused officer on 11.02.2013. There is no entry in Ex.P5 that the accused officer handed over custody of PW7 to PW5 on 11.02.2013 at about 12:00 noon.

45.PW5 has testified in his examination-in-chief that on 11.02.2013 at about 1:30 pm the accused officer called him to his residential quarters and when he went there he found that PW1 and the accused officer were present, and on the instruction of the accused officer he brought remand report of PW7 and handed over the same to the accused officer, and the accused officer signed the same and directed him to produce PW7 in the

Court for judicial remand.

46.The recitals of Ex.P11 about seizure of Ex.P4 by PW10 between 2:40 pm and 10:30 pm on 11.02.2013 when the same was produced by PW5 is corroborated with the evidence of PW8 in his examination-in-chief. Even there is no denial of said testimony of PW5 by the accused officer in his cross-examination. Suggestions are given to PW5 to the effect that the accused officer did not call him to his residential quarters on 11.02.2013 and did not ask him to bring already prepared remand report and he followed his instructions at 1:30 pm, however, said suggestions have been denied by PW1. Suggestions by itself are not evidence until admitted by the witness. Hence giving of above suggestions by the accused officer to PW5 by itself would not probabilise that the accused officer handed over Ex.P4 after signing the same as well as the custody of PW7 to PW5 on 11.02.2013 at 12:00 noon for producing PW7 in the 28C.C. No 90/2015

Court for judicial remand.

47.PW1 has further deposed in her examination-in-chief that after 1:25 pm she entered into the residential quarters of the accused officer and later the accused officer called one Police Constable and asked him to produce file of PW7, and the said Constable placed the same before the accused officer who signed the same and returned the same to said

Constable with a direction to produce PW7 before the Court. It is not the defence of the accused officer that the Police Constable referred to by

PW1 in her examination-in-chief who produced file of PW7 before the accused officer at his residential quarters was not PW5. Per contra defence of the accused officer is that one Grey Hound Constable came along with PW1 who shook hands with the accused officer. It is also not the case of the accused officer that alleged Grey Hound Constable produced Exs.P4/P9 before the accused officer on his instructions. Thus presence of PW5 in the residential quarters of the accused officer, production of remand case diary file under Exs.P4/P9 of PW7 by PW5

before the accused officer at 1:30 pm and signing of the same by the

accused officer after 1:30 pm on 11.02.2013 is corroborated with the evidence of PW1.

48.Ex.P4 was seized by PW10 during post trap proceedings. If really the same was handed over to PW5 by the accused officer at 12:00 noon there was no reason for PW5 to carry the same along with him after 1:30 pm near the residential quarters of the accused officer. The ocular 29C.C. No 90/2015 evidence of PWs.1 and 5 proves that the remand case diary was signed and handed over by the accused officer minutes before relay of pre- arranged signal by PW1 to the trap party members. Without signing remand case diary there was no occasion for the accused officer to hand over custody of PW7 to PW5 for production in the Court for judicial remand at 12:00 noon on 11.02.2013.

49.The following contents of the written statement of defence submitted by the accused officer on 03.11.2014 in the departmental inquiry as reproduced in the enquiry report under Ex.D11 are relevant:

She left the Quarters. Before she left my Quarters, Sri Raheemuddin also asked her to go to an Advocate and take help whatever she wants.

He was verifying the Remand Report. Which was to be sent to the to the

Hon’ble Court along with the accused Krishana. For two minutes, he went

into bathroom and returned. By the time, he came to front room she left the Quarters.

While he was discussing with the Court constable regarding taking the accused with escort, one person came to him introduced himself as he knows him since a long time as he also worked in the Greyhounds.

50.Thus as per own version of the accused officer as reproduced supra to till departure of PW1 from the residential quarters of the accused officer PW7 was not produced in the Court for judicial remand with escort and that PW5 was present at the time of arrival of PW1 to his (accused 30C.C. No 90/2015 officer) residential quarters.

51.The testimony of PW1 in her examination-in-chief that on 09.02.2013 she reluctantly informed the accused officer to give

Rs.10,000/- as bribe on 11.02.2013 is corroborated with her previous statement under Ex.P1, and the said version of PW1 is also not denied by the accused officer in her cross-examination. Said statement on oath of

PW1 thus attributes knowledge on the part of the accused officer about arrival of PW1 on 11.02.2013 to him for fulfilling his demand of bribe.

52.PW5 admits in his cross-examination that he deposed in C.C.

no.371/2013 that he signed on Exs.P7/D9 by taking PW7 in custody and he was taken to the hospital. The circumstances of the case unerringly suggests that anticipating fulfillment of his demand of Rs.10,000/- as a bribe by PW1 on 11.02.2013, the accused officer in advance got made an entry as in Exs.P7/D9 regarding production of PW7 before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad on 11.02.2013 at 12:00 noon and

handed over custody of PW7 to PW5 at the said time only for taking PW7 for medical examination, and not for his production before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad for judicial custody.

53.The learned counsel for the accused officer has also argued that

PW1 admits in her cross-examination that she did report to the Village

Sarpanch as well as the superior officers of the accused officer regarding her grievance about illegal detention and ill treatment of PW7 and demand of bribe by the accused officer, and the said unnatural conduct 31C.C. No 90/2015 of PW1 probabilise the defence of the accused officer that since no official favour was pending before him for discharge hence she did not do so. This Court do find any force in said argument for the reason that she directly took appropriate step to set criminal law in motion against the accused officer by lodging Ex.P1 before PW10 on 09.02.2013 while PW7 was illegally detained by the accused officer.

54.Accordingly in view of foregoing appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case this Court concludes that the prosecution by examining PWs.1, 2 and 5 has proved that the accused officer illegally detained PW7 at Wankidi police station from 06.02.2013 to till 11.02.2013, and that official favour of producing PW7 in the Court for judicial remand was pending for discharge before him prior to 1:30 pm on 11.02.2013.

DEMAND OF BRIBE

55.According to section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Police

Officer is not required to detain a person arrested without warrant beyond 24 hours excluding the time of journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court in absence of special order of the Magistrate under section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

56.In the present case though PW7 was apprehended on 06.02.2013 but he was detained in Wankidi Police Station by the accused officer to till 11.02.2013 in blatant violation of section 57 of the Criminal Procedure 32C.C. No 90/2015

Code. The said misconduct of the accused officer lends credence to the testimony of PW1 that the accused officer did not discharge pending official favour before him as per mandate of section 57 of the Criminal

Procedure Code solely on account of his demand for gratification other than legal remuneration from PW1. The evidence of PW1 regarding demand of Rs.20,000/- as bribe by the accused officer on 06.02.2013 for discharging pending official favour, and on her repeated request reduction of the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/- on 09.02.2013 also finds support in her previous statement under Ex.P1. In Dr. N. K. Seetharama

Sharme supra observing absence of placing of any material on the record of the case that the informant therein was in any way inimical to the accused public servant therein, and any prior acquaintance between the duo it is held that it is unlikely for informant therein to implicate the accused public servant therein in a false charge of taking bribe. In the instant case also there is no material to show personal inimical disposition of PW1 towards the accused officer or prior acquaintance between them. There was no reason for PW1 to implicate the accused officer had the accused officer produced PW7 before the Court for judicial remand in line of his duty. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the strong circumstance of the case regarding violation of section 57 of the Criminal

Procedure Code by the accused officer proves that the accused officer demanded bribe from PW1.

33C.C. No 90/2015

FURTHER DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE BRIBE AMOUNT

57.PW1 has also deposed in her examination-in-chief that during pre trap proceedings the proposed bribe amount was produced by her in a black color plastic cover, and the said amount was smeared with phenolphthalein powder by one of the Constables of PW10 and kept in the same cover and handed over the same to her, and when she went to the residential quarters of the accused officer after 1:25 pm, she found that the accused officer was sitting on a plastic chair in the front room and on seeing her he enquired with her about bringing the demanded bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- and on her affirmative reply, the accused officer asked her to give the same, and she handed over the tainted amount along with the plastic cover to the accused officer who counted the same with his both the hands, and kept the same in the same cover, and placed on the bench and later she relayed signal to the trap party members by wiping her face with a handkerchief.

58.The testimony of PWs.8 and 10 in their respective examination-in- chief are that on 11.02.2013 PW1 entered into the premises of Wankidi police station at 1:25 pm, and after relay of pre-arranged signal by PW1 the trap party members rushed towards the Wankidi police station quarters, and post making of confessional statement by the accused officer after phenolphthalein test held on both the hands of the accused officer yielded positive result, when PW10 questioned the accused officer about the location of the tainted amount, the accused officer produced 34C.C. No 90/2015 the same from a black color plastic cover that was kept on a table in the front room of his residential quarters. The said statements on oath of

PWs.8 and 10 are in line with the recitals of contemporaneous document under Ex.P11.

59.A suggestion has been given to PW1 by the accused officer that she did not hand over cover to the accused officer and she kept the cover on the table of the accused officer but said suggestion has not been accepted by PW1. However, the said suggestion given to PW1 not only reinforces the evidence of PWs.1, 8 and 10 about presence of PW1 in the residential quarters of the accused officer on 11.02.2013 after 1:25 pm but also corroborates the case of prosecution about presence of a cover on a table and also about presence of a table in the front room of the residential quarters of the accused officer on which the cover carried by

PW1 was kept. The said suggestion given to PW1 by the accused officer has evidentiary value in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India between Balu Sudam Khalde Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 where it is held that ‘During the course of cross-examination with a view to discredit the witness or to establish the defence on preponderance of probabilities suggestions are hurled on the witness but if such suggestions, the answer to those incriminate the accused in any manner then the same would definitely be binding and could be taken into consideration along with other evidence on record in support of the same.’ 35C.C. No 90/2015

60.Ex.P11 do not disclose that PW1 after relaying pre-arranged signal informed PW10 about the location of the tainted amount. The testimonies of PWs.8 and 10 regarding production of MO.1 by the accused officer from the black color plastic cover kept on the table in the front room of his residential quarters during post trap proceedings leading to its seizure after making his confessional statement has withstood incisive cross-examination by the accused officer, and the same is a relevant fact under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The evidence of PWs.8 and 10 also disclose that when compared the number and denomination of the currency notes handed over to PW1 during pre trap proceedings for giving to the accused officer on his further demand of gratification other than legal remuneration tallied with the currency notes seized at the instance of the accused officer. This fact coupled with positive result of phenolphthalein test conducted on both the hands of the accused officer supports the evidence of PW1 regarding handling of MO.1 by the accused officer with his both the hands at his residential quarters. Except giving vague suggestion to PWs.1 and 10 that one Grey Hound Constable accompanied PW1 to the residential quarters of the accused officer who gave hand shake to the accused officer for probabilising reason for positive result of phenolphthalein test of both the hands of the accused officer due to transmission of phenolphthalein powder to the hands of the accused officer from the hands of alleged Grey Hound Constable, nothing has been elicited to render probable his alleged defence. The defence of 36C.C. No 90/2015 the accused officer before this Court regarding alleged Grey Hound

Constable accompanying PW1 is inconsistent with the contents of his written statement of defence submitted on 03.11.2014 in the departmental enquiry as reproduced above that shows that alleged Grey

Hound Constable arrived after departure of PW1 from the residential quarters of the accused officer.

61.The learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that existence of a black color plastic bag, in which the tainted amount was kept during pre trap proceedings, is evident from Ex.P3 and the same was also seized by PW10 as per contents of Ex.P11 but the same has not been produced before this Court and adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution for its non-production. It’s no doubt true that the said plastic bag is not produced by the prosecution before this Court though the same was seized by PW10 during post trap proceedings. In

Syed Ahmed supra it is held that the Court is required to look at core issue and at overall picture of the events that transpired on the date of trap, and not get diverted by minor discrepancies or trivialities. The accused officer by way of giving above stated underline suggestion to

PW1 admits presence of a cover on a table in the front room of the residential quarters of the accused officer at the time of raid. Hence for that reason and also on account of consistent testimonies of PWs.1, 8 and 10 failure on the part of the prosecution to produce said bag before this Court pales into insignificance.

37C.C. No 90/2015

62.The learned counsel for the accused officer has made front attack on the case of prosecution regarding presence of black color plastic cover on the table in the front room of the residential quarters of the accused officer by arguing that it has been elicited during cross-examination of

PW8 that he did not observe anything in the room or on the table. In

Suraj Mal supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that where witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses become unreliable and unworthy of credit, and in absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on evidence of such witnesses. In the said case the witnesses in their examination-in-chief without any distinction made attempt to implicate all the three accused public servants therein but in their cross-examination they tried to save one of the accused public servants therein, and on the basis on same set of their evidence said accused public servant was acquitted while two others were convicted by the trial Court, and on appeal one of the public servants was acquitted for want of valid sanction. The facts of the said case is thus distinguishable from the facts of the present case hence ratio in the said judgment do not squarely apply to the facts of the instant case and with due respect same is not followed by this Court.

63.In Vinod Kumar Garg supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and 38C.C. No 90/2015 passage of time. PW8 is a witness to trap of the accused officer that occurred on 11.02.2013 and he deposed so as pointed by the learned counsel for the accused officer in his cross-examination on 25.04.2022 i.e., after lapse of more than nine years. The testimony of PW8 has to be read in its entirety and not in piecemeal. Upon considering testimony of

PW8 as a whole in particular and the case of prosecution in general the above incongruity in the evidence of PW8 is trivial in nature and such minor divergence is bound to occur due to lapse of several years between the date of trap and date of his cross-examination.

64.The judgment in K. Narasimha Chary supra is relied upon by the accused officer for driving home the point that even in a case where trap has been proved successfully the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has sounded a note of caution and held that circumstances such as the accused public servants coming into contact with the tainted notes in the process of pushing the same from table or thwarting the attempts of the informants to thrust the amount into the hands or pocket, need to be taken into account. In the said judgment the accused public servant therein admitted dealing with the tainted amount, however, his defence was that he did so when he picked the same up from the ground when the same fell down from the files at the time of handing over a document to the informant therein. In Meena supra the defence of the accused public servant therein was that of thrust theory and in that context it is held that in such peculiar circumstance mere recovery of the currency 39C.C. No 90/2015 notes lying on the pad on the table by itself cannot be sufficient proof of acceptance of bribe.

65.In the case at hand, the accused officer did not set up defence of handling MO.1 by him in any manner during the post trap proceedings, and the defence set up by him regarding reason for positive result of phenolphthalein test on his both the hands has been disbelieved by this

Court in foregoing paragraphs.

NEED FOR DISCREET INQUIRY

66.The learned counsel for the accused officer has vehemently argued that PW10 states during the course of his cross examination that during the discreet enquiry or investigation he did not enquire about previous criminal antecedents of PW7 who was an accused in a crime of a serious nature, and that during discreet enquiry he also did not enquire about the accused officer with his higher officers about the antecedents of the accused officer, and the discreet enquiry report submitted by PW10 to the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad is not produced

before this Court and these facts disclose that PW10 did not conduct any

discreet enquiry prior to issuing Ex.P14, and he laid trap against the accused officer with predetermination.

67.In Lalita Kumari Vs.Govt. of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry interalia in corruption cases is not mandatory 40C.C. No 90/2015 when the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offense and even when it is conducted, the scope of a preliminary enquiry is not to ascertain the veracity of the information, but only whether it reveals the commission of a cognizable offense, and the need for said will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As an illustration it was held that corruption cases fall in that category of cases where a preliminary enquiry may be made. The use of the expression may goes to emphasize that holding a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory. Dwelling on the Central Bureau of Investigation Manual, it is held that : (I) it is not a statute enacted by the legislature; and (ii) it is a compendium of administrative orders for the internal guidance of the

Central Bureau of Investigation officers and the same cannot supersede the Code Criminal Procedure.

68. Rules 78 and 79 in Chapter VII of the Anti Corruption Bureau Manual also contemplates conducting of discreet/preliminary inquiry and obtaining of permission from the Director, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Hyderabad prior to laying trap by the investigating officer. In the light of the above dictum of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court supra in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the

Criminal Procedure Code itself, the said provisions of the Anti Corruption

Bureau Manual cannot be relied upon to import the concept of holding of discreet/preliminary inquiry in the scheme of the Criminal Procedure

Code and consequently for holding that holding discreet/preliminary 41C.C. No 90/2015 enquiry in each and every trap case by the Anti Corruption Bureau is mandatory. The contents of Ex.P 1 on its face disclose commission of cognizable offense of demand of bribe by the accused officer. The Anti

Corruption Bureau manual is for internal guidance of the Anti Corruption

Bureau personnel and any deviation from its provisions would entail disciplinary action against the erring personnel but the same would not render fatal the case of the prosecution.

LATCHES IN INVESTIGATION

69.The learned counsel for the accused officer has finally argued that

PW10 admits in his cross-examination that he did not issue any notice for securing the attendance of the mediators, that during the course of investigation he he did not examine the Sentry who were on duty between 06.02.2013 to till 10.02.2013, and that proceedings under

Exs.P3 and P11 were not recorded in audio video format and these admissions show that PW10 did not do proper investigation in the case.

70.It would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect in investigation as to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. If the investigation was faulty, it was not the fault of PWs.1, 2 and 8.

CONCLUSION

71.The prosecution by examining its star witness (PW1) has proved the 42C.C. No 90/2015 circumstances under which the accused officer made demand of bribe amount from PW1 on 06.02.2013 and 09.02.2013 at the Wankidi police station, and also made subsequent demand of gratification from her on 11.02.2013 in his residential quarters, and thereafter consciously and voluntarily accepted MO.1 from PW1 as motive for discharging pending official favour of producing her son (PW7) in the Court for judicial remand. In B. Noha supra it is held that when it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further burden on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive.

72.In Madhukar Rao Bhaskarrao Joshi supra it is held that once the prosecution established that gratification in any form cash or kind had been paid or accepted by a public servant the Court is under a legal compulsion to presume that the said gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward to do (or forbear from doing) any official act, and the only exception to the said rule is, when the gratification is so trivial that no inference of corruption could in fairness be drawn on a particular fact situation the court has no such legal compulsion to presume, and such a presumption was introduced in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 through a later amendment and the said legal presumption was carried forward into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

73. As the prosecution has established the foundational facts that the accused officer demanded bribe from PW1 on 06.02.2013 and 43C.C. No 90/2015 09.02.2013 and further demanded on 11.02.2013 and consciously accepted the bribe amount (MO.1) during the post trap proceedings, now there arises a presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act,1988 in favour of the prosecution as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neeraj Datta Vs. State (Govt.

of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2022) 3 Supreme( SC) 1248, and also in Madhukar Rao Bhaskarrao Joshi supra that the accused officer willfully accepted MO.1 as a motive under section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 for performing public duty improperly or dishonestly.

74.The presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 is not an inviolable one. The accused officer could rebut the same either through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing reliable evidence. In foregoing appreciation this Court has found that the accused officer has miserably failed to probabilise his defenses. Therefore, this Court holds that the accused officer has failed to dispel the presumption under section 20 of the of the Prevention of

Corruption Act,1988 that has arisen in favour of the prosecution.

75.In B. Venkateshwar Rao supra it is held that the act of accused public servant demanding informant and obtaining the amount is nothing but pecuniary advantage under section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Thus the act of the accused officer in demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 44C.C. No 90/2015 would not only establish the essential ingredients of Section 7 of of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 but further establish criminal misconduct in view of section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act,1988. The accused officer by virtue of his demand obtained a pecuniary advantage from PW1. Therefore, this Court concludes that the prosecution has proved both the charges under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused officer beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.

These points are answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

POINT NO.1

76. The prosecution has alleged that as on 11.02.2013 the accused officer was working as a Inspector of Police, Wankidi police station since 08.06.2012, and by virtue of holding the said post he is a public servant as defined under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

This fact is an admitted fact in this case.

77. With regard to the section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the case of the prosecution is that prosecution sanction proceedings under Ex.P13 was issued by the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Home (SC-A) department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in order to prosecute the accused officer before the Court of law.

78. In support of the said contention, prosecution has examined the 45C.C. No 90/2015

Section Officer, Home (Special) department, Hyderabad as PW9. Coming to the evidence of PW9, he has deposed that from the year 2013 he has been working as Section Officer, Home (Special) department,

Hyderabad, and he has been authorized under Ex.P12 to depose before this Court by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Home (Special) department. He deposes that during verification of the connected documents the accused officer retired from service on 28.02.2014 on that by examining the case and obtaining advice from the Vigilance

Commission the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Home (SC-

A) department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by name T. P. Das issued

Ex.P13 permitting prosecution of the accused officer. During his cross examination PW9 denies suggestion that without going through the documents referred by the Anti Corruption Bureau Ex.P13 was issued.

79.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between State of Punjab Vs.

Labh Singh reported in (2014) 16 SCC 807 at para 9 held as “ In the present case the public servants in question had retired on 13-12-1999 and 30-4-2000. The sanction to prosecute them was rejected subsequent to their retirement i.e. first on 13-9-2000 and later on 24-9-2003. The public servants having retired from service there was no occasion to consider grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The law on the point is quite clear that sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offences under the PC Act is not required if the public servant had already retired on the date of cognizance by the court. In S.A.

46C.C. No 90/2015

Venkataraman v. State [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107 :

1958 Cri LJ 254 : 1958 SCR 1040] while construing Section 6(1) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which provision is in pari materia with

Section 19(1) of the PC Act, this Court held that no sanction was necessary in the case of a person who had ceased to be the public servant at the time the court was asked to take cognizance. The view taken in S.A. Venkataraman [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107 : 1958 Cri LJ 254 : 1958 SCR 1040] was adopted by this Court in C.R.

Bansi v. State of Maharashtra [C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 537 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 143] and in Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of

Orissa [Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411 : 1998

SCC (Cri) 1455] and by the Constitution Bench of this Court in K.

Veeraswami v. Union of India [K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3

SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] . The High Court was not therefore justified in setting aside the order passed by the Special Judge insofar as charge under the PC Act was concerned.”

80. As per the record available before this Court crime under Ex.P14 was registered against the accused officer on 11.02.2013 by PW10, the accused officer attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2014, and post filing of the charge sheet cognizance of the charge sheet was taken by the II Additional Special Court for trial of SPE and ACB cases,

Hyderabad against the accused officer on 01.10.2014for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of 47C.C. No 90/2015

Corruption Act, 1988. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Labh Singh supra no sanction for prosecution of the accused officer for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 from the then

Principal Secretary to the Government, Home (SC-A) department, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad by name T. P. Das is required prior to taking cognizance of the charge sheet filed in the present case as he ceased to be a public servant as on the date of taking cognizance of the charge sheet. Ex.P13 appears to have been issued more as a formality on account of receipt of preliminary report along with connected documents and final report prior to retirement of the accused officer by the office of

PW9 on 25.02.2013 and 18.02.2014 respectively.

81.Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the accused officer is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 since he was working as a Inspector of Police, Wankidi police station as on 11.02.2013, and on account of retirement of the accused officer prior to taking cognizance of the charge sheet by the II Addition Special Court for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad no sanction to prosecute the accused officer for the charges under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is required. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

48C.C. No 90/2015

POINT NOS.4 AND 5:

82. In the light of the findings of this Court in points no.1 to 3 the accused officer is found guilty of commission of offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, and he is convicted for the said offenses under section 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. These points are answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer-II and transcribed by him, and partly typed by me on my official laptop, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of July, 2024.

Special Judge

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar

83. The accused officer is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence that may be imposed on him for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Heard the accused officer on the quantum of the sentence. The accused officer has stated that he is reporting no evidence with respect to quantum of sentence that may be imposed on him by this Court. The accused officer has further stated that that he suffered with brain stroke and he is suffering with cardiac ailment, that his better half is no more alive, and he is having three daughters whose marriage have been performed, and on these grounds prayed this Court to take lenient view in sentencing him.

84. The accused officer is found guilty for committing offenses 49C.C. No 90/2015 punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. The said offenses are socio-economic offenses and are grave in nature and as such benefit of the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused officer, is not extended.

85. The accused officer as on the date of trap was working as a

Inspector of Police, Wankidi police station. When the accused officer was entrusted with police powers to protect the citizens/non citizens, he was supposed to act responsibly instead he chose to act like a fence that eats the crop.

86.Considering the nature of offenses proved against the accused officer and his plea for taking lenient view in sentencing him this Court feels that ends of justice would meet on imposition of the sentence on the accused officer to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) and in default in payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offense punishable under section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and to further undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) and in default of payment in fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offense punishable under section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed on the accused officer 50C.C. No 90/2015 is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only under two counts). Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused officer shall run concurrently.

87. In the result, the accused officer is found guilty for commission of offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is convicted for the said offenses under section 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offense punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, and to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offense punishable under section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed on the accused officer is Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only under two counts).

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused officer shall run concurrently.

The accused officer is entitled for set off for the period of detention undergone by him during the course of investigation from 12.02.2013 to till 28.03.2013under section 428 of the Criminal 51C.C. No 90/2015

Procedure Code.

The accused officer is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble High Court for the

State of Telangana.

M.O.1 is ordered to be remitted into the Government Treasury as said amount was reimbursed to PW1 vide cheque no.718529 dated 17.07.2013, and the rest of the material objects i.e., MOs. 2 to 7 are ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal time is over.

The accused officer is given copy of this judgment free of cost immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment as per section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer-II and transcribed by him, and partly typed by me on my official laptop, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of July, 2024.

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1Uppula .ShashikalaDW1T.Panasa Reddy P.W.2Abdul Muneer AhmedDW2K. Seetharamulu P.W.3A. VenkateshwarDW3G. Satyanarayana P.W.4Md. Anwar Ahmed P.W.5Md. Raheemuddin P.W.6Uppula Srinivas 52C.C. No 90/2015

P.W.7Uppula Krishna P.W.8Khaja Vasiuddin Ahmed P.W.9S.Srinivasulu P.W.10T.Sudhershan P.W.11V.V.Ramana Murthy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.109-02-2013Report of PW1 Ex.P.209-02-2013Attested copy of report of PW1 Ex.P.311-02-2013Mediators Report-I Ex.P.411-02-2013Attested copy of remand report in Cr.No.14/2013 of Wankidi police station Ex.P.511-02-2013Attested copy of extract of Station House General Diary

Ex.P.6 -02-2013Attested copy of extract of Prisoner Search Register Ex.P.711-02-2013Attested copy of extract of Sentry Relief Book Ex.P.8Attested copy of F.I.R. index of Wankidi police station Ex.P.911-02-2013Attested copy of case diary file in Cr.No.14/2013 of Wankidi police station Ex.P.1011-06-2013Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P.1111-02-2013Mediators Report-II Ex.P.1209-05-2022Authorization letter Ex.P.1301-05-2014Memo bearing no.44/SC-A/A2/2013-2 Ex.P.1411-02-2013First Information Report Ex.P.1511-02-2013Copy of report of PW7 Ex.P.1621-02-2013Copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.20/2013 of Wankidi police station

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D.1 01-11-2014Copy of statement of PW1 in departmental enquiry

Ex.D.2 01-11-2014Relevant portion of statement of PW1 in departmental enquiry Ex.D.3 01-11-2014Relevant portion of statement of PW1 in departmental enquiry 53C.C. No 90/2015

Ex.D.4 01-11-2014Relevant portion of statement of PW1 in departmental enquiry Ex.D.5 01-11-2014Relevant portion of statement of PW1 in departmental enquiry Ex.D.6 01-11-2014Relevant portion of statement of PW1 in departmental enquiry Ex.D.7 15.12.2016Relevant portion of deposition of PW2 in C.C. no.162/2015 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad Ex.D.815.12.2016Relevant portion of deposition of PW3 in C.C. no.162/2015 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad Ex.D.911.02.2013 Entry in Sentry Relief Book Ex.D.1024-08-2015Relevant portion of deposition of PW7 in C.C. no.371/2013 on the file of Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad Ex.D.1102-11-2014Enquiry Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1Cash of Rs.10,000/-

M.O.2One sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in the pre-trap proceedings M.O.3One sealed cover containing phenolphthalein powder used in the pre-trap proceedings M.O.4One sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in the post-trap proceedings M.O.5One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of left hand rinse of the accused officer M.O.6One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of right hand rinse of the accused officer M.O.7One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contact portion of the tainted amount

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar

1CC No 167 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: KUMAR VIVEK, District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

Thursday, 23th day of May, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO.167 OF 2015

BETWEEN:-

The State through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar. ….Complainant. &

Annareddy Pranavender Reddy, S/o. Kondal Reddy, Age: 40 years, Occ: Senior Assistant in the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar, R/o.H.No.10-3-594/1, Vivekanandapuri, Near RTC workshop, Karimnagar town and district. …Accused Officer.

This calendar case has come before me on 24.04.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Kishore Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar for the complainant, and Sri M. S. Prasad, Advocate for the accused officer, 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 ::

1.The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.33/ACB-KNR/2013 against the accused officer to punish him as per law for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the following allegations:

That the informant intended to establish a fertilizer shop in Velichala village, Ramadugu mandal, and on 27.08.2013 he visited the office of the

Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar and submitted his application 2CC No 167 of 2015 along with the enclosures for issuance of fertilizer licence to the accused officer; the accused officer after receiving the said application along with the enclosures from the informant informed the informant that he had to process the same and forward to the Assistant Director of Agriculture only then licence will be issued, and he demanded Rs,5,000/- as a bribe to process his application for issuance of licence; that the informant again met the accused officer on 29.08.2013 at the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar and enquired about his application on that the accused officer returned his application and demanded him to submit the same along with bribe of

Rs.3,000/-; that on 04.09.2013 the informant again met the accused officer in the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture in the morning hours and requested him to receive his application and when the accused officer firmly demanded Rs.3,000/- as a bribe to process his application and forward the same to the Assistant Director of Agriculture for issuance of licence else to not to come to his office, the informant reluctantly agreed to give Rs.3,000/- as a bribe along with his application on 05.09.2013; that as the informant was unwilling to give Rs.3,000/- as bribe to the accused officer as such he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar on 04.09.2013 and lodged a report against the accused officer; that on 05.09.2013 the accused officer was trapped in the net laid by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar; that the phenolphthalein test conducted on the right and left hands of the accused officer yielded positive result, and the tainted amount of Rs.3,000/- was seized by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar when the same was produced by the 3CC No 167 of 2015 accused officer before the mediators; that when inner flap of the left side back pocket of the wearing pant of the accused officer was subjected to phenolphthalein test by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar the said test also yielded positive result; that the accused officer was arrested on 05.09.2013 at 4.15 pm and thereafter he was produced before the learned IInd Additional Special Court for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad for judicial custody; that the accused officer was enlarged on bail on 04.10.2013; and that the APC & Principal

Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department, Telangana state, Hyderabad, is the competent authority to remove the accused officer from service, accorded sanction to prosecute the accused officer vide G.O. Ms. 8 dated 21.02.2015 , hence the charge sheet.

2.This Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheet against the accused officer for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and assigned CC no.167 of 2015 to the present case.

3.After appearance of the accused officer the copy of the documents filed along with charge sheet are furnished to the accused officer according to section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court.

4.Upon hearing the prosecution as well as the accused officer, and considering the entire material available on the record, this Court prima facie found that the accused officer committed offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly charges under the said sections of law are framed against the accused officer, and the same are read over and explained to the accused 4CC No 167 of 2015 officer in the Telugu language to which he denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 8.

6.After the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused officer is examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and whilst such examination the accused officer denied the incriminating circumstance appearing in the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, and reported defence side evidence.

7.The accused officer has filed his written statement of defence submitting that from the year 2012 there was no procedure for receiving physical application along with the enclosures of requisite documents for issuance of fertilizer licence application and in the last week of the month of August, 2013 the accused officer informed the same to the informant and also informed him that he has to scan and upload his application along with enclosures tot he official website of the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Ramadugu mandal,

Karimnagar and when he refused to receive his application along with the enclosures for issuance of fertilizer licence, there was exchange of words between him and the informant due to which the informant developed grudge against him and implicated him; that the accused officer is not concerned with the processing of PW1’s application and its enclosures; that there are contradictions in the testimony of the informant, and the testimony of the informant before this Court is not corroborated with his previous statements as well as the testimony of the then Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar hence the evidence of the informant is not reliable; that there is collusion 5CC No 167 of 2015 between the informant and the then Mandal Agriculture Officer, Ramadugu

Mandal, Karimnagar district hence latter signed on blank inspection report; that prior to issuance of licence the informant was doing illegal fertilizer business; that the pre and post trap proceedings were unilaterally dictated by the Anti

Corruption Bureau personnel; that the accused officer did not receive PW1’s original application and enclosures on 05.09.2013, and the same has been planted to implicate the accused officer; that the tainted amount was thrusted inside the left side back pocket of the wearing pant of the accused officer by the informant while he was searching Adarsha Raithu file in the chamber of the

Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar; and the investigation done by the investigating officers is biased.

8.The accused officer has filed a memo before this Court on 27.03.2024 reporting no defence side evidence. However, Exs.D1 to D3 are exhibited on the side of the accused officer during the cross-examination of PW1.

9.Heard oral arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution and the accused officer.

10.Perused the material available on the record of the case.

11.Now the points for determination are :

1)Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused officer is a public servant within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether a valid sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused officer for the offenses for which charges are framed against him?

2)Whether the informant was aware with the prevailing procedure for 6CC No 167 of 2015 submission of application along with the enclosures for issuance of fertilizer licence?

3)Whether the prosecution has proved that the informant handed over his original application along with the enclosures for issuance of fertilizer licence to the accused officer on 27.08.2013 and 05.09.2013 and the same was voluntarily received by the accused officer?

4) Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused officer initially and subsequently demanded and consciously accepted bribe of Rs.3,000/- from the informant?

5)Whether the prosecution has proved the twin charges framed against accused officer beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt?

6)To what finding or findings?

POINT NOS. 2 to 4

12. Since these points are interconnected with each other hence this Court intend to answer them together.

13. PW1 is the informant. PW2 is the then Mandal Agriculture Officer,

Ramadugu mandal, Karimnagar district. PW3 is the then Assistant Director of

Agriculture, Karimnagar district. PW4 is one of the mediators in whose presence

PW5 conducted pre and post trap proceedings on 05.09.2013. PW5 is the trap laying officer. PW6 is the investigating officer who assisted PW5 during pre and post trap proceedings, conducted further investigation, and filed chargesheet in this case upon completion of investigation. PW7 is examined on the side of the prosecution to prove prosecution sanction proceedings under Ex.P11.

7CC No 167 of 2015

14.The evidence of PW1 is that on 27.08.2013 he went to the office of PW3 for obtaining licence for establishing a new fertilizer shop by him at Velichela village, Ramadugu mandal, Karimnagar district and handed over original of

Ex.P2 viz. application of PW1 for fertilizer licence along with Form A1, proforma for visit of the Inspecting Officer to a fertilizer dealer/distributor, rental agreement executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of worth of Rs.10/-, no objection certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayath

Velichala , two photographs of the shop by name and style Hanuman Fertilizers, a challan for Rs.1,250/-, copy of Aadhar and ration cards of PW1, and Form O pertaining to fertilizer distributors namely G. Munender & Brothers and V.

Laxminarayana & Company, to the accused officer, and after receiving original of Ex.P2 the accused officer demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe from him to process his application for issuance of licence, and when he expressed his inability to give said bribe amount, the accused officer did not heed to his request and insisted for payment of said bribe amount for doing his work; that again on 29.08.2013 he (PW1) met the accused officer at his office and enquired about his application on that the accused officer returned his application by stating that unless Rs.3,000/- is paid to him he will not process the same; and finally on 04.09.2013 he (PW1) met the accused officer along with his application and requested him to process the same, but the accused officer reiterated his demand of bribe and said to him to submit his application along with Rs.3,000/- as a bribe only then he will process the same else to not to step into his office.

15. The core defence of the accused officer is that in the year 2013 there was no procedure for filing physical application before the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar division, Karimnagar district for issuance of fertilizer 8CC No 167 of 2015 licence for establishing new fertilizer shop and the accused officer had informed the same to PW1, and the accused officer is not the competent authority to issue fertilizer licence, but PW3 is the competent authority, and this fact is known to PW1 as such question of acceptance of original of Ex.P2 by him at the office of PW3 and pendency of official favour of PW1 before him does not arise, and PW1 has falsely implicated him out of grudge against him for not accepting original of Ex.P2 from him.

16.As seen from cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, the accused officer do not controvert their testimonies about PW1 approaching PW2 along with original of

Ex.P2 except sheet no.5 of Ex.P2 for issuance of fertilizer licence in the month of August, 2013, and subsequently meeting the accused officer along with original of Ex.P2 in the last week of the month of August, 2013. It is also an admitted fact in this case that the Velichala village, Ramadugu mandal, where

PW1 intended to establish his new fertilizer shop, is located within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of PW2. However, the contention of the accused officer is that when PW1 approached him in the month of August, 2013, he informed

PW1 that no physical application for obtaining fertilizer licence will be received in the office of PW3 and further informed him to scan and upload his application to the official website of the Mandal Agriculture Officer concerned (PW2) through mee-seva kendra who, after inspection of his proposed fertilizer shop, would upload the same along with the proposal to the official website of the Assistant Director of Agriculture concerned (PW3) who in turn after scrutiny will issue or reject fertilizer licence, and he accordingly refused to receive original of Ex.P2, and absence of his initial/signature on Ex.P2 probabilise that he did not receive Ex.P2 from PW1 at any point of time.

9CC No 167 of 2015

17.The cross-examination of PW2 and chief examination of PW3 indicates the procedure for issuing fertilizer licence from the year 2012. According to their testimonies the applicant has to scan the fertilizer licence application along with required documents and upload the same on the official website of the

Mandal Agriculture Officer concerned through mee-seva kendra, and the

Mandal Agriculture Officer concerned would download the said documents, personally inspect the intended fertilizer shop of the applicant, prepare inspection report, and upload the inspection report and fertilizer licence application along with required documents to the official website of the

Assistant Director of Agriculture concerned. The office of Assistant Director of

Agriculture concerned would download said documents and the Assistant

Director of Agriculture concerned would scrutinize the said documents, and if the same is found in order, grant fertilizer licence to the applicant, and such licence would be issued online.

18.The cross-examination of PWs.2 and 3 no doubt indicates that in the year 2013 there was no procedure for filing physical application for issuing fertilizer licence either before the office of Mandal Agriculture Officer concerned or the

Assistant Director of Agriculture concerned.

19.An endeavor has been made by the accused officer to drive home his point of view that at the relevant time PW1 was well aware with the above procedure for submission of fertilizer licence application and issuance of fertilizer licence as deposed by PWs.2 and 3 albeit by exhibiting Exs.D1 to D3.

20.Ex.D1 is the copy of online fertilizer licence application dated 23.09.2013 of PW1 in the prescribed form A-1. Ex.D2 is the copy of acknowledgment in respect of receipt of Ex.D1 along with Form O and challan by PW3, and receipt 10CC No 167 of 2015 of fertilizer licence by PW1 on 23.09.2013. Ex.D3 is the copy of licence dated 23.09.2013 granted in favour of PW1 by PW3 to carry business of selling fertilizers/bio-fertilizers/organic fertilizers at Velichala village, Ramadugu mandal.

21.Exs.D1 to D3 disclose that on 23.09.2013 itself on receipt of online application of PW1, fertilizer licence was granted and handed over to PW1 by

PW3. According to the prosecution the accused officer was trapped on 05.09.2013 when he received original of Ex.P2, and also voluntarily accepted

MO.1 in pursuance of his further demand of gratification from PW1. Thus existence of knowledge on the part of PW1 about procedure for submission of his application for fertilizer licence and its enclosures by scanning the same and uploading on the official website of PW3 prior to 05.09.2013, and not thereafter is germane for adjudicating this case.

22. The accused officer has cross examined PW1 regarding possessing knowledge on his part to the effect that from the year 2012 for establishing a new fertilizer shop the applicant has to upload the application for issuing fertilizer licence along with required documents to the official website of the

Mandal Agriculture Officer concerned at the mee-seva center, however, PW1 has pleaded ignorance about the said procedure for submission of fertilizer licence application. Nothing, thus, has been elicited during the course of cross- examination of PW1 by the accused officer that knowledge pertaining to the procedure for submission of fertilizer licence application, as testified by PWs.2 and 3, is attributable to PW1 prior to 05.09.2013. Nevertheless the procedure of submission of fertilizer licence application and issuance of fertilizer licence by PW3, as spoken to on oath by PWs.2 and 3, is certainly attributable to the 11CC No 167 of 2015 accused officer who admittedly was working as a Senior Assistant in the office of PW3 at the relevant time. Hence under such circumstance there is every probability that by taking advantage of ignorance of PW1 about the appropriate procedure for submission of fertilizer licence application and issuance of fertilizer licence by PW3, as spoken to on oath by PWs.2 and 3, and his (accused officer) knowledge about the said procedure, the accused officer did not to put his initial or subscribe his signature on original of Ex.P2 or made any entry to that effect in Ex.P3 to avoid complication after submission of the same to him by PW1 either on 27.08.2013 or on 05.09.2013. Therefore, Exs.D1 to D3 as well as absence of initial/signature of the accused officer on Ex.P2 are not helpful to the accused officer to probabilise that PW1 had knowledge prior to 05.09.2013 about the procedure for submission of his application for fertilizer licence and its enclosures by scanning the same and uploading on the official website of PW2, and that PW1 did not hand over original of Ex.P2 to the accused officer on 27.08.2013 or on 05.09.2013.

23.The accused officer has submitted in his written statement of defence at page 17 that admissions made by PW4 during his cross-examination clearly discloses that when PW1 approached him along with Ex.P2 in the last week of

August, 2013 he refused to receive the same and informed him about the procedure for submission of application for issuance of licence. In this regard attention of this Court has been drawn to the testimony of PW4 as under :

“ It is true the accused also represented stating that he informed

PW1/complainant on the date of trap that no application under Ex.P2 for issuance fertilizer license will be received in the office of Assistant

Director of Agriculture and also informed that PW1/complainant has to 12CC No 167 of 2015 submit his application under Ex.P2 through Mee Seva to the Web of

Agriculture Officer, Ramadugu Mandal and the Agriculture Officer after downloading the application submitted through mee seva covered under

Ex.P2 has to inspect the proposed shop of PW1/complainant for establishing fertilizer shop and to forward the said application along with inspection report of the Agriculture officer, Ramadugu mandal to the online web of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar and that the

Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar after receipt the said application along with the inspection report Agriculture officer,

Ramadugu will scrutiny either to issue or to reject the said license for seeking establishment of fertilizer shop. “

24.On perusal of the above reproduced statement on oath of PW4 it follows that said admission pertain to representation made by the accused officer

before PW5 in respect of intimation to PW1 by the accused officer on the date

of trap about the procedure for submission of application for issuance of licence, and not in the last week of August, 2013 i.e., 27.08.2013. Hence said admission of PW4 is not of any avail to the accused officer for attributing knowledge on the part of PW1 in the last week of August, 2013 regarding online procedure for submission of fertilizer licence application.

25.Another argument put forth on behalf of the accused officer is that there is no evidence of PW1 that he submitted his application (sheet no.1 of Ex.P2) along with enclosures to PW2 and said application does not bear initial/signature of PW2, and contrary to the established procedure PW2 signed on the blank proforma of the inspection report (original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2) at the request of PW1 and instead of uploading the same to the official website 13CC No 167 of 2015 of PW3, she handed over the same to PW1, and the said conduct of PW2 show that PW2 did not inspect the intended shop of PW1, and she colluded with PW1 and created original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2.

26.The admission made by PW3 in his cross-examination indicates that PW2 ought not to have issued inspection report on blank proforma as in sheet no.5 of

Ex.P2. Furthermore the statement of oath of PW2 itself reveal that she ought not have handed over sheet no.5 of Ex.P2 to PW1.

27.PW2 during her cross-examination states that PW1 had brought all the papers in original of Ex.P2 except her inspection report. She has testified in her chief examination that basing on the application of PW1 she inspected the premises at Velichala village, and found that said premise is suitable for establishment of fertilizer shop, and on that she issued said report and sent the same and related documents to the office of PW3 through PW1.

28.PW2 also deposes in her chief examination that she joined as Mandal

Agriculture Officer, Ramadugu mandal on 28.07.2013 and the same was her first posting, and she sent the inspection report through PW1 due to lack of knowledge and experience as a new recruit. She further states in her cross- examination that on account of confusion regarding filling columns in the proforma of the inspection report (original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2) as a new recruit, she kept the same blank.

29.The evidence of PW2 regarding inspection of the intended shop of PW1 at

Velichala village post submission of original of Ex.P2 except original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2 by PW1 before her, and signing of original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2 in blank and handing over original of Ex.P2 to PW1 on account of lack of her knowledge and experience as a new recruit Mandal Agriculture Officer is not 14CC No 167 of 2015 disputed by the accused officer during her cross-examination. The explanation given by PW2 for deviating from the established procedure in signing original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2 in blank and sending original of Ex.P2 to the office of PW3 through PW1 considering that she was a new recruit, appears to be plausible one. This Court do not find anything fishy in the said conduct of PW2. Not even a suggestion has been given to PWs.1 and 2 that original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2 is outcome of their collusion. Moreover, failure on part of PW2 in following the established procedure is not a fact in issue before this Court and the same is the lookout of the Agriculture department of the Government.

30.No doubt PW1 during his cross-examination could not speak when and from whom he secured original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2, and also about the identity of the person signing on original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2, and PW2 states in her cross-examination that she do not remember the date when PW1 approached her along with original of Ex.P2 except original of sheet no.5 of

Ex.P2 and the date of inspection of intended shop of PW1, however, the same is not fatal to the case of prosecution in view of undisputed testimony of PW2 regarding inspection of intended fertilizer shop of PW1 at Velichala village post submission of original of Ex.P2 except original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2 before her by PW1, and finding the same suitable for establishment of fertilizer shop during her inspection, and signing original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2 by her and sending original of Ex.P2 to the office of PW3 through PW1, and also in the light of the circumstances, as appreciated in the foregoing paragraphs, in which she signed on blank proforma of inspection report (original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2) and handed over original of Ex.P2 to PW1 instead of uploading the same to the official website of PW3. The evidence of PW2 has to be appreciated as a whole, 15CC No 167 of 2015 and not in piecemeal, and in the circumstance of this case the accused officer cannot harp on stray statement of PW2 in her cross-examination that she issued blank signed inspection report (original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2) at the request of PW1 in order to drive home the point that PWs.1 and 2 in collusion with each other brought original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2 into existence.

Therefore, this Court fail to find any collusion between PWs.1 and 2 as argued on behalf of the petitioner/accused officer.

31.The learned counsel for the accused officer has also argued that the two photographs of the intended fertilizer shop of PW1 are enclosed to Ex.P2 and the same show that fertilizers were stored in bags in the intended shop of PW1 and presence of fertilizer stock in his intended fertilizer shop establish that PW1 was doing illegal fertilizer business even prior to issuance of fertilizer licence under Ex.D3 and the same is evident from two contradictory versions in his evidence.

32.Sheet nos.8 and 9 of Ex.P2 are the photographs featuring stock in bags.

There is no dispute between the parties that said bags contain stock of fertilizers in the intended shop of PW1. The two contradictory versions referred to by the learned counsel for the accused officer in the evidence (cross- examination) of PW1 are that PW1 met PW3 after 15 days of the trap and PW3 informed him to purchase some fertilizer stock and get photographs along with the fertilizer stock and hence he did so, and said fertilizer stock were not existing as on the date of trap and other photographs without stock in his intended shop were existing, and the other that the photographs under Ex.P2 were existing as on the date of trap. The learned counsel for the accused officer has further argued that the evidence of PW1 that he met PW3 after 15 days of 16CC No 167 of 2015 the trap and PW3 informed him to purchase some fertilizer stock and get photographs along with the fertilizer stock is not corroborated with the evidence of PW3 as there is no evidence of PW3 to that effect.

33.What is captivating is that PW1 did not state on oath during his chief examination that he met PW3 after 15 days of the trap and PW3 informed him to purchase some fertilizer stock and get photographs along with the fertilizer stock rather the said version of PW1 has been brought on the record of the case during his cross-examination by the accused officer. It is no doubt true that there is no evidence of PW3 in his chief examination before this Court that when

PW1 met him after 15 days of the trap, he informed him to purchase some fertilizer stock and get photographs along with the fertilizer stock. However, when the said fact has been brought on the record of the case by the accused officer during cross-examination of PW1, it is incumbent on the part of the accused officer to confront said version of PW1 to PW3 during his cross- examination, But there is no cross-examination of PW3 testing veracity of the version of PW1 that when he met PW3 after 15 days of the trap PW3 informed him to purchase some fertilizer stock and get photographs along with the fertilizer stock. When attention of PW3 is not drawn to said fact he had no occasion to admit/deny the said fact. The circumstance of the case indicates that said issue was intentionally not touched upon by the accused officer during cross-examination of PW3 in order to argue non-corroboration of testimony of

PWs.1 and 3 regarding meeting and conversation between PWs.1 and 3 after 15 days of the trap.

34.Be that as it may, the accused officer has cross examined PW2 regarding the documents produced by PW1 before her in the month of August, 2013 and 17CC No 167 of 2015 she has stated that PW1 had brought all the papers in original of Ex.P2 except her inspection report (original of sheet no.5 of Ex.P2). When PW2 is questioned during her cross-examination by the accused officer about the photographs at sheet nos.8 and 9 of Ex.P2, she affirms that they pertain to the shop that was inspected by her, and at the time of her inspection fertilizer stock were also present.

35.As observed in the foregoing paragraph the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination that he along with original of Ex.P2 approached the accused officer on 27.08.2013 at the office of PW3 is an undisputed fact. It implies that PW2 inspected the intended fertilizer shop of PW1 prior to 27.08.2013 and she found stock of fertilizer in the bags in the said shop. Therefore, it is held that stock of fertilizer in the bags as featuring in sheet nos.8 and 9 of Ex.P2 were stocked in the intended fertilizer shop of PW1 even prior to meeting between PW1 and the accused officer on 27.08.2013.

36.So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the accused officer of drawing of inference that PW1 was doing illegal fertilizer business on account of stocking fertilizer stock in the bags in the intended shop of PW1 even before issuing of licence under Ex.D3 is concerned, the same is not convincing for the reason that mere stocking of fertilizer in bags ipso facto do not amount to sale and purchase of fertilizers sans evidence of the same. Since the accused officer is alleging that PW1 was doing fertilizer business without licence hence burden is on him to probabilise his said defence. The accused officer did not examine any person to whom PW1 sold fertilizer from his intended shop prior to issuance of Ex.D3. Under such circumstance when PW2 found fertilizer stocked in the bags in the intended shop of PW1 as featuring in sheet nos.8 and 9 at the time 18CC No 167 of 2015 of her inspection failure on the part of PW1 to state in his cross-examination about source of purchase of said stock, or failure on the part of PWs.5 and 6 to investigate about manner of purchasing and stocking in the intended shop of

PW1 without obtaining fertilizer licence, pales into insignificance for adjudicating the liability of the accused officer for commission of the charged offences.

37.Therefore, in view of appreciation of the facts of the case this Court holds that prior to 05.09.2013 PW1 had no knowledge about online procedure for submission of application for issuing fertilizer licence through mee-seva center, and also online issuance of the said licence by PW3 and the same led PW1 to approach the accused officer for submitting original of Ex.P2 on 27.08.2013, 29.08.2013, and 04.09.2013, and the accused officer has failed to probabilise that in the last week of the month of August, 2013 he informed PW1 about the prevailing procedure for submission of application for issuing fertilizer licence, and issuance of fertilizer licence by PW3.

38.The learned counsel for the accused officer has further argued that PW1 is not a trustworthy witness as contrary to the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 6 he has deposed falsehood before this Court that he did not upload Ex.D1 from mee- seva kendra to the official website of PW2, and that after 10 or 15 days of the trap he went to the office of PW3 and PW3 obtained his signatures on Ex.D1.

39.The learned counsel for the accused officer has also argued that for the first time PW1 has stated during his cross-examination that on 27.08.2013, 29.08.2013 and 04.09.2013 when he met the accused officer and the accused officer demanded gratification from him as well as when he lodged Ex.P1 on 04.09.2013 his cousin namely D. Shankar accompanied him, and admissions 19CC No 167 of 2015 made by PWs.1, 5 and 6 disclose that PW1 did not speak about presence of said

D. Shankar along with him on the said dates in his previous statements under

Ex.P1, section 161 (3) and 164 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as such his entire evidence is liable to be discarded from consideration.

40.The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 reveals that PW1 scanned and uploaded

Ex.D1 to the official website of PW2 on 23.09.2013 and PW2 downloaded the same and inspected the intended shop of PW2, and uploaded her inspection report and other other documents to the official website of PW3 and on the same date PW3 after scrutiny issued online licence to PW1, and obtained acknowledgment of its receipt from PW1 under Ex.D3.

41.PWs.5 and 6 admits during their cross-examination that PW1 did not speak about the presence of said D. Shankar in his section 161 (3) and 164 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure respectively. PW1 also did state in Ex.P1 that on the said dates he was accompanied by said D. Shankar. Hence it can be said that PW1 has materially improved his testimony before this Court from his previous statement regarding presence of said D. Shankar along with him on said dates thereby rendering his testimony albeit only to the extent of presence of said D. Shankar along with him on said dates wholly unreliable.

42. It is pertinent to note that in Ugar Ahir Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1965 SC 277 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as “ The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, 20CC No 167 of 2015 separate the grain from the chaff.

43.Therefore, in the light of above dictum denial by PW1 about uploading

Ex.D1 by him to the official website of PW3 on 23.09.2013 as well as also his assertion that PW3 obtained his signature on Ex.D1 at his office after 10 or 15 days of the trap, and presence of said D. Shankar along with him on 27.08.2013, 29.08.2013 and 04.09.2013 when he met the accused officer and the accused officer demanded gratification from him as well as when he lodged

Ex.P1 on 04.09.2013, are by itself not sufficient to discard his entire testimony.

44.The accused officer has put forth his defence regarding motive of PW1 for implicating him in the instant case during cross-examination of PW1 by suggesting to him that when the accused officer refused to receive his application, he (PW1) revolted against him stating that with great difficulty he (PW1) got the documents from the Mandal Agriculture Officer and Panchayat

Secretary and stated to the accused officer as to why his application will not be received and started scolding the accused officer in filthy language and also shouted against the accused officer that entire Agriculture Department is a corrupt department and its employees are also corrupt fellows; that the accused officer asked him to not to make any galata in the office and asked him to get out from the office; that he (PW1) went away angrily by challenging the accused officer that he would see his end and as to how long he (accused officer) would work in the office; and that out of the above grudge he (PW1) lodged Ex.P1 with all false contents.

45.The above suggestions given to PW1 have been denied by PW1.

Suggestions by itself are not evidence. Hence giving of above suggestions by the accused officer to PW1 by itself would not probabilise alleged motive on 21CC No 167 of 2015 part of PW1 behind lodging Ex.P1.

46.PW1 has also stated on oath during his chief examination that when he visited the office of PW3, he found that the accused officer was present at his seat, and on seeing him, the accused officer enquired with him about bringing the bribe amount, and on his affirmative reply, the accused officer stood from his seat, took his application from him and kept the same on his office working table, and took him to the chamber of PW3 where no one was present and on the demand of the accused officer he took out MO.8 from left side of his shirt pocket and gave the same to the accused officer with his right hand who in turn accepted the same with his right hand, counted the same with his both the hands, and kept the same inside back pocket of MO.7.

47.Presence of the accused officer in the office of PW3 on 05.09.2013 is an admitted fact. However, the following twin argument have been put forth by the learned counsel for the accused officer in order to make this Court to believe that Ex.P2 was planted on the working table of the accused officer without his knowledge :

a.as per the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination he met the accused officer at the working table of the accused officer and he gave original of Ex.P2 to the accused officer and the accused officer kept the same on his table, however, PW1 did not whisper about the said fact during post trap proceedings as there is no recital in Ex.P8 that PW1 handed over original of

Ex.P2 to the accused officer at the working table of the accused officer; and b.on 05.09.2013 at about 12.00 noon when the accused officer was searching for a file of Adarsha Raitu in the chamber of PW3, PW1 might have thrown Ex.P2 on his table when he entered into the office even before entering 22CC No 167 of 2015 into the chamber of PW3 where the accused officer was present.

48.It is also argued on behalf of the accused officer that evidence of PWs.1, 4 and 5 are contradicting each other regarding possession of Ex.P2 by PW1 during pre trap proceedings thereby leading to a definite conclusion that Ex.P2 was deliberately brought into existence only on the date of trap to make it appear that some favour relating to PW1 was pending before the accused officer as on the date of trap as he refused to receive to receive original of

Ex.P2. In this regard the learned counsel for the accused officer has brought to the notice of this Court to following versions of PWs.1, 4 and 5 :

1.that PW1 initially deposed in his cross-examination that he does not remember that he was possessing Ex.P2 when he went to the office of PW5 on 05.09.2013, and subsequently he deposes that he showed Ex.P2 to the Anti

Corruption Bureau personnel and the mediators on 05.09.2013 during pre trap proceedings, however, the Anti Corruption Bureau personnel and the mediators did not sign on the same during the pre trap proceedings;

2.that PW4 has admitted during his cross-examination that PW1 did not show Ex.P2 either to the Anti Corruption Bureau personnel and the mediators during pre trap proceedings; and

3.that PW5 has stated during his cross-examination that PW1 produced another copy of Ex.P2 before him during pre trap proceedings, however, he or the mediators did not attest the said copy of Ex.P2.

49.The testimonies of PWs.4 and 5 in their chief examination is that post making of the disclosure statement by the accused officer immediately his both the hands were subjected to the phenolphthalein test during post trap proceedings that yielded positive result and the same led to discovery of 23CC No 167 of 2015 original of Ex.P2 at the instance of the accused officer when it was produced by him in the presence of the mediators from his working table, and thereafter

Ex.P2 was seized by PW5 under the attestation of the mediators.

50.There is no cross-examination at all of PWs.4 and 5 on behalf of the accused officer about discovery of original of Ex.P2 at the instance of the accused officer post making of confessional statement by the accused officer regarding reason for receiving MO.8 from PW1, before PW5 in the presence of mediators during the post trap proceedings. Production of original of Ex.P2 by the accused officer from his working table during post trap proceedings leading to seizure of Ex.P2 post making his disclosure statement is a relevant fact under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the said fact leaves no iota of doubt to conclude that the accused officer had before hand knowledge about presence of original of Ex.P2 on his working table, and the same belies the defence of the accused officer that original of Ex.P2 was planted by PW1 on his working table without the knowledge of the accused officer.

51.It is neither the case of the prosecution nor the defence of the accused officer that original of Ex.P2 was in possession of the accused officer prior to 05.09.2013. As observed in the foregoing paragraph the same was produced by none other than the accused officer himself during the post trap proceedings on 05.09.2013. It is also not the case of the accused officer that at the particular point of time during post trap proceedings on 05.09.2013 apart from him and

PW1, any third person was also present in the chamber of PW3. In these circumstances the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that through

PW1 alone the accused officer came into possession of original of Ex.P2 during post trap proceedings on 05.09.2013. In the circumstance of this case the same 24CC No 167 of 2015 is possible only when PW1 carried the same along with him to the office of PW3 from the office of PW5 on 05.09.2013, and not otherwise. Therefore, the above reproduced contradictions pointed by the learned counsel for the accused officer in the testimonies of PWs.1, 4 and 5 are minor contradictions not going to the root of the case of the prosecution about the accused officer coming into possession of original of Ex.P2 through PW1 during post trap proceedings on 05.09.2013.

52.The learned counsel for the accused officer has further argued that though PW1 has deposed in his chief examination that the accused officer accepted MO.8 with his right hand and counted the same with his both the hands and kept it in his left side back pocket of his wearing pant but admissions made by PWs.1 and 6 show that PW1 did not depose about the said facts in his section 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement thereby rendering his testimony on said aspect unbelievable.

53.On perusal of evidence of PW.1 and 6 it is noticed that PW1 has denied in his cross-examination that he did not state in his 164(5) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure statement that the accused officer accepted MO.8 with his right hand and counted the same with his both the hands and kept it in his left side back pocket of MO.7, however, PW6 has admitted in his cross-examination that PW1 did not so speak in his 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement.

54.The learned counsel for the accused officer is basically harping on improvement made by PW1 before this Court from his previous statement under section 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the manner in which

MO.8 was handled by the accused officer during post trap proceedings.

However, it is not the defence of the accused officer that the evidence of PW1 25CC No 167 of 2015 on the said aspect is not corroborated with the previous statement of PW1 under section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement. On perusal of Ex.P8 it is observed that PW1 has stated therein that the accused officer accepted MO.8 with his right hand and counted the same with his both the hands and kept it in his left side back pocket of MO.7. Had PW1 also deposed about said fact in his section 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement then the learned counsel for the accused officer would have made the same as an occasion to argue that PW1 was tutored to state said facts hence he deposed like a parrot before the learned Magistrate reiterating his previous statement under section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 held that ‘Normal discrepancies are bound to occur in all criminal cases in the depositions of the witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence.’

55.Furthermore as seen from the cross-examination of PW.1, 4, and 5 the defence of the accused officer is that on 05.09.2013 at about 12.00 noon when he was searching for a file of Adarsha Raithu in the chamber of PW3, PW1 came there and tried to forcibly keep MO.8 in the hands of the accused officer but the accused officer refused to receive the same and pushed the same with his both the hands and directed PW1 to go away but PW1 remained there on the pretext of questioning the accused officer, and when the accused officer turned to search the file suddenly PW1 thrusted MO.8 into the left side back pocked of the pant of the accused officer, and ran out without heeding to the call of the accused officer.

26CC No 167 of 2015

56.The accused officer has cross examined PWs.1, 4 and 5 at length to probabilise his above defence but except giving suggestion to that effect nothing has been elicited to disbelieve their testimonies regarding manner of handling MO.8 by the accused officer as deposed by PW1 in his chief examination. The evidence of PW1 regarding manner of handling MO.8 by the accused officer after voluntarily accepting the same from him pursuant to his subsequent demand of bribe has withstood incisive cross-examination, and the same is not destroyed in material particulars.

57.Per contra from the alleged defence of the accused officer it can safely be culled that both the hands of the accused officer and the left side back pocket of his wearing pant came into contact with MO.1. In spite of taking such defence, the accused officer, by taking advantage of present white colour of the solution in MOs.4 to 6, made a feeble attempt during cross-examination of

PWs.4 and 5 to probabilise that phenolphthalein test conducted on both the hands of the accused officer as well as on inner flap portion of left side back pocket of MO.7 did not yield positive result during post the post trap proceedings. PWs.4 and 5 in their cross-examination in one voice have clarified that during the post trap proceedings the colour of the solution in MOs.4 to 6 were pink in colour.

58.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of SPE and ACB cases,

Karimnagar has argued that the accused officer did not state at the earliest opportunity during post trap proceedings that he was not present at his seat when PW1 came to the office of PW3 on 05.09.2013, and PW1 thrusted MO.8 inside left side back pocket of MO.7 hence the same makes alleged defenses of the accused officer suspicious, and in this regard placed reliance on the 27CC No 167 of 2015 judgment of the Hon’ble high Court for the State of Telangana between K.

Chandrashekar Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in criminal appeal no.

641/2013 delivered on 29.07.2022.

59.In the said judgment noticing that the alleged defenses of the accused public servant therein regarding his absence from his seat and thrusting theory of tainted amount was not taken by the accused public servant therein during post trap proceedings, it was held that the same makes the alleged defenses suspicious. In the case at hand, the contents of Ex.P8 reveals that the accused officer did not state during post trap proceedings that he was not present at his seat when PW1 came to the office of PW3 on 05.09.2013, and PW1 thrusted

MO.8 inside left side back pocket of MO.7 thereby rendering his alleged defenses suspicious in the light of the above ruling.

60.Therefore, in view of above appreciation and in the light of ruling in

Naresh supra the evidence of PW1 in his chief examination that the accused officer accepted MO.8 from him with his right hand and counted the same with his both the hands and kept it in his left side back pocket of his wearing pant cannot be excluded from consideration for having not reiterated said fact in his section 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement.

61. The learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that evidence of

PW4 that Ex.P8 was typed at the office of PW3 on the official laptop of PW5 cannot be relied upon as there is no mention in Ex.P5 that the trap party members carried inter alia carried laptop from the office of PW5. On perusal of

Ex.P5 as well as the testimonies of PWs.4 and 5 it is noticed that there is no mention therein that the trap party members had also carried any laptop much less official laptop of PW5 from the office of PW5 to the office of PW3 on 28CC No 167 of 2015 05.09.2013.

62.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of SPE and ACB cases,

Karimnagar has argued that there is also no mention in Ex.P5 that the trap party members had carried pens with them, however, Ex.P8 is found to be signed by the trap party members, and absence of any mention of the articles carried by the trap party members in Ex.P5 is not conclusive proof of the fact that the articles not noted therein were not carried from the office of PW5 to the office of PW3. The accused officer does not object that in absence of any recital in Ex.P5 about carrying pens by the trap party members how come they signed on Ex.P8. Thus it follows that Ex.P5 is not an encyclopedia so that it should record every minute details of the pre trap proceedings. Hence this Court do not find any force in said argument put forth on behalf of the accused officer to disbelieve evidence of PW4 about typing of Ex.P8 on the official laptop of PW5 at the office of PW3 on 05.09.2014.

63.Another argument put forth on behalf of the accused officer is that PW4 acted as a mediator for the first time in this case and admittedly PW4 had no prior experience of drafting pre and post trap proceedings and he even do not know spelling of the word ‘phenolphthalein’ as he spelt the same incorrectly as ‘phenopthalien’ hence the same gives rise to an inference that Anti Corruption

Bureau personnel unilaterally dictated the contents of Exs.P5 and P8.

64.PW4 is working as a Junior Assistant in the office of District Education

Officer, Karimnagar as on 05.09.2013. By virtue of holding said post at the relevant time undoubtedly he can be said to be a literate person. He has categorically deposed in his chief examination that he typed Exs.P5 and P8 on the official laptop of PW5. PWs.4 and 5 have been cross examined to establish 29CC No 167 of 2015 that the contents of Exs.P5 and P8 were dictated by the Anti Corruption Bureau personnel but the accused officer has failed to substantiate his alleged defence.

Since Exs.P5 and P8 were typed on the laptop of PW5 the possibility of typing of the correct spelling of the word ‘phenolphthalein’ therein due to auto correct function without human intervention, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, merely because PW5 had no prior experience of drafting pre and post trap proceedings in Anti Corruption Bureau trap case and he did not correctly spell out a particular chemical terminology during his cross-examination, is not enough to arrive to a conclusion that Exs.P5 and P8 were typed at the dictation of the Anti

Corruption Bureau personnel.

65.The learned counsel for the accused officer has vehemently argued that

PWs.5 and 6 have expressed ignorance about the procedure for obtaining fertilizer licence application from the year 2012, and without having knowledge about said procedure PW5 issued Ex.P12 and he as well as PW6 conducted investigation that speaks volume that they did table investigation in this case.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar has placed reliance on the judgments of the hon’ble Supreme Court of India between Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujarat reported in

AIR 1976 SC 1497 and between Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave and Anr.

Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1968 SC 1323 and also on the judgment of Kerala High Court between Dr. Vs. Sebastian reported in 1988 CriLJ 1150 for buttressing his argument that when a public servant uses his/her official position to do an act to extract gratification, the requirement of law is satisfied, and it is immaterial for the Court to consider whether or not the accused public servant was capable of doing or intended to do any official act of favour or 30CC No 167 of 2015 disfavour.

66.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused officer has placed reliance on the authority between C. Sivakumar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh reported in 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 863 (AP) for driving home the point that where the accused public servant is not empowered to do official favour, merely on the basis of recovery of money such accused public servant cannot be said to have demanded and accepted gratification. On perusal of said judgment it is noticed that the accused public servant therein had himself lodged a complaint before the superior officer that he or his immediate superior officer are not entitled to do any official favour to the informant therein.

67.N. Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2021 Cri.L.J 1353 relied upon by the accused officer from the evidence the enmity between the accused public servant therein was clear, and the phenolphthalein test on the hands of the accused public servant therein conducted after inordinate delay of one hour and fifteen minutes after relay of pre arranged signal, and there was no proof of purchase of a mobile phone as a gratification.

68.In the case at hand, the chief examination of PW3 indicates that the accused officer did not intimate him about licence application of PW1 during his tenure as an Assistant Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar division, Karimnagar, the phenolphthalein test on the hands and inner flap of left side back pocket of

MO.7 had been conducted at the office of PW3 without any delay after relay of pre arranged signal by PW1, and alleged enmity between him and PW1 has not been established by the accused officer. In any case the facts in the present case show otherwise.

69.The accused officer as a Senior Assistant in the office of PW3 is having 31CC No 167 of 2015 knowledge about the appropriate procedure for submission of fertilizer licence application. As per version of PW1 the accused officer received original of Ex.P2 from PW1 on 27.08.2013, later returned the same to PW1 on 29.08.2013 and again received from PW1 on 05.09.2013. The said conduct of the accused officer leaves no hesitation to conclude that he induced PW1 into a belief that submission of original of Ex.P2 before him is the appropriate procedure for submission of fertilizer licence application, and under guise of receiving the same created an impression before PW1 that he is competent to process his application, and that occasioned a circumstance for the accused officer to demand bribe from PW1. Hence incompetence of the accused officer to process fertilizer licence application of PW1 or ignorance of the investigating officers about the proper procedure to submission of fertilizer licence application are not material circumstances to disbelieve initial and subsequent demand of gratification by the accused officer from PW1, and conscious acceptance of the same by the accused officer.

70.PWs.4 and 5 have consistently deposed in their chief examination about production of Rs.3000/- cash (MO.1) by PW1 at the office of PW5 and noting of its serial number and denomination in Ex.P5, and application of phenolphthalein powder on the same by a Head Constable and placing the same inside left side pocket of wearing shirt of PW1 during pre trap proceedings, and both the hands of the accused officer yielding positive result to phenolphthalein test during post trap proceedings, production of Rs.3,000/- cash (MO.1) by the accused officer from his left side back pocket of wearing pant (MO.7) of the accused officer, tallying of the serial number and denomination of the said currency notes produced by the accused officer with the serial number and denomination 32CC No 167 of 2015 of the currency notes noted in Ex.P5 that were produced by PW1 earlier at the office of PW5, and the contact portion of tainted amount (MO.8) inside left side pocket of MO.7 yielding positive result to phenolphthalein test conducted during post trap proceedings. The said versions of PWs.4 and 5 is also corroborated with the contents Exs.P5 and P8.

71.In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Dr. D. K. Ghosh reported in AIR 1984

SC 1453 it is held that trap laying officer is interested in laying trap only to the

limited extent that a citizen, who complains of harassment by a public servant making a demand of illegal gratification, is protected and role of his department in the protection of such citizen is vindicated. No explanation is forthcoming from the side of the accused officer as to why PWs.4 and 5 should falsely implicate him in the present case.

72.The learned counsel for the accused officer has vehemently argued that

before acting as a mediator PW4 may be an independent witness, however,

once he acted as a mediator for pre and post trap proceedings on behalf of the prosecution, he cannot be treated as an independent witness, and relied upon the judgment of the hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad between K. Giri Vs. State, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad

Range, Hyderabad reported in 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 821 to support his said argument. In the said judgment it is held that once a person acts as a mediator on behalf of the prosecution party, he looses his character as an independent witness and automatically becomes a part of prosecution party, and it is not safe to base conviction on the solitary evidence of such witness.

73.The said case was determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of said case, and there is no principle that is laid down to say that 33CC No 167 of 2015 interestedness of the mediator in prosecution of the accused public servant erodes the creditworthiness of the testimony of the informant/eye witness.

Given the sterling testimony of PW1 in this case regarding initial and subsequent demand of bribe and voluntary acceptance of MO.8 by the accused officer for showing official favour, the interestedness of PW4 disappears into oblivion.

74.The learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that the prosecution has failed to convincingly prove the circumstance under which there was a demand of Rs.3,000/- as a bribe by the accused officer from PW1 and subsequent conscious acceptance of the said amount, hence burden does not shift to the accused officer under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, and mere recovery of the amount from the accused officer will not suffice to draw a presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 in favour of the prosecution, and in order to buttress his argument reliance has been placed on the judgment of the hon’ble High Court for the

State of Telangana between Mohd. Fakruddin Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 821, and G. Veeraiah Vs. The State of

Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal no.428/2008 dated 21.07.2022.

75. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of SPE and

ACB cases, Karimnagar has argued that the version of PW1 completely establish the basic ingredients of demand, subsequent demand and conscious acceptance of gratification by the accused officer from PW1, that MO.8 was found on the person of the accused officer during post trap proceedings, and that phenolphthalein test conducted on the fingers of the accused officer and the contact portion yielded positive result, therefore, no further burden is 34CC No 167 of 2015 casted on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive, hence presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be drawn against the accused officer regarding the motive of receiving

MO.8, and when evidence of PW1 proves passing of MO.8, the burden is on the accused officer to establish that it was not by way of gratification, and no support from an insignificant circumstance i.e., improper procedure for submission of fertilizer licence application by PW1 before the accused officer can be drawn to conclude that the accused officer has rebutted said presumption. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar in order to augment his above argument has banked upon the following authorities :

a.Chaitanya Prakash Audichya Vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation reported in (2015) 2 ACR 2152 b.Indra Vijay Alok Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2015) 3 ACR 3534 c.B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2007) 2 AICLR 297 d.State of Maharashtra Vs. Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple reported in AIR 1984 SC 63 e.K. John Devasahayam Vs. State reported in (2013) 2 ALD(Cri) 386

76.The prosecution by examining its star witness (PW1) has proved the circumstances under which the accused officer made demand of bribe amount from PW1 on 27.08.2013, 29.08.2013 and 04.09.2013 at the office of PW3 for processing his fertilizer licence application, and also made subsequent demand 35CC No 167 of 2015 of gratification from him on 05.09.2013 in the chamber of PW3, and thereafter consciously and voluntarily accepted MO.8. Merely for the reason submission of fertilizer licence application of PW1 was not as per the procedure, the ring of truth in the prosecution case is not shaken particularly when the testimony of

PW1 regarding the motive for demand of Rs.3,000/- as a bribe by the accused officer from PW1 and subsequent conscious acceptance of the said amount is credible and trustworthy.

77.As the prosecution has established the foundational facts that the accused officer demanded bribe from PW1 on 27.08.2013, 29.08.2013 and 04.09.2013 and further demanded on 05.09.2013 and consciously accepted the bribe amount (MO.8) during the post trap proceedings, now there arises a presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 in favour of the prosecution as per the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neeraj Datta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi) reported in (2022) 3 Supreme( SC) 1248 that the accused officer willfully accepted MO.8 as a motive under section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 for performing public duty improperly or dishonestly.

78.The presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not an inviolable one. The accused officer could rebut the same either through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing reliable evidence. In foregoing appreciation this Court has found that the accused officer has miserably failed to probabilise his defenses including thrust theory.

Therefore, this Court holds that the accused officer has failed to dispel the presumption under section 20 of the of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 that has arisen in favour of the prosecution.

36CC No 167 of 2015

79.The act of the accused officer in demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- (MO.8) from PW1 would not only establish the essential ingredients of Section 7 of of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 but further establish criminal misconduct in view of section 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The accused officer by virtue of his demand obtained a pecuniary advantage from PW1. Hence this Court concludes that the prosecution has proved both the charges under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)

(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused officer beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. These points are answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

POINT NO.1

80.The prosecution has alleged that as on 05.09.2013 the accused officer was working as a Senior Assistant in the office of Assistant Director of

Agriculture, Karimnagar since 06.05.2010, and by virtue of holding the said post he is a public servant as defined under section 2(c) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. This fact is an admitted fact in this case.

81.With regard to the section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the case of the prosecution is that prosecution sanction proceedings under Ex.P11 was issued by the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and

Co-operation (Vigilance) department in order to prosecute the accused officer

before the Court of Law.

82.In support of the said contention, prosecution has examined the Section

Officer, Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department, Hyderabad as

PW7. Coming to the evidence of PW7, he has deposed that from the year 2020 he has been working as a Section Officer, Agriculture and Co-operation 37CC No 167 of 2015 (Vigilance) department, Hyderabad, and he has been authorized under Ex.P10 to depose before this Court by the Agriculture Production Commissioner and

Secretary to the Government. He identifies the signature of the then Principal

Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah on Ex.P11. He deposes that the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah, on due verification of the connected and relevant documents, issued Ex.P11. During his cross examination PW7 denies suggestions that he is not acquainted with the official seal and signature of the then Principal Secretary to the Government,

Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam

Malakondaiah and that the then Principal Secretary to the Government,

Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam

Malakondaiah issued Ex.P11 without application of mind. PW11 states during his cross-examination that the words ‘placed before them’ is mentioned in paragraph no.6 of Ex.P11. PW11 admits during his cross-examination that the language, verbatim and paragraphs of the specimen sanction order and Ex.P11 are similar.

83.The testimony of PW7 proves that he is conversant with the signature of the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah, and that Ex.P11 was issued by the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and

Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah. As seen from the contents of Ex.P11 the then Principal Secretary to the

Government, Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr.

38CC No 167 of 2015

Poonam Malakondaiah carefully examined the allegations against the accused officer right from the first information report to till the final report of the

Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, and after considering the circumstances of the case, he decided to issue Ex.P11. The unimpeached testimony of PW7 proves that the then Principal Secretary to the Government,

Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam

Malakondaiah is sole author of Ex.P11. Hence mention of the words ‘placed

before them’ is mentioned in paragraph no.6 of Ex.P11 appears more due to

typographical error rather than non-application of mind by the then Principal

Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah in issuing Ex.P11.

84.Issuance of the prosecution sanction proceedings is to the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority arrived at on the basis of perusal of the materials placed before it. When on the basis of scrutiny of the materials placed before it the sanctioning authority on due application of mind arrives to the conclusion that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offense/s against the accused public servant, it is enough to accord sanction for prosecution against such public servant. Moreover, specimen sanction order is sent to the sanctioning authority for guidance. Hence this Court rules that merely because the language, verbatim and paragraphs of the specimen sanction order and Ex.P11 are similar it does not mean that without application of mind Ex.P11 was issued by the then Principal Secretary to the Government,

Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam

Malakondaiah.

85.Ex.P11 is a speaking order clearly passed in discharge of routine official 39CC No 167 of 2015 functions by the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and

Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah. It is, therefore, a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jiyalal reported in (2009) 15 SCC 72 it is held 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.”

86.PW6 has identified the signature of the then Principal Secretary to the

Government, Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr.

Poonam Malakondaiah on Ex.P11. Nothing has been elicited in the cross- examination of PW7 to show that he is not a competent witness to identify the signature of the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Agriculture and

Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr. Poonam Malakondaiah on

Ex.P11.

87.In C.B.I./SPE Vs. P. Muthuraman reported in 1996 SCC Online AP 147 it is held that “ For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, I reach the conclusion that the signature on the 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.” Hence in view of said dictum PW7 is held to be a competent witness to prove the contents of Ex.P11.

88.Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the accused officer is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 since he was working as a Senior Assistant in the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture, 40CC No 167 of 2015

Karimnagar as on 05.09.2013, and there is a valid sanction under Ex.P11 issued by the competent sanctioning authority (the then Principal Secretary to the

Government, Agriculture and Co-operation (Vigilance) department by name Dr.

Poonam Malakondaiah) to prosecute the accused officer for the charges under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

POINT NOS.5 and 6:

89.In the light of the findings of this Court in points no.1 to 3 the accused officer is found guilty of commission of offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and he is convicted for the said offenses under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. These points are answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

Prepared and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of May, 2024.

Special Judge

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.

90.The accused officer is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence that may be imposed on him for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Heard the accused officer on the quantum of the sentence. The accused officer has stated that he is reporting no evidence with respect to quantum of sentence that may be imposed on him by this Court. The accused officer has further stated that 41CC No 167 of 2015 that he is suffering with diabetes, that he is having one son who is studying in the Degree first year, and one daughter is studying in the 8th standard, and that his mother is depending on him, and on these grounds prayed this Court to take lenient view in sentencing him.

91.The accused officer is found guilty for committing offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The said offenses are socio-economic offenses and are grave in nature and as such benefit of the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused officer is not extended.

92.Considering the nature of offenses proved against the accused officer and his plea for taking lenient view in sentencing him this Court feels that ends of justice would meet on imposition of the sentence on the accused officer to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default in payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offense punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and in default of payment in fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offense punishable under section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed on the accused officer is Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only under two counts). Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused officer shall run concurrently.

93.In the result the accused officer is found guilty for commission of offenses 42CC No 167 of 2015 punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and he is convicted for the said offenses under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he is sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offense punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of

Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offense punishable under section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed on the accused officer is Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only under two counts).

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused officer shall run concurrently.

The accused officer is entitled for set off for the period of detention undergone by him during the course of investigation from 06.09.2013 to till 04.10.2013under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The accused officer is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of

Telangana.

M.O.1 is ordered to be remitted into the Government Treasury as said amount was reimbursed to PW1 vide cheque no.430560 dated 15.01.2014, and the rest of the material objects i.e., MOs. 2 to 8 are ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal time is over.

43CC No 167 of 2015

The accused officer is given copy of this judgment free of cost immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment as per section 363 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

Prepared and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of May, 2024.

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1D. Srinivas Nil P.W.2K. Sunitha P.W.3B. Chatru P.W.4A. Sampath Kumar P.W.5T. Sudarshan P.W.6V. V. Ramana Murthy P.W.7T. Kumara Swamy 44CC No 167 of 2015

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1Original report dated 04.09.2013 Ex.P.2Attested copy of application dated 27.08.2013 and its enclosures Ex.P.3Attested copy of inward and outward registers Ex.P.4Attested copy of report dated 04.09.2013 Ex.P.5Mediator report-I Ex.P.6Attested copy of attendance register Ex.P.7Rough sketch Ex.P.8Mediators report-II Ex.P.9Search list dated 05.09.2013 Ex.P.10Authorization memo Ex.P.11Prosecution sanction proceedings dated 21.02.2015 Ex.P.12Original First Information Report

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D1Attested copy of application dated 23.09.2013 Ex.D2Attested copy of acknowledgment dated 23.09.2013 Ex.D3Attested copy of licence dated 23.09.2013

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1Sealed cover containing phenolphthalein powder used in the pre-trap proceedings

M.O.2Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in the pre-trap proceedings

M.O.3Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used during post-trap proceedings

M.O.4One sealed bottle containing right hand rinse of the accused officer 45CC No 167 of 2015

M.O.5One sealed bottle containing left hand rinse of the accused officer

M.O.6One sealed bottle containing rinse of contact portion of MO.8

M.O.7Blue color jeans pant

M.O.8Cash of Rs.3,000/-

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.

1C.C. No 45/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

SPE AND ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: KUMAR VIVEK, District & Sessions Judge, 27TH day of September, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO.45 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

The State through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Adilabad. ….Complainant

&

Mokarala Sridhar, S/o. Subramanya Sasthri, Age: 56 years, Dy. Director, Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), Utnoor. R/o. Q.no.A-15, ITDA quarters, Utnoor, Adilabad district. N/o. H.No.4/325, Near bus stand, Gudiwada, Gudiwada mandal, Krishna district, Andhra Pradesh.

...Accused officer.

This calendar case has come before me on 23.09.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Kishore Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar for the complainant, and Sri T. Vivek Vardhan Reddy and Sri C.Raghunandan Raju, learned Advocates for the accused officer, 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:

:: JUDGMENT::

1.The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Adilabad has filed charge sheet in Cr.no.09/ACB-KNR/2009 against the accused officer to punish him as per law for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 of the Indian Penal Code with the following allegations:

That the accused officer worked as Deputy Director, Integrated 2C.C. No 45/2015

Tribal Development Agency, Utnoor for the period from 09.02.2009 to 24.04.2009, and he is a public servant as defined under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; that the informant is working as a

Headmaster, Government Kolam Ashram High School, Adilabad and on 12.03.2009 at 9-00 pm the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development

Agency, Utnoor visited said school and placed the informant under suspension vide order bearing RC.no.D5/162/2009 dated 12.03.2009 when the informant failed to produce the connected records before the

Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Utnoor; that on the representation of the informant, the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal

Development Agency, Utnoor reinstated the informant vide order bearing

RC.no.D5/162/2009 dated 24.03.2009; the Project Officer, Integrated

Tribal Development Agency, Utnoor mentioned in the said order to treat suspension period of seven days of the informant as earned leave; that the informant met accused officer on 06.04.2009 and submitted an application requesting him to treat his suspension period of seven days as earned leave as per the order of the Project Officer, Integrated Tribal

Development Agency, Utnoor; that the informant met the accused officer on 13.04.2009 at the residence of the accused officer at Utnoor and enquired about sanction of seven days’ earned leave for his suspension period on that the accused officer demanded Rs.3000/- as a bribe from him for issuing earned leave proceedings; that the informant again met the accused officer on 18.04.2009 at 5-00 p.m. at the office of the 3C.C. No 45/2015 accused officer at Utnoor and enquired about sanction of earned leave for his suspension period on that the accused officer reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.3000/- as a bribe; that the accused officer refused to reduce the bribe amount in spite of making request by the informant; that as the informant was reluctant to give Rs.3,000/- as bribe to the accused officer as such he approached the Inspector of Police, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Adilabad on 23.04.2009 at 10-00 am and lodged a report against the accused officer; that on 24.04.2009 between 8.50 am and 9:00 am the accused officer further demanded, and voluntarily accepted Rs.3,000/- as a bribe from the informant for discharging pending official favour and he was trapped by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Adilabad at the residential quarters of the accused officer at Utnoor; that the phenolphthalein test conducted on the right hand of the accused officer by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Adilabad yielded positive result and the tainted amount of Rs.3,000/- was seized by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Adilabad underneath the table cloth on the table at the instance of the accused officer; that when the contact portion of the tainted amount with the table cloth was subjected to phenolphthalein test, the said test also yielded positive result; that the accused officer was arrested by the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Adilabad on 24.04.2009 at 12.30 p.m. and he was produced 4C.C. No 45/2015

before the learned Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB cases,

Hyderabad for judicial custody and later the accused officer was enlarged on bail on 30.04.2009; that the Special Chief Secretary to the

Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra Pradesh

Secretariat, Hyderabad is the competent authority to remove the accused officer from service and the said Special Chief Secretary to the

Government accorded sanction to prosecute the accused officer before the Court of law vide G.O.Ms.no.62 dated 10.08.2010, hence the chargesheet.

2.The learned II-Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB cases,

Hyderabad has taken cognizance of the chargesheet against the accused officer for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and assigned CC no.81/2011 to the present case.

3.After appearance of the accused officer the copy of the case documents filed along with chargesheet are furnished to the accused officer according to section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned II-Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB cases,

Hyderabad.

4.Upon hearing the prosecution as well as the accused officer and upon considering the entire material available on the record, the learned

II-Additional Special Judge, for trial of SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad 5C.C. No 45/2015 primafacie found that the accused officer committed offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 and accordingly charges under the said sections of law are framed against the accused officer and the same are read over and explained to the accused officer in the Telugu language to which he denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

5.Subsequently as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad bearing ROC.no.240/2010-DII(BLDGS) dated 21.04.2015, CC no.81/2011 was transferred to this Court, and the same is numbered as CC no. 45/2015.

6.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P13 and MOs.1 to 8.

7.After the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused officer is examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure

Code and whilst such examination the accused officer denied the incriminating circumstance appearing in the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, and reported defence side evidence.

8.The accused officer has filed his written statement of defence denying the allegations of the prosecution against him besides submitting that the accused officer maintained absolute integrity in 6C.C. No 45/2015 discharge of his official duties and the same is evident from organization of dharnas and rasta rokos by the associations of the teachers as well as employees, and even gheroe of the Anti Corruption Bureau personnel by the said associations, and also demand made by said associations for dismissal of informant from service regarding implication of the accused officer; that the informant is a person of questionable antecedents facing criminal prosecution in two separate rape cases lodged by two women against him; that the informant is inimically disposed towards the accused officer as he is under an impression that the accused officer was instrumental in placing him under suspension and issuing a charge memo that in fact was done by the accused officer in discharge of his official duties; that no official favour of the informant was pending before the accused officer at any point of time; that an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution for not adducing evidence regarding processing of the file regarding sanction of eligible leave to the informant under Ex.P5 by the office of the accused officer and also non-examination of any of the staff of the accused officer who handled said file; that in the absence of the accused officer in the office room of his house the informant had secretly kept the tainted amount underneath the office table cloth, and he gave Ex.P5 to the accused officer and the accused officer signed the same in good faith and handed over to the informant and in turn the informant gave hand shake to him, and the accused officer reciprocated the same out of courtesy; that when the trap laying 7C.C. No 45/2015 officer questioned the accused officer during post trap proceedings the accused officer had given spontaneous reply to the same but the same was not noted in the post trap proceedings, and the post trap proceedings has been drafted with false recitals to suit the requirements of the case; that the accused officer is not a signatory to the post trap proceedings and no copy of the post trap proceedings was furnished to him; and that the interested testimony of the informant is not legally acceptable evidence and the same is liable to be discarded from consideration.

9.A memo is filed on behalf of the accused officer on 05.12.2022 reporting no defence side evidence. However, Ex.D1 is exhibited on the side of the accused officer during the course of cross examination of the informant, and Exs.D2 and D3 are exhibited on the side of the accused officer during the course of cross examination of the then Project Officer,

Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Utnoor.

10.Heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution and the accused officer. Elaborate written arguments are also filed on behalf of the complainant and the accused officer.

11.The learned counsel for the accused officer has relied on the following decisions:-

1.Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat reported 8C.C. No 45/2015 in AIR 1997 SC 3400;

2.State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan reported in 2008

CRI.L.J.347;

3.Gulam Mahmood A. Malek Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1980 SC 1558;

4.Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1976 SC 294;

5.Trilok Chand Jain Vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 1977 SC 666;

6.Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Harbans

Singh Bhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SC 637;

7.Varkey Joseph Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1993 SC 1892;

8.G.V. Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in

AIR 1987 SC 2402;

9.Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

AIR 1979 SC 1191;

10.V.Sejappa Vs. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, 9C.C. No 45/2015

Chitradurga reported in 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 922 (SC);

11.B.Doraswamy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 656 (AP);

12.Muralikonda Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2002 (2)

ALD (Crl.) 249 (AP); 13Trilok Chandra Mourya Vs. State reported in 2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 672 (AP);

14.State Vs. R.Krishnaiah reported in 2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 331 (AP);

15.K.Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana reported in 2022 (4)

SCC 574;

16.State of Gujarat through C.B.I Vs. Kumudchandra Pranjivan

Shah reported in 1995 CRI.L.J.3623;

17.Ravindra Mahadeo Kothamkar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 (2) AICLR 87 (Bom.);

18.Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2000 CRI.L.J.2273;

19.Ganapathi Sanya Naik Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2007 SC 3213; 10C.C. No 45/2015

20.Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his LR Vs. State of

Punjab reported in 2017 (2) ALD (Cri.) 830 (SC);

21.C.Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2015 (1) ALD (Cri.) 717 (SC);

22.State of Kerala Vs. P.Muhammed Noushad reported in 2016 (3) AICLR 652 (SC);

23.Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 1979 SC 1408; and

24.N.Vijaykumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021

CRI.L.J.1353.

12.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases,

Karimnagar has relied on following decisions:

1.Tara Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1999) 1 RCR (Cri) 747

2.Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 4 SCC 9.

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 11C.C. No 45/2015 officer is a public servant within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether valid sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused officer for the offenses for which charges are framed against him?

2. Whether official favour of the informant of sanctioning eligible leave for his seven days’ suspension period was pending for discharge before the accused officer prior to 9-00 a.m. on 24.04.2009?

3. Whether the prosecution has proved that accused officer demanded Rs.3000/- as a bribe from the informant on 13.04.2009 and reiterated said demand to the informant on 18.04.2009 for discharging pending official favour before him, and further demanded and voluntarily accepted Rs.3000/- as a bribe from the informant for discharging pending official favour at his residential quarters at Utnoor on 24.04.2009 between 8- 50 am and 9-00 am?

4. Whether the prosecution has proved charges framed against the accused officer beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt?

5. To what finding or findings?

POINT NO.1

15.The prosecution has alleged that as on 24.04.2009 the accused 12C.C. No 45/2015 officer was working as Deputy Director, Integrated Tribal Development

Agency, Utnoor since 09.02.2009 and by virtue of holding said post the accused officer is a public servant as defined under section 2(c) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This fact is an admitted fact in this case.

16. With regard to section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the case of the prosecution is that prosecution sanction proceedings under Ex.P10 was issued by the then Special Chief Secretary to the

Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra Pradesh

Secretariat, Hyderabad in order to prosecute the accused officer before the Court of law for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

17. In support of the said contention, the prosecution has examined the

Section Officer, Tribal Welfare Department, Telangana Secretariat,

Hyderabad as PW4. Coming to the evidence of PW4, he has deposed that from the month of December, 2014 he has been working as Section

Officer, Tribal Welfare Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and he has been authorized to depose before this Court by the Secretary to the Government by name B. M. Ekka. He identifies the signature of the then Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ashok Kumar Tigidi on Ex.P15 (sic.Ex.P10). He deposes that the then Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare 13C.C. No 45/2015 (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ashok Kumar Tigidi after verification of the file, issued Ex.P10.

During his cross examination PW4 has denied a suggestion that he identified signature of the then Special Chief Secretary to the

Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra Pradesh

Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ashok Kumar Tigidi on Ex.P10 at the instance of the Anti Corruption Bureau personnel.

18.The testimony of PW4 proves that he is conversant with the signature of the then Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Social

Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat,

Hyderabad by name Ashok Kumar Tigidi, and that Ex.P10 was issued by the then Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ashok Kumar Tigidi. As seen from the contents of Ex.P10 the then

Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2)

Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ashok

Kumar Tigidi carefully examined the allegations against the accused officer right from the first information report, and after considering the circumstances of the case, he decided to issue Ex.P10.

19.Issuance of the prosecution sanction proceedings is to the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority arrived at on the basis of perusal of the materials placed before it. When on the basis of scrutiny of the materials placed before it the sanctioning authority on 14C.C. No 45/2015 due application of mind arrives to the conclusion that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offense/s against the accused public servant therein, it is enough to accord sanction for prosecution against such public servant.

20. Ex.P10 is a speaking order clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions by the then Special Chief Secretary to the Government,

Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat,

Hyderabad by name Ashok Kumar Tigidi. It is, therefore, a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jiyalal reported in (2009) 15

SCC 72 it is held 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.”

21. PW4 has identified the signature of the then Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra

Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ashok Kumar Tigidi on Ex.P10.

Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW4 to show that he is not a competent witness to identify the signature of the then

Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2)

Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ashok

Kumar Tigidi on Ex.P10.

22. In C.B.I./SPE Vs. P. Muthuraman reported in 1996 SCC Online

AP 147 it is held that “ For the reasons stated in the preceding 15C.C. No 45/2015 paragraph, I reach the conclusion that the signature on the 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.” Hence in view of said dictum PW4 is held to be a competent witness to prove the contents of Ex.P10, and this Court finds no force in the argument put forth on behalf of the accused officer that the prosecution has failed to prove the contents of Ex.P10 by examining the then Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ashok Kumar Tigidi.

23.In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan supra the sanctioning authority mechanically accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused public servant therein in due obedience to the writ of mandamus issued by the

Hon’ble High Court. In Ameer Jan supra the sanctioning authority

accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused public servant therein only on the basis of the report made by the Inspector of Police,

Karnataka Lokayuktha, and no other record were made available before the sanctioning authority. The facts of said decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused officer are distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand.

24.Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is a valid sanction under Ex.P10 issued 16C.C. No 45/2015 by the competent sanctioning authority (the then Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare (TW.Ser.II.2) Department, Andhra

Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ashok Kumar Tigidi) to prosecute the accused officer for the charges under sections 7 and 13(1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution, and against the accused officer.

POINT NOS. 2 & 3

25. Since these points are interconnected with each other hence this

Court intend to answer them together.

INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES

26. PW1 is the informant. PW2 is one of the mediators in whose presence PW5 is said to have conducted pre and post trap proceedings on 24.04.2009. PW3 is the then Project Director, Integrated Tribal

Development Agency, Utnoor. PW4 is examined on the side of the prosecution to prove prosecution sanction proceedings under Ex.P10.

PW5 is the trap laying officer. PW6 is the then Headmaster, Ashram High

School, Narsapur B, Utnoor mandal, Adilabad district. PW7 is the police officer who conducted further investigation, and filed chargesheet in this case upon completion of investigation.

17C.C. No 45/2015

PENDENCY OF OFFICIAL FAVOUR

27.The admitted facts of the case are that on 12.03.2009 when PW3 visited Government Kolam Ashram High School, Adilabad, PW1 did not produce the school and hostel records, and considering the same as well as noticing certain irregularities committed by PW1 in maintenance of

Government Kolam Ashram High School, Adilabad, PW3 suspended PW1 under Ex.P3, and on the following day framed Article of Charge against

PW1, and thereafter PW1 submitted his explanation under Ex.D1, and later PW3 reinstated PW1 into service and posted as PG Head Master,

Government Kolam Ashram High School, Adilabad under Ex.P4 to till completion of the academic year – 2009 by imposing minor punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, and treating the suspension period of PW1 as eligible leave, and subsequently in the light of order of PW3 under Ex.P4 the accused officer issued Ex.P5 on 24.04.2009 sanctioning eligible leave to PW1 for the suspension period with effect from 17.03.2009 to till 23.03.2009.

28.The testimony of PW1 as seen from his examination-in-chief is that he submitted original of Ex.P2 before the accused officer for sanctioning eligible leave for his suspension period. PW1 has stated in his cross- examination that he prepared original of Ex.P2 dated 06.04.2009 in his own handwriting and submitted in the office of the accused officer at about 3:30 pm; that he had shown said application to the accused officer and on the direction of the accused officer he handed over said 18C.C. No 45/2015 application to the Inward Clerk who received the same and issued receipt; and that he handed over Ex.P2 to PW5 on the date of lodging of

Ex.P1. PW1 has denied suggestion during his cross-examination that

Ex.P2 was not in existence as on the date as mentioned therein, and it was brought into existence after trap of the accused officer.

29.PW5 admits during his cross-examination that as per contents of

Ex.P1 PW1 allegedly submitted an application on 06.04.2009, and original application dated 06.04.2009 was not found. PW7 admits during his cross-examination that PW5 had addressed a letter dated 05.05.2009 to the Project Director, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Utnoor to furnish original application dated 06.04.2009.

30.Ex.P2 is carbon copy of the application of PW1 addressed to the accused officer for sanctioning eligible leave for seven days' suspension period.

31.The learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that reference no.3 of Ex.P5 shows that PW1 had submitted an application

dated 28.03.2009 for treating his suspension period of seven days as

eligible leave, and original of Ex.P2 was not furnished to PW5 by the

Project Director, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Utnoor in spite of addressing a letter; that during the course of trial the prosecution did not produce original of Ex.P2; that except illegible seal on Ex.P2 there is no inward number noted therein; that the Inward Clerk who alleged received 19C.C. No 45/2015 original of Ex.P2 is not examined as a witness by the prosecution, and the claim of PW1 in his cross-examination that he handed over Ex.P2 to

PW5 on the date of lodging Ex.P1 is not corroborated with the evidence of PW5, and these circumstances unerringly indicate that PW1 did submit alleged application dated 06.04.2009 before the accused officer at any point of time and that Ex.P2 is a suspicious document, and since Ex.P2 has been pressed into service by the prosecution without taking any steps for adducing secondary evidence hence Ex.P2 is liable to be discarded for consideration for believing the version of the prosecution that PW1 submitted any application before the accused officer on 06.04.2009 for sanctioning eligible leave to him for his suspension period, and that official favour of PW1 was pending for discharge before the accused officer since 06.04.2009.

32.Suggestions given to PWs.1 and 2 by the accused officer lends credence to the case of prosecution as unfolded by PW1 that on 24.04.2009 the accused officer subscribed his signature on Ex.P5 by mentioning the date therein after arrival of PW1 at his government quarters. According to contents of Ex.P8, on 24.04.2009 PW1 entered into the government quarters of the accused officer at 8:50 am and he came out from there at 9:00 am. This recital of Ex.P8 is corroborated with the evidence of PWs.2 and 5 in their respective examination-in-chief.

33.Ex.P5, issued by the accused officer on 24.04.2009 i.e., during post 20C.C. No 45/2015 trap proceedings reveals that the same was issued in the light of the order of PW3 under Ex.P4 on the basis of an application of PW1 albeit

dated 28.03.2009, and not 06.04.2009 as alleged by PW1.

34.Existence of an application of PW1 for treating his suspension period for seven days as eligible leave is sine qua non for issuing Ex.P5 by the accused officer. Ex.P5 evident submission of such application by

PW1. The date of such application is immaterial for deciding the fact in issue in this case i.e., pendency of official favour of PW1 before the accused officer of sanctioning eligible leave for seven days’ suspension period to till the date of trap . However, such deviation in oral and documentary evidence would not weaken the case of the prosecution regarding submission of his application by PW1 to the accused officer, that is otherwise found to be proved, in view of the dictum of the hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Ugar Ahir Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1965 SC 277 wherein at par 7 it is held that “ The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of 21C.C. No 45/2015 the rest.”

35.The testimony of PW 3 in his examination-in-chief is that the accused officer is the competent authority to sanction eligible leave to

PW1 for the suspension period. The said testimony of PW3 is not disputed by the accused officer in his cross-examination. Moreover, the conduct of the accused officer in issuing Ex.P5 during post trap proceedings also probabilise that he is competent officer to sanction e ligible leave for seven days to PW1 for the suspension period. In this backdrop, this Court finds the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the accused officer that in absence of seizure of file pertaining to official favour of

PW1 and also non-examination of any staff of the office of the accused officer who dealt with the said file by PWs.5 and 7 during the course of investigation it cannot be believed that official favour of PW1 was pending for discharge before the accused officer, does not hold any water. In Trilokchand Maurya supra and R. Krishnaiah supra no official favour was pending for discharge as on the date of alleged trap before the respective accused public servants therein. Whereas in the present case admittedly the official favour of PW1 was discharged by the accused officer during the post trap proceedings.

36.Accordingly in view of foregoing appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case this Court concludes that the prosecution has proved that the accused officer was competent to sanction eligible leave 22C.C. No 45/2015 to PW1 for the suspension period and that official favour of PW1 of sanctioning eligible leave for seven days’ suspension period was pending for discharge before the accused officer prior to 8:50 am on 24.04.2009 since 28.03.2009.

DEMAND OF BRIBE

37.In K. Shanthamma supra it is held that proof of demand of bribe by an accused public servant and its acceptance by him/her is sine qua non for establishing the offense under section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

38.PW1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 13.04.2009 he met the accused officer at his house in connection with proceedings for sanction of his leave and for that the accused officer demanded Rs.3,000/- as a bribe, and again on 18.04.2009 he approached the accused officer and requested him to issue leave sanction proceedings but the accused officer again demanded him to give bribe of

Rs.3,000/- and even though he expressed his inability the accused officer insisted to come along with the amount on 24.04.2009, and the same culminated in lodging of Ex.P1. PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that on 13.04.2009 he met the accused officer at about 3:00 pm.

39.The defence of the accused officer is that on 13.04.2009 he was about 60 km away from Utnoor at Asifabad and since PW1 cannot leave 23C.C. No 45/2015

Government Kolam Ashram High School, Adilabad from 9:00 am to till 4:30 pm to meet the accused officer without obtaining permission from the competent authority and admittedly he did not obtain such permission hence question of PW1 meeting the accused officer on 13.04.2009 and 18.04.2009 is highly improbable.

40.In Trilok Chand Jain supra it is held that the accused officer may rebut the presumption under Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 by showing a mere preponderance of probability in his favour and he is not required to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Sarwan Singh

Rattan Singh supra is relied upon by the accused officer to drive home the point that there is long distance between case of prosecution ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’, and the said distance is covered by legal reliable and unimpeachable evidence before convicting the accused. In

Varkey Joseph supra it is held that suspicion is not the substitute for proof.

41.The accused officer has elicited during course of cross-examination of PW3 that during the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assembly elections in the year 2009 he was posted as Returning Officer and the accused officer was posted as Model Code of Conduct Enforcement

Officer for Asifabad constituency and they were camping at Asifabad; that on 13.04.2009 while they were at Asifabad they received representation of Deputy Executive Engineer (Housing), Asifabad under 24C.C. No 45/2015

Ex.D2 and he directed the accused officer by way of making an endorsement on the same to examine and report to the Observer; and that on 13.04.2009 he and the accused officer were at Asifabad.

42.In G. V. Nanjundiah supra it is held that demand of gratification other than legal remuneration is the foundation of the case of the prosecution. In Panalal Damodar Rathi supra it is observed that evidence of the informant cannot be placed on better footing than that of an accomplice, and corroboration of the evidence of the informant in material particulars connecting the accused public servant with the crime has to be insisted upon.

43.The Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar has relied on Tara Singh supra to drive home the point that bargains with respect to bribe amount take place in secrecy and isolation and in these circumstances it is too far for the Courts to presume that when the transaction with regard to the tainted money is going on between the culprit and the person affected, there would be an independent evidence.

44.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision between D.

Velayutham Vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Salem Town,

Chennai reported in AIR 2015 SC 2506 held that there is distinction between evidence of an accomplice and decoy/trap witness. As a rule of prudence it is unsafe to act on uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. But the evidence of decoy/trap witness must be tested in 25C.C. No 45/2015 the same way as other interested witness is tested, and in proper case the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused public servant. As per the said ratio in each and every case corroboration of evidence of decoy/trap witness need not be insisted by the Court.

45.It is trite that t he plea of alibi must be proved with certainty in order to entirely exclude possibility of the presence of the accused officer at Utnoor at his residential quarters on 13.04.2009 at around 3:00 pm.

Ex.D2 is bereft of the time when such endorsement was made by PW3 to the accused officer. When the accused officer has himself brought on the record of the case during the course of cross-examination of PW1 about time of meeting with the accused officer at about 3:00 pm it is incumbent on part of the accused officer to cross examine PW3 about his presence along with PW3 at Asifabad at 3:00 pm on 13.04.2009, however, there is no such cross-examination. Considering distance of 60 km between Asifabad and Utnoor the travel time between said places by a motor vehicle would be less than two hours, and possibility of presence of the accused officer at his residential quarters on 13.04.2009 at 3:00 pm is not remote. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between C. M.

Sharma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2011 SC 608 held that in the face of positive and specific evidence the case of prosecution cannot be rejected on the ground of improbability.

26C.C. No 45/2015

46.In V. Sejappa supra the accused public servant therein has probabilised with certainty that from the date preceding and following the date of making alleged demand of gratification other than legal remuneration by him he was at a distance of 250 km away from the place where he made alleged demand. In B. Doraswamy supra the accused public servant therein has probabilised with certainty that at the time of making alleged demand of gratification other than legal remuneration by him he was attending conference at a place other than the place where he made alleged demand. In Muralikonda supra the oral as well as documentary evidence precisely proved the time when the accused public servant therein was attending the meeting on the date of making alleged demand of gratification other than legal remuneration by him, and under such circumstance it is held that non-mentioning of the time as to when the accused public servant therein attended the meeting and when he left is not fatal to the defence of the accused public servant therein. The facts of the above precedents are distingushable from the facts of the present case where the accused officer has failed to precisely probabilise his presence at Asifabad along with PW3 on 13.04.2009 at 3:00 pm.

47.PW1 deposes in his examination-in-chief that when he met the accused officer on 18.04.2004 the accused officer again demanded

Rs.3,000/- as a bribe from him for showing official favour. PW1 categorically states during his cross-examination by the accused officer 27C.C. No 45/2015 that he met the accused officer on 18.04.2009 at 5:00 pm. Except giving suggestion to PW1 denying meeting between him and the accused officer on 18.04.2009 and reiteration of demand of bribe by the accused officer nothing has been elicited to impeach creditworthiness of the testimony of

PW1 about the meeting between the duo in which the accused officer again demanded Rs.3,000/- as a bribe from PW1 for discharging pending official favour. Suggestion by itself is not evidence.

48.Thus t he instant case is not of making sole demand of b ribe on 13.04.2009 by the accused officer prior to its acceptance on the date of trap in reiteration of his said demand made on 13.04.2009 . The testimony of PW1 coupled with contents of Ex.P1 proves that the accused officer made another demand of bribe of Rs.3,000/- from him on 18.04.2009 for showing official favour immediately before demanding and voluntarily accepting the said amount laced with phenolphthalein powder on 24.04.2009 during post trap proceedings at his residential quarters. In order to attract the ingredient of section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in case of multiple demand of bribe, the demand of gratification other than legal remuneration should be intrinsically woven with such demand immediately preceding further demand and voluntary acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration, and not first demand of gratification other than legal remuneration as argued on behalf of the accused officer.

28C.C. No 45/2015

49.PW1 has stated during his cross-examination that he was teaching mathematics in the Government Kolam Ashram High School, Adilabad, and the teaching staff will be busy in the said school from 9:00 am to till 4:30 pm and there was no possibility for the teaching staff to go out of the school from 9:00 am to till 4:30 pm; and that he did not take written permission from the competent authority to leave head quarters on 13.04.2009 and 18.04.2009 to meet the accused officer. PW1 volunteers in his cross-examination that he left after school hours.

50.The contention of PW1 that he left Government Kolam Ashram High

School, Adilabad after school hours is not tenable as on 13.04.2009 he meet the accused officer during school hours at 3:00 pm, and on 18.04.2009 though he met the accused officer at 5:00 pm but PW1 meeting the accused officer at said time within half an hour after leaving the school after school hours is not possible considering traveling time between Adilabad and Utnoor to be about one hour as seen from the contents of Ex.P8 where it is noted that the trap party members and PW1 started from Adilabad at 7:30 am and they reached Utnoor at 8:30 am.

51.Admittedly PW1 did not obtain any permission in writing from the competent authority to leave school during office hours on 13.04.2009.

The conduct of PW1 in leaving the school during school hours on the said dates without obtaining any written permission from the competent authority would not belie his entire evidence about his meeting with the 29C.C. No 45/2015 accused officer on 13.04.2009 at 3:00 pm and on 18.4.2009 at 5:00 pm for the reason that said conduct of PW1 would be an issue for adjudication as misconduct between PW1 and his department as PW1 being bound by Andhra Pradesh Conduct Rules, 1968 is obligated to follow the rules of his department, and any deviation therefrom, if proved, would entail disciplinary action against PW1.

52.The learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that in assessing the evidence of PW1 the entire background of the case of the prosecution should be kept in mind, and the accused officer issued a memo to PW1 directing him to immediately hand over charge of the post of Head Master to the next senior staff of the school and for that reason

PW1 developed grudge against the accused officer and implicated him by lodging Ex.P1. In this regard reliance is placed on Gulam Mahmood A.

Malek supra.

53.The learned counsel for the accused officer has further argued that

PW1 states during his cross-examination that two separate rape cases were registered against him and the same shows that PW1 is a person of poor moral fibre, and a law breaker hence his testimony cannot be accepted without corroboration as in trap cases character of the informant assumes significance, and in this regard placed reliance on Sat

Paul supra and Ravindra Mahadeo Kothamkar supra.

54.In Sat Paul supra it is held that in absence of corroboration it is 30C.C. No 45/2015 hazardous to accept testimonies of the witnesses having poor moral fibre and heavy load of bad antecedents and also having possible motive to harm the accused public servant who was an obstacle in the way of their unlawful activities. In Ravindra Mahadeo Kothamkar supra it was borne by the evidence the informant carried out unauthorized construction work in his existing house as such he was termed as a law breaker.

55.PW1 admits in his cross-examination that the accused officer issued a memo to him directing him to immediately hand over charge of the post of Head Master of Government Kolam Ashram High School,

Adilabad to the next senior staff of the school. The learned Special Public

Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar has argued that the accused officer issued said memo to PW1 as a natural corollary to the order of PW3 under Ex.P3 of placing PW1 under suspension as distinguished from independent action of the accused officer. This Court finds considerable force in the said argument advanced by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar. If at all PW1 intended to wreck vengeance, he would have targeted PW3 due to whose action he was placed under suspension and also suffered monetary loss on account of imposition of minor punishment under Ex.P4, and not the accused officer. There is no material to show personal inimical disposition of PW1 towards the accused officer. There was no reason for PW1 to implicate the accused officer had the accused officer issued Ex.P5 within reasonable time in line of his duty after submission of application of PW1 31C.C. No 45/2015 on 28.03.2009. In order to provide an explanation to delay in sanctioning eligible leave to PW1 for seven days’ suspension period, the accused officer by eliciting an admission from PW1 that the accused officer has to depend upon his staff in preparation of any proceedings, has attempted to attribute such delay to his staff. The said effort of the accused officer is inconsistent with his own stand that Ex.P5 was carried by PW1 along with him to his official quarters on 24.04.2009.

56.Mere registration of rape cases against PW1 by itself prove him a rapist. The guilt or innocence of PW1 in the said cases is proved by the judgment of the competent Court trying said cases. It is not the case of the accused officer that PW1 has been found guilty of committing rape on said women. Therefore, it would be premature to term PW1 as a law breaker in order to discard his evidence regarding demand of bribe by the accused officer from him merely on the basis of registration of two rape cases against him.

57.No plausible explanation is forthcoming from side of the accused officer for keeping official favour of PW1 for almost for almost one month from the date of submission of application on 28.03.2009. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the strong circumstance of the case regarding pendency of official favour of PW1 before the accused officer for unreasonable time proves that the accused officer had an occasion to demand bribe from PW1 for discharging pending official favour, and the 32C.C. No 45/2015 accused officer got such occasion when PW1 met him on 13.04.2009 and 18.04.2009 and accordingly he demanded Rs.3,000/- as a bribe from

PW1.

REITERATION OF DEMAND OF BRIBE AND ITS VOLUNTARY

ACCEPTANCE

58.PW1 has also testified in his examination-in-chief that when he entered into the house of the accused officer he found that the accused officer was in the front room of his house along with PW6 and on seeing him PW6 went outside; that the accused officer called him, offered seat to him and enquired with him about bringing the demanded bribe amount, and on his affirmative reply the accused officer asked him to give the same; and that he gave the amount with his right hand, and the accused officer collected the same with his right hand and kept underneath the table cloth.

59.The testimony of PWs.2 and 5 in their respective examination-in- chief are that PW1 entered into the house of the accused officer and after relay of pre-arranged signal by PW1 at 9:00 am the trap party members rushed into the house of the accused officer, and post incorporation of the version of the accused officer regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe from PW1 in Ex.P8, and also questioning of the accused officer by PW5 about the tainted amount, the accused officer produced the tainted amount underneath the table cloth. The said statements on oath 33C.C. No 45/2015 of PWs.8 and 10 are in line with the recitals of contemporaneous document under Ex.P8.

60.The admission made by PW2 during his cross-examination that copy of Ex.P8 was not furnished to the accused officer has provided an occasion to the accused officer to contend that he had given spontaneous reply regarding manner of his implication by PW1 but the same was suppressed from mentioning in Ex.P8 and for that reason its copy was not furnished to him. There is no cross-examination of PW5 by the accused officer that he did not furnish copy of Ex.P8 to the accused officer immediately after completion of post trap proceedings. On perusal of Ex.P8 it is noticed that the same is bearing signature of the accused officer below the signatures of the trap party members. The accused officer is silent about the reason for subscribing his signature on Ex.P8.

The accused officer is not a member of the trap party who are only required to sign on post trap proceedings as witnesses. Under such circumstance the resistible conclusion is that the accused officer subscribed his signature on Ex.P8 as token of receipt of its copy.

61.Nothing has been brought on the record of the case during the course of cross-examination of PWs.2 and 5 that PW1 after relaying pre- arranged signal had informed the trap party members about the location of the tainted amount underneath the said table cloth (MO.8). The testimonies of PWs. 2 and 5 regarding production of MO.1 by the accused 34C.C. No 45/2015 officer underneath the table cloth during post trap proceedings leading to its seizure by PW5 under Ex.P8 at the instance of the accused officer post making confessional statement by the accused officer has withstood incisive cross-examination by the accused officer, and the same is a relevant fact under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 .

62.The evidence of PWs.2 and 5 also disclose that when compared the number and denomination of the currency notes handed over to PW1 during pre trap proceedings for giving to the accused officer on his further demand of bribe tallied with the currency notes seized at the instance of the accused officer. This fact coupled with positive result of phenolphthalein test conducted on right hand of the accused officer supports the evidence of PW1 regarding handling of MO.1 by the accused officer with his right hand at his residential quarters. Suggestions given to PW1 that when the accused officer went inside the house he placed

MO.1 underneath the table cloth and after the accused officer signed and handed over Ex.P5 to him, he gave hand shake to the accused officer, and in turn the accused officer reciprocated the same with his right hand for probabilising reason for positive result of phenolphthalein test of right hand of the accused officer on account of transmission of phenolphthalein powder to the hands of the accused officer from the right hand of PW1, is not accepted by PW1.

63.For appreciating defence of the accused officer that PW1 in 35C.C. No 45/2015 absence of the accused officer in the front room of his residential quarters for a while had sneaked MO.1 underneath the table cloth, the testimony of PW6 is crucial. The evidence of PW6 in his examination-in- chief is that he went to the house of the accused officer for getting his salary certificate, and he met the accused officer; that through the window he noticed that PW1 and the accused officer were present in the room and the accused officer went into another room for a while, and he came and there was some discussion between him (PW1) and the accused officer; that PW1 was requesting something from the accused officer and the accused officer was refusing something; and that only their physical action was visible to him but their discussion was not audible to him.

64. Presence of PW6 at the residential quarters of the accused officer at the time of visit of PW1 to the said place is an undisputed fact. The above reproduced evidence of PW6 shows that physical action PW1 was under his lens. But there is no evidence of PW6 either in his examination-in- chief or cross-examination that he saw that PW1, taking advantage of absence of the accused officer for sometime in the front room, kept amount (MO.1) underneath the table cloth. Had PW1 did so as alleged by the accused officer the same would have been noticed and spoken to by

PW6. PW6 is the best witness to probabilise the alleged defence of the accused officer but the accused officer did not even cross examine him on the above aspect to probabilise his alleged defence.

36C.C. No 45/2015

65.In Meena Balwant Hemke supra it was found that the informant’s evidence was not creditworthy as he had spoken to altogether a different version in the departmental proceedings against the accused public servant therein; the one of the panch witnesses who accompanied the informant as shadow witness turned hostile; and another shadow witness was not examined and it was under these peculiar circumstances recovery of the tainted amount lying on the table by itself was not held to be sufficient proof of the acceptance of the bribe as it lent credence to the defence of the accused public servant therein that the tainted amount fell on the table in the process of the accused public servant therein pushing the same away with her hands when attempted to be thrusted into her hands by the informant.

66.In Ganapathi Sanya Naik supra the accused public servant therein did not handle the tainted amount and the evidence of the informant therein and the shadow witness with respect to recovery of cash from the table underneath the files was not found to be believable, and under such circumstance recovery of the tainted amount lying on the table underneath the files by itself was not held to be sufficient proof of the acceptance of the bribe.

67.In Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) supra no doubt it was found that the alleged conduct of the deceased accused public servant therein in placing the tainted amount casually in the cardboard box placed on 37C.C. No 45/2015 the table instead of keenly keeping with him is unusual conduct, however, alleged conduct of the deceased accused public servant therein was not the sole ground to allow the appeal carried by the heir of the deceased accused public servant therein against affirmation of the conviction under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Absence of cogent and convincing evidence regarding first demand/payment of bribe amount by the informant therein to the deceased accused public servant therein, and mere enquiry by the deceased accused public servant therein from the informant therein about bringing the money not constituting demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence, non-seizure of the cardboard box, and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the location of the transaction relating to tainted amount were the other factors that were taken into consideration before allowing the said appeal.

68.The learned counsel for the accused officer has assailed the veracity of the testimony of PW2 by arguing that he is at the back and call of PW5, a stock witness of PW5. The basis for said argument is version of PW5 during his cross-examination that PW2 acted as a mediator in a trap case registered against an Executive Officer of Utnoor grampanchayth, and in a case registered post surprise check at Bhainsa against one Constable attached to Anti Power Theft Squad, Nirmal.

38C.C. No 45/2015

69. In Kumudchandra Pranjivan Shah supra it was established that the panch witness therein had acted in a number of cases and the said witness had also made a statement that being a social worker he had been in close touch with the police. Similarly in Ravindra Mahadeo

Kothamkar supra the panch witness therein acted as a panch for Anti

Corruption Bureau on about three of four occasions.

70.Merely because PW2 had acted as a panch witness in two other cases, it does not make him a stock witness. Unless PW-2 acted as a panch witness in numerous trap cases, and it were shown to this Court by leading evidence that in some other case he stood discredited and his testimony was not believed by the Court the testimony of PW2 could not be rejected by branding him as a stock witness. It is well-known that the general public does not like to get involved, as a witness in such like trap cases. Therefore, Government officers who enjoy security of service and status are assigned the duty to act as independent panch witnesses. PW2 is under no compulsion to depose in favour of the prosecution, and is free to depose according to his conscious with regard to the facts witnessed by him.

71.The learned counsel for the accused officer has further argued that

PW2 has admitted during his cross-examination that resultant solutions of right and left hand rinses of the accused officer as well as resultant solution of the contact portion of the table cloth are not pink in color, and 39C.C. No 45/2015 said admission of PW2 falsifies the entire case of the prosecution that the accused officer accepted MO.1 with his right hand and placed underneath the table cloth.

72.The case of the prosecution is that only left hand rinse of the accused officer did not yield positive result to phenolphthalein test where as right hand rinse of the accused officer as well as contact portion of

MO.1 with the table cloth (MO.8) tested positive to phenolphthalein test during post trap proceedings on 24.04.2009. On perusal of cross- examination of PW2 it is noticed that he was questioned regarding color of preserved solution under MOs.5 to 7 as on the the date of his cross- examination, and not as on date of the trap of the accused officer . PW2 states in his re-examination that at present the resultant solution are white in color and at the time of trap they were pink in color. It is significant to note that there is no cross-examination of PW5 by the accused officer that phenolphthalein test conducted on the right hand of the accused officer as well as on the contact portion of the table cloth at the residential quarters of the accused officer on 24.04.2009 did not yield positive result as there was no change in the color of colorless sodium carbonate solutions prepared in two separate transparent tumblers on the said date at the said place.

73.In C. Sukumaran supra the phenolphthalein test was held to be not a conclusive proof against the accused public servant therein after 40C.C. No 45/2015 observing that color of the other samples taken by the investigating officer continued to be pink in color but the color of the hand rinse of the accused public servant therein did not show the same pink color, and accordingly the explanation that the color could have faded by the lapse of time was not accepted.

74.In P. Muhammed Noushad supra it was not proved that the currency notes yielded positive result to the phenolphthalein test, and considering the same as well as failure on the part of prosecution to prove as to how the currency notes made way in the pocket of the accused public servant therein, benefit of doubt was extended to the accused public servant therein.

75.In the instant case, the color of right hand rinse of the accused officer as well as contact portion of MO.1 both are proved by the prosecution through PWs.2 and 5 to have turned into pink color during post trap proceedings and the same is also corroborated with the recitals of Ex.P8 albeit its color did not remain so as on the date of cross- examination of PW2. In the circumstance of the case the possibility of change in color of solution in MOs.5 and 7 from pink to white due to lapse of time cannot be ruled out.

76.The learned counsel for the accused officer has also argued that according to evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 5 in their examination-in-chief soon after relay of pre-arranged signal the trap party team led by PW5 41C.C. No 45/2015 along with PW2 and co-mediator entered into the house of the accused officer, and their said evidence is contradicted by the evidence of PW6 in his examination-in-chief who has stated on oath therein that while he was in the house of the accused officer initially two persons entered into the said house and caught hold of the accused officer, and made a phone call and within three minutes PW5 along with four other persons came to the house of the accused officer.

77.Post relay of pre-arranged signal by PW1 entry of trap party members more particularly PW2, the co-mediator and PW5 into the residential quarters of the accused officer is not a disputed fact in this case. The above contradiction pointed by the learned counsel for the accused officer is minor contradiction as it relates to only delay of three minutes on the part of PW2, the co-mediator and PW5 in entering into into the residential quarters of the accused officer, and not worth considering.

78.The learned counsel for the accused officer has vehemently argued that as per admission of PW5 during his cross-examination that no officer in the cadre of the Deputy Superintendent of Police is associated in this case right from the inception of this case to till filing of the chargesheet hence proceedings by way of trial initiated on such charge-sheet stands vitiated for non-compliance of section 17(c) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

42C.C. No 45/2015

79.The said question of law raised on behalf of the accused officer is no more res integra in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India between H. N. Rishbud & Inder Singh Vs. The State Of

Delhi reported in AIR 1955 SC 196 where it is held that “ We are, therefore, clearly, also, of the opinion that where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination., the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby.”

80.The learned counsel for the accused officer has finally argued that that the accused officer maintained absolute integrity in discharge of his official duties and the same is evident from the cross-examination of PW5 who has stated that on the date of trap the Teachers’ Association as well as Employees Association organized dharnas as well as rasta roko for false implication of the accused officer and they even gheravved the Anti

Corruption Bureau personnel for arresting the accused officer, and they have also demanded dismissal of PW1 from service, and contents of

Ex.D3 as well as the press meetings convened by various Tribal

Associations condemning implication of the accused officer was published in all the print media, and the accused officer was also awarded with award as best officer, and this Court may consider the same to arrive to the conclusion that the accused officer has been implicated by PW1.

43C.C. No 45/2015

81.It is nobody’s case that pursuant to demand of the Associations

PW1 was dismissed from service. The fate of the case is decided on the basis of legally acceptable evidence, not on the basis of public opinion. A newspaper report is considered as hearsay evidence and falls under secondary evidence. The same cannot be used to prove an allegation of fact.

82.In Surajmal supra and N. Vijay Kumar supra it is held that in case of bribery mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused public servants when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable.

83.Now coming to the case at hand, the prosecution has proved competence of the accused officer to discharge official favour of PW2, and that official favour of was pending for discharge before the accused officer immediately before relay of pre-arranged signal PW1. The conduct of the accused officer in keeping official favour pending before him since 28.03.2009 to till the date of trap coupled with the evidence of PW1 leads to an irresistible conclusion that pendency of official favour of PW1

before him provided an occasion for the accused officer to demand bribe

from PW1 and the accused officer did not discharge pending official favour to till 24.04.2009 for want of fulfillment of his demand of bribe, and he did so only after voluntatily and consciously receiving bribe amount from PW1 at his residential quarters. The prosecution has proved 44C.C. No 45/2015 that the accused officer handled MO.1 with his right hand during post trap proceedings. Its number and denomination are found tallied with the number and denomination noted in Ex.P7. Therefore, in the light of the dictum of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2022) 3

Supreme (SC) 1248 there arises a presumption under section 20 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in this case in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer in respect of an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

84.Since the accused officer could not probabilise the defences set up by him, therefore, the accused officer is held to have failed to dispelled the presumption under section 20 of the of the Prevention of Corruption

Act,1988. The act of the accused officer in consciously accepting MO.1 laced with phenolphthalein powder from PW1 would not only establish the essential ingredients of section 7 of of the Prevention of Corruption

Act,1988 but further establish criminal misconduct on his part in view of section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The accused officer by virtue of his demand obtained a pecuniary advantage from PW1 for discharging pending official favour. Accordingly this Court concludes that the prosecution has proved both the charges under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused officer beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.

These points are answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and 45C.C. No 45/2015 against the accused officer.

POINT NOS.4 & 5:

85.In the light of the findings of this Court in points no.1 to 3 the accused officer is found guilty of commission of offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, and he is convicted for the said offenses under section 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. These points are answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer-II, transcribed by him, and partly typed by me on my official laptop, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of September, 2024.

Special Judge

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar.

86. The accused officer is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence that may be imposed on him for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Heard the accused officer on the quantum of the sentence. The accused officer has stated that he is reporting no evidence with respect to quantum of sentence that may be imposed on him by this Court. The accused officer has further stated that he is 72 year old and suffering with old age related ailments, that vision of one of his eyes is impared and he is unable to hear, that his wife is also suffering with old age 46C.C. No 45/2015 related ailments, and that he is childless, and on these grounds prayed this Court to take lenient view in sentencing him.

87.The accused officer is found guilty for committing offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. The said offenses are socio-economic offenses and are grave in nature and as such benefit of the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused officer is not extended.

88. Considering the nature of offenses proved against the accused officer and his plea for taking lenient view in sentencing him this Court feels that ends of justice would meet on imposition of the sentence on the accused officer to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default in payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offense punishable under section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and to further undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and in default of payment in fine to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offense punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed on the accused officer is Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only under two counts). Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused officer 47C.C. No 45/2015 shall run concurrently.

In the result the accused officer is found guilty for commission of offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is convicted for the said offenses under section 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offense punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, and to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offense punishable under section 13(1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed on the accused officer is Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only under two counts). Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused officer shall run concurrently.

The accused officer is entitled for set off for the period of detention undergone by him during the course of investigation from 25.04.2009 to 30.04.2009under section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The accused officer is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this Court before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of

Telangana.

48C.C. No 45/2015

M.O.1 is demonetized Rs.500/- currency notes and the same is ordered to be returned to PW1 subject to their exchange by the Reserve

Bank of India, and the rest of the material objects i.e., MOs. 2 to 8 are ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal time is over.

The accused officer is given copy of this judgment free of cost immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment as per section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer-II, transcribed by him, and partly typed by me on my official laptop, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of September, 2024.

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

PW1K. Narsimha Reddy

PW2 Dr. Subhash Rathode

PW3 I. Samuel Anand Kuamar

PW4 Shaik Jilani

PW5 M. Kiran Kumar

PW6 D. Venkateshwar Rao

PW7 B. Mohan

FOR THE DEFENCE

- NIL- 49C.C. No 45/2015

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Report dated 23.04.2009

Ex.P2Carbon copy of application dated 06.04.2009

Ex.P3Suspension proceeding dated 12.03.2009

Ex.P4Reinstatement proceeding dated 24.03.2009

Ex.P5 Eligible leave sanction proceeding dated 24.04.2009

Ex.P6Attested copy of First Information Report dated 24.04.2009

Ex.P7Mediator report-I dated 24.04.2009

Ex.P8Mediator report-II dated 24.04.2009

Ex.P9 Rough sketch

Ex.P10 Prosecution sanction order dt. 10.8.2010

Ex.P11 First Information Report dated 24.04.2009

Ex.P12 Copy of the report dated 23.04.2009

Ex.P13Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement of PW6

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D1Attested copy of explanation dated 17.03.2009 Ex.D2Representation of the Deputy Executive Engineer (Housing), Asifabad dated 11.04.2009 Ex.D3Copy of representation of All India Students Federation, Adilabad District to Project officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Utnoor dated 27.04.2009 50C.C. No 45/2015

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

MO1Amount of Rs.3,000/- smeared with phenolphthalein powder

MO2Sealed cover containing phenolphthalein powder used in the pre trap proceedings

MO3Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in the pre trap proceedings

MO4 Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used during post trap proceedings.

MO5One sealed bottle containing right hand rinse of accused officer

MO6One sealed bottle containing left hand rinse of accused officer

MO7One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contact portion of tainted amount with the table cloth

MO8One table cloth

FOR THE DEFENCE

- NIL-

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB Cases,

Karimnagar.

1CC No 16 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: KUMAR VIVEK, District & Sessions Judge,

TUESDAY, 12TH day of November, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO.16 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

The State through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Adilabad.

...Complainant

&

Thogari Pochaiah, S/o. Ashaiah, Age: 56 years, Occ: Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Luxettipet Unit of Mancherial Circle, R/o.H.No.12-258, Gouthaminagar, Mancherial of Adilabad district.

...Accused officer.

This calendar case has come before me on 29.10.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Kishore Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar for the complainant, and Sri S.Chandrahas Rao and Sri V.Parshaiah, learned Advocates for the accused officer, 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:

:: JUDGMENT::

1.The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Adilabad has filed charge sheet in Cr.no.38/RCT-ACB-KNR/2013 against the accused officer to punish him as per law for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 with the following allegations:

that the informant is resident of Muthyampalli village of Luxettipet mandal, Adilabd district and he is eking his livelihood by doing fertilizer 2CC No 16 of 2016 business; that on 05.09.2013 the accused officer visited Kasipeta village and mandal and secured the presence of informant before him by way of making telephone call through one Kalluri Venkatesham; that when the informant met the accused officer, the accused officer informed him that he did not pay Professional Tax to till date as such his Taxpayer

Identification Number (TIN) would be canceled; that the informant replied to pay the same on that accused officer informed him to pay due

Professional Tax within 20 days and asked him to meet him in his office along with the paid challan else he would cancel the Taxpayer

Identification Number (TIN); that on 06.09.2013 the informant paid an amount of Rs.800/- each for the years 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, and on 25.09.2013 the informant paid an amount of Rs.1200/- each for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 towards Professional Tax through challans at the State Bank of Hyderabad, Mancherial branch and obtained photostat copy of the said challans; that the informant handed over the photostat copy of the said challans to the accused officer at his office on 26.09.2013 in the morning hours and at that juncture the accused officer questioned about the mamools and also demanded him to give Rs.5000/- as a bribe under threat to cancel his Taxpayer

Identification Number (TIN); that on the persistent request of the informant the accused officer demanded Rs.4000/- as a bribe from him and threatened him to cancel the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) if he failed to give the said amount on the following day; that finding no other alternative the informant agreed to give Rs.4000/- as a bribe to the 3CC No 16 of 2016 accused officer on 27.09.2013 in his office; reluctant to give said amount to the accused officer the informant approached the office of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar on 26.09.2013 and lodged a report against the accused officer; that on 27.09.2013 in the afternoon hours the accused officer was trapped by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar at his office, i.e., office of the Commercial

Tax Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad district when the accused officer further demanded and consciously accepted Rs.4000/- as a bribe from the informant for showing official favour; that the phenolphthalein test conducted on both the hands of the accused officer yielded positive result and the tainted amount of Rs.4,000/- was seized by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar in the presence of the mediators at the instance of the accused officer from his working table; that when the contact portion of the tainted amount from the surface of the glass on the working table of the accused officer was got swabbed with the help of cotton swab by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar and subjected to phenolphthalein test, the said test also yielded positive result; that the accused officer was arrested by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar

Range, Karimnagar on 27.09.2013 at 05.00 pm and he was produced

before the Special Court concerned for remand, and subsequently he was

enlarged on bail on 23.10.2013; that the Principal Secretary to the 4CC No 16 of 2016

Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department is the competent authority to remove the accused officer from service, and the said authority vide

G.O.Ms.no.94 dated 01.07.2015 accorded sanction to prosecute the accused officer before the Court of law, hence the chargesheet.

2.This Court has taken cognizance of the chargesheet filed against the accused officer for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and assigned CC no.16/2016 to the present case.

3.After appearance of the accused officer the copy of the documents filed along with chargesheet are furnished to the accused officer according to section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code by this Court.

4.Upon hearing the prosecution as well as the accused officer and upon considering the entire material available on the record, this Court primafacie found that the accused officer has committed offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly charges under the said sections of law are framed against the accused officer and the same are read over and explained to the accused officer in the Telugu language to which he denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 11 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P17 and MOs.1 to 7.

6.After the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the 5CC No 16 of 2016 accused officer is examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure

Code and whilst such examination the accused officer denied the incriminating circumstance appearing in the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, and reported defence side evidence.

7.The accused officer has filed his written statement of defence denying the allegations of the prosecution against him besides submitting that the informant is neither proprietor of M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement, Muthyampalli village nor he is having licence in his name for establishment of M/s.Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement,

Muthyampalli village, therefore, the question of the accused officer ever approaching him for collection of due Professional Tax and insisting him him to pay the due professional tax does not arise, and similarly no official favour of the informant was pending before the accused officer at any point of time and for that reason the informant was not having any work in the office of the accused officer; that the call data records collected by the investigating officer are bereft of section 65-B of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 certificates and they are inadmissible in evidence; that the trap laying officer without conducting discreet enquiry regarding genuineness of the contents of the report dated 26.09.2013 of the informant and the reputation of the accused officer laid false trap against accused officer with predetermination; that the sodium carbonate powder was not carried by the trap party members along with them 6CC No 16 of 2016 hence there is not possibility of conducting phenolphthalein test, and consequently the right and left hands of the accused officer as well as the contact portion of the tainted amount yielding positive result.

8.The learned counsel for the accused officer has filed a memo

before this Court on 12.04.2024 reporting no defence side evidence. The

said memo has been recorded by this Court. However, Exs.D1 to D3 are exhibited on the side of the accused officer during the course of cross examination of the informant.

9.Heard the oral arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution and the accused officer.

10.The learned counsel for the accused officer has relied on the following decisions:-

1. P. Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1971 SC 520;

2. N.Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021 (3)

SCC 687;

3. G.V.Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1988 CRI.L.J. 152;

4. Reddy Rammohan Rao Vs. Additional Commissioner of Police,

Hyderabad reported in 2003(2) ALD (Crl.) 362 (AP);

5. Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration) reported in AIR 7CC No 16 of 2016 1979 SC 1408; and

6. Sundar @ Sundarrajan Vs. State by Inspector Police reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 217.

11.Perused the materials available on the record of the case.

12.Now the points for determination are :

1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused officer is a public servant within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether valid sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused officer for the offenses for which charges are framed against him?

2. Whether the informant is having nexus with M/s.Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement, Muthyampalli village?

3. Whether the informant paid due Professional Tax of

M/s.Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement, Muthyampalli village for the period from 2007 to till the year 2013 under Ex.P2, and handed over photostat copy of the challans to the accused officer in his office on 26.09.2013?

4. Whether the accused officer had an occasion to demand gratification other than the legal remuneration from the informant for showing official favour i.e., to not to cause inconvenience to the informant in conducting business of M/s.

Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village?

8CC No 16 of 2016

5. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused officer demanded Rs.4000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from the informant for showing official favour on 26.09.2013 in his office and subsequently on 27.09.2013 the accused officer in pursuance of his earlier demand, consciously accepted Rs.4000/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from the informant in his office, i.e., office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad district?

6. Whether the prosecution has proved charges framed against the accused officer beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt?

7. To what finding or findings?

POINT NO.1

13. The prosecution has alleged that as on 27.09.2013 the accused officer was working as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Luxettipet unit of

Mancherial circle, Adilabad district and by virtue of holding said post the accused officer is a public servant as defined under section 2(c) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This fact is an admitted fact in this case.

14. With regard to section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the case of the prosecution is that prosecution sanction proceedings under Ex.P13 was issued by the then Principal Secretary to the

Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat, 9CC No 16 of 2016

Hyderabad in order to prosecute the accused officer before the Court of law for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

15. In support of the said contention, the prosecution has examined the

Section Officer, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat,

Hyderabad as PW7. Coming to the evidence of PW7, he has deposed that from the month of September, 2019 he has been working as Section

Officer, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and he has been authorized to depose before this Court by the Chief

Secretary to the Government by name Somesh Kumar under Ex.P12. He identifies the signature of the then Principal Secretary to the

Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat,

Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra on Ex.P13. He deposes that the then

Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department,

Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra on verification of the connected documents and after due verification of the file, issued

Ex.P13. During his cross examination PW7 has denied suggestions that he cannot identify the signature of the then Principal Secretary to the

Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat,

Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra on Ex.P13 as he never worked under the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vig.II)

Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra; that ExP13 was issued by the then Principal Secretary to the

Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat, 10CC No 16 of 2016

Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra without application of mind in a mechanical manner similar to the specimen sanction order enclosed to the final report that was sent from the office of the Director General, Anti

Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad.

16. The testimony of PW7 proves that he is conversant with the signature of the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ajay

Mishra, and that Ex.P13 was issued by the then Principal Secretary to the

Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat,

Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra. As seen from the contents of Ex.P13 the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vig.II)

Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra carefully examined the allegations against the accused officer right from the first information report, and after considering the circumstances of the case, he decided to issue Ex.P13.

17. Issuance of the prosecution sanction proceedings is to the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority arrived at on the basis of perusal of the materials placed before it. When on the basis of scrutiny of the materials placed before it the sanctioning authority on due application of mind arrives to the conclusion that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offense/s against the accused public servant therein, it is enough to accord sanction for prosecution against such public servant.

11CC No 16 of 2016

18. Ex.P13 is a speaking order clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions by the then Principal Secretary to the Government,

Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad by name

Ajay Mishra. It is, therefore, a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In State of Madhya

Pradesh Vs. Jiyalal reported in (2009) 15 SCC 72 it is held 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.”

19. PW7 has identified the signature of the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat,

Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra on Ex.P13 as per available records.

Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW7 to show that he is not a competent witness to identify the signature of the then

Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department,

Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra on Ex.P13.

20. In C.B.I./SPE Vs. P. Muthuraman reported in 1996 SCC Online

AP 147 it is held that “ For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, I reach the conclusion that the signature on the 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.” Hence in view of said dictum PW7 is held to be a competent witness to prove the contents of Ex.P13.

12CC No 16 of 2016

21. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is a valid sanction under Ex.P13 issued by the competent sanctioning authority (the then Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vig.II) Department, Telangana Secretariat,

Hyderabad by name Ajay Mishra) to prosecute the accused officer for the charges under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution, and against the accused officer.

POINT NOS. 2 to 5

22. Since these points are interconnected with each other hence this

Court intend to answer them together.

INTRODUCTION OF THE WITNESSES

23. PW1 is the informant. PW2 is the Alternate Nodal Officer of

Vodafone Idea Limited, Hyderabad. PW3 is the Chief Nodal Officer of

Bharati Airtel Limited, Hyderabad. PW4 is the then Commercial Tax

Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad district. PW5 isone of the mediators in whose presence PW8 is said to have conducted pre and post trap proceedings on 27.09.2013. PW6 is a circumstantial witness. PW7 is examined on the side of the prosecution to prove prosecution sanction proceedings under Ex.P13. PW8 is the trap laying officer. PWs.9 to 11 are the successors of PW8 in investigation.

24.The admitted fact s of the case is that one Aili Ramulu S/o Shankar 13CC No 16 of 2016 is the propreitor of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village, Kasipet mandal, Adilabad district, and the said firm is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the accused officer as Deputy

Commercial Tax Officer, Luxettipet unit of Mancherial circle , Adilabad district, and that on 27.09.2013 the accused officer attended his office.

25.PW1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he ran Laxmi

Fertilizers shop at Muthyampalli village from the year 2007 to till 2016, and since he was not aware about payment of commercial tax for his shop hence he did not pay the tax; that on 05.09.2013 while he was present at his house PW6 called him over telephone and informed him that the accused officer had asked him to meet him (the accused officer) at his (PW6) shop and on the same day he went to the shop of PW6 where he met the accused officer, and the accused officer informed him that he did not pay commercial tax for his shop and if failed to pay the same the accused officer would cancel his Taxpayer Identification

Number (TIN); that he stated to the accused officer that he will pay the commercial tax; that the accused officer told him that he had to pay the commercial tax within twenty days by way of challans and the copy of challans have to be handed-over to the accused officer else the accused officer would cancel his Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN); that on 06.09.2013 he paid an amount of Rs.800/- each for the years 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, and that on 25.09.2013, he had paid an amount of

Rs.1200/- each for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 at 14CC No 16 of 2016 the State Bank of Hyderabad, Mancherial branch under Ex.P2; that on 26.09.2013 in the morning hours, he went to the office of the accused officer along with Ex.P2 and met the accused officer and handed-over the same to the accused officer and in turn the accused officer informed him that he had paid commercial tax, and questioned him about the mamool (bribe) amount and demanded him to pay Rs.5,000/- as a bribe and he threatened to cancel his Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) if the bribe amount is not paid; that on his persistent request, the accused officer reduced the demanded bribe amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,000/-; that the accused officer asked him to pay bribe amount on the following day else to cancel his Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN); and that he had agreed to pay Rs.4,000/- to the accused officer on 27.09.2013 at his office.

26.The core defence of the accused officer is that PW1 was not having any licence in his favour for establishment of fertilizer shop by name and style M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village, and he was not the proprietor of the said shop, therefore, the question of the accused officer informing and insisting PW1 on 05.09.2013 at the shop of

PW6 to pay due Professional Tax from the year 2007 to till the year 2013 at the shop of PW6 on 05.09.2013, and PW1 paying due Professional Tax from the year 2007 to till the year 2013 under Ex.P2 and visiting the office of the accused officer on 26.09.2013 in the morning hours and handing over Ex.P2 to the accused officer and at that juncture the 15CC No 16 of 2016 accused officer demanding gratification other than legal remuneration of

Rs.5,000/- in cash from him by threatening him to cancel his Taxpayer

Indentification Number (TIN), and subsequently reducing the said amount to Rs.4,000/- on persistent request of PW1, and fixing of date and place of acceptance of said amount on the following date at his office, does not arise.

27.Ex.P1 is not lodged by PW1 against the accused officer on the premise that he is the propreitor of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village. This fact is also brought on the record of the case by the accused officer during cross-examination of PW5. The version of

PW1 during his cross-examination is that said Aili Ramulu is his elder brother and he (PW1) is running business of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and

Cement at Muthyampalli village. PW4 volunteers during his cross- examination that PW1 is one of the members of the family of Aili Ramulu who is the propreitor of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village.

28. The learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that no documentary evidence is adduced by the prosecution to prove that said

Aili Ramulu is the elder brother of PW1, and said Ramulu is also not examined either during the course of investigation or trial hence the prosecution has failed to establish alleged relationship between the duo.

29.The accused officer do not controvert the version of PW1 during his cross-examination even by way of giving suggestions to the contra that 16CC No 16 of 2016 said Aili Ramulu is not his elder brother and he (PW1) is running business of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village. Ex.P7 is the attested copy of the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) registration file relating to M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village seized by PW8 in the presence of PW5 and co-mediator Vuddanda Naresh

Kumar on 27.09.2013 post its production by PW4 after obtaining its photostat copy. Sheet no.5 of Ex.P7 is the attested copy of the ration card submitted by said Aili Ramulu along with his application for registration under Value Added Tax (VAT). The said attested copy of ration card proves that said Ayili Ramulu is the elder brother of PW1 .

30. PW6 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 05.09.2013 the accused officer came to his shop for collection of commercial tax and told him to pay the same for his fertilizer business and he accordingly paid the said tax and he obtained receipt from the accused officer; that the accused officer told him to call the owner of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Kasipet and then he called PW1, whose phone number was readily available with him, and after receipt phone call from him,

PW1 came to his shop and met the accused officer, and the accused officer told PW1 to pay commercial tax for his shop and PW1 agreed to pay the same within 20 days.

31. PWs.1 and 6 have stated in their examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination that commercial tax/Value Added Tax (VAT) for M/s.

Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village was due for payment. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 and Tax on Professions, Trades, 17CC No 16 of 2016

Callings and Employments Act, 1987 are commercial taxes. Ex.P2 shows that Professional Tax for M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village from the year 2007 to till the year 2013 was paid through challans. Professional Tax means a tax leviable under on

Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1987. The

Commercial Taxes Department is the Nodal Agency that collects the

Professional Tax in the State. Per contra Value Added Tax (VAT) is a form of sales tax. It is collected in stages on transactions involving sales of goods. Tax paid on purchases (input tax) is rebated against tax payable on sales (output tax). Hence Professional Tax and Value Added Tax (VAT) are two distinct commercial taxes. It is not the case of the accused officer that Value Added Tax (VAT), and not Professional Tax for M/s.

Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village for the said period was due, and the same was not paid to till 26.09.2013. Therefore, by relying on Ex.P2 this Court concludes that Professional Tax, and not

Value Added Tax (VAT) for M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village was due for payment for the year 2007 to till the year 2013, and for that reason the same was paid under Ex.P2.

32.A suggestion has been given to PW1 by the accused officer that the accused officer sent an oral information through PW6 to the natural elder brother of PW1 by name Aili Ramulu to pay the Value Added Tax (VAT) in respect of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village for the period 2013, and not to him. The said suggestion given to PW1 itself 18CC No 16 of 2016 discloses that the accused officer also acknowledges that said Aili

Ramulu, the proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village, is the elder brother of PW1. Be that as it may, a contra suggestion has been given to PW6 by the accused officer during his cross-examination that the accused officer never told him to call the proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village.

Thus this Court finds incosistency in the defence set up by the accused officer regarding the identity of the person whom he intended to convey about due Professional Tax in respect of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and

Cement at Muthyampalli village on 05.09.2013.

33.The learned counsel for the accused officer has also argued that admissions made by PW5 that since PW1 is not the proprietor of M/s.

Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village as such the question of the accused officer ever approaching PW1 at M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village for the collection of

Professional Tax and Value Added Tax (VAT) from PW1 and likewise the accused officer insisting for payment of said tax to PW1 also does not arise, lends credence to the defence of the accused officer that the accused officer had no occassion to inform and insist PW1 to pay due tax of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village.

34. It is nobody's case that the accused officer came to M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village on 05.09.2013. According to the prosecution the accused officer came to the shop of PW6 on the 19CC No 16 of 2016 said date. PW5 was not present in the shop of PW6 on 05.09.2013 hence he is not an eye witness to the events that occured in the shop of PW6 on the said date. PW5 has made said admission on the basis of probability.

On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 about visit to the shop of PW6 on 05.09.2013 after receipt of telephone call from PW6 on the said date at the behest of the accused officer, conversation between him (PW1) and the accused officer, and the accused officer informing him to pay due Professional Tax in respect of M/s.Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village, is corroborated with the statement on oath of PW6 in all material particulars. The evidence of PW1 coupled with evidence of

PW6 proves that on 05.09.2013 at the shop of PW6 the accused officer informed PW1 that Professional Tax for M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village was due for payment, and required him to pay the same.

35.The learned counsel for the accused officer has further argued that

PW1 was not eligible to pay due Professional Tax under Ex.P2 as he was not proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village, and no official favour of PW1 was pending before the office of the accused officer, and this fact is proved from the admissions made by

PWs.4, 6 and 9. In this regard the learned counsel for the accused officer has drawn attention of this Court towards the admission made by PW4 during his cross-examination that Value Added Tax (VAT) can only be paid by owner concerned of the respective business, by PW6 that the person 20CC No 16 of 2016 who is not having licence cannot pay commercial tax in respect of fertilizer shop, and PW9 that since PW1 was not having any such licence for running fertilizer shop he would have no work in the office of the accused officer.

36.As discussed in the foregoing paragraph that Professional Tax and

Value Added Tax (VAT) are two separate commercial taxes. There is no evidence of PW4 that a non-proprietor of a fertilizer shop cannot pay due

Professional Tax on behalf of the proprietory firm. PW6 volunteers during his cross-examination that in absence of the licence holder, the person available in the fertilizer shop can pay commercial tax for the said shop.

The said version of PW6 is not disputed by the accused officer during his cross-examination. Therefore, the said admissions of PWs.4 and 6 do not probabilise ineligibility of PW1 to pay due Prosessional Tax for M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village on behalf of the said proprietory firm.

37.PW1 is the younger brother of the proprietor of M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village. The version of PW1 that he was running business of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village has remained un- con troverted during his cross- examination . In Indian society it is not unnatural for a younger brother to manage day to day business of the proprietary firm of his elder brother on behalf of the elder brother. The conduct of the accused officer on 05.09.2013 in the shop of PW6 in intimating PW1 about due Profession al 21CC No 16 of 2016

Tax for M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village and insisting PW1 to pay the same within stipulated time evident s involvement of PW1 in conducting day to day business of M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village else there was no reason

for the accused offcer to so inform and insist PW1.

38.The statement on oath of PW1 in his examination-in-chief that the accused officer told him to pay the commercial tax within twenty days by way of challan s and to hand-over the copy of challans to the accused officer else the accused officer will cancel his Taxpayer Identification

Number ( TIN ), and on 06.09 - 2013 he paid an amount of Rs.800/- each for the year 2010-2011 and 2012-2013, and that on 25.09.2013 he had paid an amount of Rs.1,200/- each for the year 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 at the State Bank of Hyderabad, Mancherial branch under

Ex.P2, and on 26.09.2013 in the morning hours he went to the office of the accused officer along with photostat copy of challans and met the accused officer and handed-over the same to the accused officer, is not at all questioned, specifically or by necessary implication, by the accused officer during his cross-examination. Payment of due Professional Tax by

PW1 for M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village by way of challans and handing over Ex.P2 to the accused officer as per his instructions afforded a reason to PW1 to meet the accused officer on 26.09.2013 at his office.

39.As per the contents of Ex.P15 when PW8 asked the accused officer 22CC No 16 of 2016 to produce connected file of PW1 the accused officer produced Exs.P2 and P10, and the same were seized under the attestation of PW5 and the co-mediator Vuddanda Naresh Kumar. The said contents of Ex.P15 regarding seizure of Ex.P2 at the instance of the accused officer is corroborated with the testimonies of PWs.5 and 8. There is also no denial of the testimonies of PWs.5 and 8 by the accused officer regarding seizure of Ex.P2 post its production by him o n 27.09.2013. Hence it is held that Ex.P2 was seized at the instance of the accused officer.

40.The accused officer has special knowledge about the circumstance under which Ex.P2 came into his possession. When the prosecution by examining PW1 has discharged the initial burden that PW1 handed over

Ex.P2 to the accused officer on 26.09.2013, the burden, according to section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, shifts on the accused officer to explain the circumstance under which Ex.P2 came into his possession. It is not the case of the accused officer that he received

Ex.P2 from said Aili Ramulu. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the side of the accused officer as to how E x.P2 came into his possession thereby creating an additional chain of event strengthening case of the prosecution.

41.The due Professional Tax under Ex.P2 was paid in the name of M/s.

Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village by PW1, and not in his name. PW8 states in his cross-examination by the accused officer that one has to pay tax only if he has Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).

23CC No 16 of 2016

Thus the liability of PW1 to pay Profession Tax in his name arises only when he Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) in his name. Admittedly

PW1 is not having Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) in his name hence he is not eligible to pay the same in his name. But he is not precluded from paying the same for M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village.

42.The circumstance of the case unerringly points that PW1 was conducting business of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village located in the limits of territorial jurisdiction of the accused officer hence for that reason PW1 was intimated and insisted upon by the accused officer to pay due Professional Tax for M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village, and accordingly PW1 paid due tax for M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village from the year 2007 to till the year 2013 under Ex.P2 as there was no bar for PW1 to pay due Professional Tax, and on 26.09.2013 PW1 handed over Ex.P2 to the accused officer at his office.

43.The dominant position of the accused officer as Deputy Commercial

Tax Officer, Luxettipet unit of Mancherial circle vis-a-vis PW1 who is conducting business of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village within the limits if territorial jurisdiction of the accused officer ; default in payment of Profession al Tax by M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village for several years; the conduct of the accused officer in obliging PW1 by not taking any coercive 24CC No 16 of 2016 action against M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village for committing such default; and presence of PW1 in the office of the accused officer on 26.09.2013 along with Ex.P2 as incharge of business of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village are the factors that provided an occassion to the accused officer to demand gratification other than legal remuneration from PW1 on 26.09.2013 for showing official favour.

44. Accordingly in view of foregoing appreciation of evidence and circumstances of the case this Court concludes that absence of licence in his name by PW1 for establishment of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village will not belie the evidence of PW1 regarding motive on the part of the accused officer for demanding gratification other than legal remuneration from PW1 on 26.09.2013 when he met the accused officer at his office on the said date for handing over Ex.P2.

ACCEPTANCE OF GRATIFICATION OTHER THAN LEGAL

GRATIFICATION ON 27.09.2013

45. PW1 has further testified in his examination-in-chief that he left the company of the trap party at about 12:55 pm and he proceeded towards the office of the accused officer and he went to the first floor of office of the accused officer and entered into the chamber of the accused officer at 12:58 pm, and the accused officer enquired with him about bringing the demanded bribe amount and on his affirmative reply the accused officer asked him to give the bribe amount on that he picked-out the 25CC No 16 of 2016 amount from the left side pocket of his wearing pant and handed-over to the accused officer and the accused officer accepted the same with his left hand and assured him that his Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) would not be canceled, and permitted him to do his business.

46.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases,

Karimnagar has argued that evidence of PW1 coupled with the testimonies of PWs.2 and 3 and the contents of Exs.P4 and P6 prove that on 27.09.2013 the accused officer made telephone calls from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of PW1, and said conduct of the accused officer lends credence to the case of the prosecution regarding further demand of gratification other than legal remunerartion by the accused offcier on the date of trap.

47.Per contra the learned counsel for the accused officer has argued that according to the evidence of PW2, PW1 is not the registered subscriber of the mobile phone number on which the accused officer allegedly made telephone call to PW1, and the evidence of PW3 falls short of proving that the accused officer was the registered subscriber of the mobile phone number from which the accused officer allegedly made telephone call to PW1, and no certificates under section 65-B of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are enclosed to Exs.P4 and P6 hence they are inadmissibe in evidence, and the prosecution has failed to prove making of alleged telephone calls by the accused officer to PW1 on 27.09.2013.

48.The evidence of PW1 in his examination-in-chief is that on 26CC No 16 of 2016 27.09.2013 at 11:02 am and also after proceeding from Room No.122,

Sai Leela Residency, Godavarikhani to go to the office of the accused officer, the accused officer made telephone calls to him and enquired about his whereabouts. To prove making of said telephone calls by the accused officer to PW1 the prosecution has examined PWs.2 and 3, and got exhibited Exs.P4 and P6 through them.

49.According to Exs.P4 and P6 outgoing calls were made from mobile number 9000206585 to mobile number 9885303694 on 27.09.2013 at 11:02 hours and 12:50 hours for duration of 12 seconds and 16 seconds respectively. As per Ex.P3 one D. Kalavathi is the registered subscriber of mobile number 9885303694. PW1 is not the registered subscriber of mobile number 9885303694. The contents of Ex.P6 shows that mobile number 9000206585 is registered in the name of Government of Andhra

Pradesh, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Block no.2, Pattbhi Complex,

Landmark : Opp. MGM Hospital, Warrangal-506001. PW3 during his cross- examination has expressed his inability to say that the accused officer is the registered subscriber of mobile number 9000206585. The prosecution did not examine any witness to prove nexus between mobile number 9000206585 and the accused officer. There is also no evidence of PW1 about the circumstances under which he was allegedly using mobile number 9885303694 of one D. Kalavathi.

50.Be that as it may, PW9 admits during his cross-examination that the certificates under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are 27CC No 16 of 2016 not enclosed to Exs.P4 and P6. In Sundar @ Sundarrajan supra it is held that for admitting any electronic records by way of secondary evidence such as call data records, certificate under section 65-B of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 is mandatory. Since no such certificates are enclosed to Exs.P4 and P6 and there is no other route under the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 for their admission in evidence hence Exs.P4 and P6 are discarded from consideration.

51.Now the question that arises for consideration is whether failure on the part of the prosecution in proving that the accused officer made two telephone calls to PW1 would belie evidence of PW1 regarding conscious acceptance of MO.1 by the accused officer from PW1 at his office on 27.09.2013 in reiteration of his earlier demand of gratification other than legal remuneration?

52.Except giving suggestions to PW1 that on 27.09.2013 he did not approach the office of the accused officer and did not offer to pay the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- to the accused officer, and the accused officer refused the same and the accused officer resisted the same with his both the hands and he kept the said bribe amount on the office table of the accused officer, and thereafter he went out of the office of the accused officer and relayed pre-arranged signal, that have been categorically denied by PW1, nothing has been elicited to believe the defence of thrust theory put forth by the accused officer. Suggestions by itself is not evidence until admitted by the witness competent to so testify.

28CC No 16 of 2016

53.There is no evidence of PW1 that he saw the accused officer keeping the tainted amount after voluntarily accepting the same on his office table hence question of PW1 informing the trap party members immediately after relaying pre-arranged signal about the location of the tainted amount does not arise . Curiously t he testimonies of PWs. 5 and 8 regarding discovery of MO.1 from the office table of the accused officer on 27.09.2013 at the instance of the accused officer immediately after making confessional statement by h im has not been disputed during the course of their cross-examination by the accused officer, and the same is a relevant fact under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . Even the accused officer during cross- examination of PW5 by way of giving a suggestion has brought on the record of the case that MO.1 was seized from the office table as pointed out by the accused officer.

54.The evidence of PWs.5 and 8 also disclose that when compared the number and denomination of the currency notes handed over to PW1 during pre trap proceedings and noted in Ex.P11 for giving to the accused officer on his further demand of bribe tallied with the currency notes discovered at the instance of the accused officer. This fact coupled with positive result of phenolphthalein test conducted on right and left hands of the accused officer lends credence to the case of the prosecution about handling of MO.1 by the accused officer with his both the hands in his office.

55. Exs.P4 and P6 are corroborative evidence. The direct as well as 29CC No 16 of 2016 circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution proves that the accused officer consciously accepted MO.1 in reiteration of his earlier demand of gratification other than legal remuneration from PW1 on 27.09.2013 at his office. Therefore, failure on the part of prosecution in proving making of alleged telephone calls by the accused officer to PW1 would not belie evidence of PW1 regarding further demand of gratification other than legal remuneration by the accused officer, and conscious acceptance of MO.1 by the accused officer from PW1 on the said date and place, that is otherwise found to be proved, in view of the dictum of the hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ugar Ahir Vs. State of

Bihar reported in AIR 1965 SC 277 wherein at par 7 it is held that “ The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest.”

56.The learned counsel for the accused officer has assailed the veracity of the testimony of PW5 by arguing that he is a stock witness of

Anti Corruption Bureau. The basis for said argument is admission of PW5 30CC No 16 of 2016 during his cross-examination that he acted as a mediator in another case pertaining to Anti Corruption Bureau prior to this case.

57.Merely because prior to the instant case PW5 acted as a panch witness in another case, it does not make him a stock witness. Unless

PW5 acted as a panch witness in numerous trap cases, and it is shown to this Court by leading evidence that in some other case he stood discredited and his testimony was not believed by the Court the testimony of PW5 could not be rejected by branding him as a stock witness. It is well-known that the general public does not like to get involved, as a witness in such like trap cases. Therefore, Government officers who enjoy security of service and status are assigned the duty to act as independent panch witnesses. PW5 is under no compulsion to depose in favour of the prosecution, and is free to depose according to his conscious with regard to the facts witnessed by him.

58.The learned counsel for the accused officer has further argued that absence of any mention in Ex.P11 that PW8 carried sodium carbonate powder to the office of the accused officer from his office it cannot be believed that phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the hand fingers of the accused officer, and the said test yielded positive result.

PW5 admits during the course of his cross-examination that there is no mention in Ex.P11 that the trap party members carried sodium carbonate powder to the place of trap on the date of trap. Similarly PW8 also admits during his cross-examination that there is no mention in Ex.P11 that he 31CC No 16 of 2016 carried sodium carbonate powder along with him.

59.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases,

Karimnagar has argued that there is also no mention in Ex.P11 that the trap party members had carried green, red and blue color pens or laptop with them, however, Ex.P12 is signed by the trap party members in green and blue color and the same is typed on the laptop, and Ex.P14 is drawn in blue and red color, and absence of any mention of all articles carried by the trap party members in Ex.P11 is not conclusive proof of the fact that the articles not noted therein were not carried from the office of PW8 to the office of the accused officer.

60.The accused officer do not object that in absence of any recital in

Ex.P11 about carrying green, red and blue color pens or laptop by the trap party members how come they signed on Ex.P12 or Ex.P12 was typed or Ex.P14 was drawn. Thus it follows that Ex.P11 is not an encyclopedia so that it should record every minute events that occurred the pre trap proceedings. Hence this Court do not find any force in said argument put forth on behalf of the accused officer to disbelieve evidence of PWs.5 and 8 about subjecting both the hands of the accused officer to the phenolphthalein test in his office on 27.09.2013.

61.The learned counsel for the accused officer has also argued that the claim made by PW8 during the cross-examination that he conducted discreet enquiry about existence of licence in the name of PW1 for running fertilizer shop by visiting Muthyampalli village and the office of 32CC No 16 of 2016 the Commercial Tax Officer, Mancherial is not true as had he did so he would have known that PW1 is not having any licence in his name to run

M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village, and he would have not laid trap against the accused officer, and the admissions made by PW8 during his cross-examination leaves no iota of doubt to conclude that he violated the procedure prescribed in the Anti Corruption Bureau

Manual, commenced investigation without issuing first information report, and laid false trap against the accused officer with preconceived notion.

62. In Reddy Rammohan Rao supra it is held that initiating investigation without registering first information report is contrary to law and illegal.

63. The admissions made by PW8 referred to by the learned counsel

for the accused officer during the arguments are as under :

1.there is no mention in the endorsement on Ex.P1 that I myself conducted discreet enquiry about the reputation of the accused officer and also the genuineness of the contents of Ex.P1;

2.there is no mention in the endorsement in Ex.P1 that I personally visited Muthyampalli village and Commercial Tax Office,

Mancherial;

3.that for about (30) minutes PW1 was present at my office on 26.09.2013 and on the said date itself I instructed PW1 to come to Room 33CC No 16 of 2016

No. 122 of Sai Leela Residency, Godavarikhani along with the proposed bribe amount at 10:30 A.M. on the following day;

4.on the same evening of 26.09.2013, I secured the presence of PW5 and LW7 for the following day through Assistant Director, Animal

Husbandry Department, Karimnagar, and I did not register crime under

Ex.P16 on 26.09.2013 till I secured the presence of PW5 and LW7 on the next day through giving requisition and I gave instructions to PW1 to come at the particular place at the particular time along with the proposed bribe amount; and

5.it is true that by the time PW1 was present at my office and by the time I secured the presence of PW5 and LW7 through giving requisition, I did not have sufficient time to conduct discreet enquiry about the reputation of AO and genuineness of the contents of Ex.P1.

64.It is pertinent to note that there is no evidence of PW8 that his enquiry revealed that PW1 is having licence for establishement of M/s.

Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village in his own name.

Had he said so the same would have considerably shattered veracity of testimony of PW8 about holding discreent enquiry. The conduct of PW8 in asking PW1 to attend in the said hotel on the following day along with the proposed bribe amount as well as taking steps to secure mediators

before issuing Ex.P16 cannot be termed as initiation of investigation but

the same is part and parcel of enquiry as the same do not tantamount to collection of evidence.

34CC No 16 of 2016

65.In the context of offenses relating to corruption, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in P. Sirajuddin supra expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants.

66.In Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry inter alia in corruption cases is not mandatory when the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offense and even when it is conducted, the scope of a preliminary enquiry is not to ascertain the veracity of the information, but only whether it reveals the commission of a cognizable offense, and the need for said will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As an illustration it was held that corruption cases fall in that category of cases where a preliminary enquiry may be made. The use of the expression may goes to emphasize that holding a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory. Dwelling on the Central Bureau of Investigation Manual, was held that : (i) it is not a statute enacted by the legislature; and (ii) it is a compendium of administrative orders for the internal guidance of the

Central Bureau of Investigation officers and the same cannot supersede the Criminal Procedure Code.

67.Rules 78 and 79 Chapter VII of the Anti Corruption Bureau Manual also contemplates conducting of discreet/preliminary enquiries and obtaining of permission from the Director, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Hyderabad prior to laying trap by the investigating officer. In the light of 35CC No 16 of 2016 the above dictum of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the Criminal

Procedure Code itself, the said provisions of the Anti Corruption Bureau

Manual cannot be relied upon to import the concept of holding of discreet preliminary inquiry in the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code and consequently for holding that holding discreet/preliminary enquiry in each and every trap case by the Anti Corruption Bureau is mandatory.

The contents of Ex.P1 on its face disclose commission of cognizable offense of demand of bribe by the accused officer. PW8 has categorically deposed during his cross-examination that he perused the contents of

Ex.P1. The Anti Corruption Bureau manual is for internal guidance of the

Anti Corruption Bureau personnel and any deviation from its provisions would entail disciplinary action against the erring personnel but the same would not render fatal the case of the prosecution.

68.Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion this Court rules that conduct of PW8 in instructing PW1 to to come to Room No. 122 of Sai

Leela Residency, Godavarikhani along with the proposed bribe amount at 10:30 am on the following day, and taking steps for securing the presence of mediators in advance prior to issuing Ex.P16 do not reflect predetermination on the part of PW8 to lay trap as argued on behalf of the accused officer when Ex.P1 contents on its face reveal that accused officer demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- from PW1 and subsequent reduced the same to Rs.4,000/- for showing official favour.

36CC No 16 of 2016

69.In G. V. Nanjundiah supra it is held that demand of gratification other than legal remuneration is the foundation of the case of the prosecution. In Surajmal supra and N. Vijay Kumar supra it is held that in case of bribery mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused public servants when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable.

70.Now coming to the case at hand, the prosecution has proved following facts:

I.that Professional Tax of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village was due to be paid as on 05.09.2013 from the year 2007 to till the year 2013;

II.eligibility of PW1 to pay due Professional Tax of M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village;

III.securing presence of PW1 at the shop of PW6 by the accused offcier through PW6 and informing and insisting him to pay due

Professional Tax of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village within a stipulated period, and to hand over copy of challan to him;

IV.payment of due Professional Tax of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and

Cement at Muthyampalli village by PW1 under Ex.P2;

V.visit of PW1 to the office of the accused officer on 26.09.2013 37CC No 16 of 2016 and handing over Ex.P2 to the accused officer;

VI.demand of gratification other than legal remuneration of

Rs.5,000/- by the accused officer for showing official favour from PW1 on 26.09.2013, and subsequently reducing the same to Rs.4,000/- under threat to cancel Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of M/s. Laxmi

Fertilizers and Cement at Muthyampalli village;

VII.competence of the accused officer to cause inconvenience to

PW1 in conducting business of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement at

Muthyampalli village as jurisdictional Deputy Commercial Tax Officer;

VIII.conscious acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration of Rs.4,000/- by the accused officer from PW1 in his office on 27.09.2013 pursuant to his earlier demand; and

IX.seizure of Ex.P2 and MO.1 by PW8 at the instance of the accused officer under Ex.P15.

71. These facts proved through substantive evidence adduced by the prosecution evident motive on the part of the accused officer for accepting MO.1 from PW1 on 27.09.2013 in his office. The prosecution thus is not solely relying upon seizure of MO.1 at the instance of the accused officer to prove the charge under section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, in the light of the dictum of the

Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neeraj Dutta

Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2022) 3 Supreme 38CC No 16 of 2016 (SC) 1248 there arises a presumption under section 20 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in this case in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer in respect of an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

72. Since the accused officer could not probabilise the defence of thrust theory set up by him, therefore, the accused officer is held to have failed to dispelled the presumption under section 20 of the of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The act of the accused officer in consciously accepting MO.1 laced with phenolphthalein powder from

PW1 would not only establish the essential ingredients of section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 but further establish criminal misconduct on his part in view of section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The accused officer by virtue of his demand obtained a pecuniary advantage from PW1 for showing official favour. Accordingly this Court concludes that the prosecution has proved both the charges under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused officer beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. These points are answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

POINT NOS.6 & 7:

73.In the light of the findings of this Court in points no.1 to 5 the accused officer is found guilty of commission of offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 39CC No 16 of 2016

Act, 1988, and he is convicted for the said offenses under section 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. These points are answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution and against the accused officer.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer-II, transcribed by him, and partly typed by me on my official laptop, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of November, 2024.

Special Judge

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar

74.The accused officer is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence that may be imposed on him for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Heard the accused officer on the quantum of the sentence. The accused officer has stated that he is reporting no evidence with respect to quantum of sentence that may be imposed on him by this Court. The accused officer has further stated that he is 67 year old and suffering with diabetes, and he underwent spinal cord surgery; that he is having two unmarried sons, and a daughter; that his wife is also suffering with old age related ailments; and that the members of his family are depending upon him for eking their livelihood, and on these grounds prayed this Court to take lenient view in sentencing him.

75.The accused officer is found guilty for committing offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. The said offenses are socio-economic offenses and are grave in nature and as such benefit of the provisions of Section 360 40CC No 16 of 2016 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the accused officer is not extended.

76.Considering the nature of offenses proved against the accused officer and his plea for taking lenient view in sentencing him this Court feels that ends of justice would meet on imposition of the sentence on the accused officer to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and in default in payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offense punishable under section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and to further undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment in fine to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offense punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed on the accused officer is Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only under two counts). Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused officer shall run concurrently.

In the result the accused officer is found guilty for commission of offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is convicted for the said offenses under section 248(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and in default 41CC No 16 of 2016 of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offense punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, and to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offense punishable under section 13(1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Total fine amount imposed on the accused officer is Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only under two counts). Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed on the accused officer shall run concurrently.

The accused officer is entitled for set off for the period of detention undergone by him during the course of investigation from 28.09.2013 to 23.10.2013 under section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The accused officer is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this Court before the Hon'ble High Court for the State of

Telangana.

M.O.1 comprising of fifteen currency notes of Rs.100/-, and five demonetized currency notes of Rs.500/-, and said fifteen currency notes of Rs.100/- is ordered to be returned to PW1 after the appeal time is over whereas remaining five demonetized Rs.500/- currency notes is ordered to be returned to PW1 subject to their exchange by the Reserve

Bank of India after the appeal time is over, and the rest of the material objects i.e., MOs. 2 to 7 are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal 42CC No 16 of 2016 time is over.

The accused officer is given copy of this judgment free of cost immediately after the pronouncement of the judgment as per section 363 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer-II, transcribed by him, and partly typed by me on my official laptop, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of November, 2024.

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

P.W.1 Aili Surender P.W.2 P. Jayalakshmi P.W.3 V. Venkata Narayana P.W.4 G. Bala Murali Krishna P.W.5 K. Devanand Samba Rao P.W.6 K. Venkatesham P.W.7 K. Rajanikanth P.W.8 T. Sudharshan P.W.9 Ch. Venugopal P.W.10 V. V. Ramanamurthy P.W.11 B. Mohan

FOR THE DEFENCE

- NIL- 43CC No 16 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1Original report dated 26-09-2013 Ex.P.2Attested copy of challans Ex.P.3Authorization letter issued by General Manager,Corporate Affairs, Regulatory and Nodal Operations, Vodafone Idea Limited, AP, Telangana and Karnataka dated 13-01-2022 Ex.P.4Subscriber address details and call data records of mobile number 9885303694 dated 04.12.2013

Ex.P.5Authorization letter issued by Head-Human Resources, Bharti Airtel Limited, AP and TS Circle dated 01-07-2022 Ex.P.6Subscriber address details and call data records of mobile number 9000206585 dated 28-01-2014 Ex.P.7Attested copy of connected file of M/s. Laxmi Fertilizers and Cement, Muthyampalli Ex.P.8Attested copy of attendance register Ex.P.9Attested copy of register for VAT Dealers for the year 2012-13 of Luxettipet unit Ex.P.10Dealer returns register and dealer tax ledger Ex.P.11Mediator Report-I dated 27.09.2013 Ex.P.12Authorization letter issued by Chief Secretary to Government, Telangana dated 12-11-2022 Ex.P.13Prosecution Sanction proceedings dated 01-07-2015 Ex.P.14Rough Sketch dated 27.09.2013 Ex.P.15Mediator Report-II dated 27.09.2013 Ex.P.16First Information Report dated 27.09.2013 Ex.P.17Attested copy of report dated 26.09.2013

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D.1Copy of certificate of registration dated 01-04-2007 Ex.D.2Attested copy of license dated 15-05-2007 Ex.D.3Attested copy of Pre-visit report dated 16-09-2007 44CC No 16 of 2016

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

MO1Tainted amount of Rs.4,000/-

MO2One sealed cover containing residue phenolphthalein powder used during pre-trap proceedings.

MO3One sealed cover containing residue sodium carbonate powder used during pre-trap proceedings

MO4 One sealed cover containing residue sodium carbonate powder used during pre-trap proceedings

MO5One sealed bottle containing right hand rinse of the accused officer

MO6One sealed bottle containing left hand rinse of the accused officer

MO7One sealed bottle containing resultant solution of contact portion of tainted amount 1

FOR THE DEFENCE

- NIL-

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB Cases,

Karimnagar.

1C.C. No 91/2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF SPE AND

ACB CASES, KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: KUMAR VIVEK, District & Sessions Judge,

FRIDAY, 30th day of August, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO.91 OF 2015

BETWEEN

The State through the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar. ….Complainant

&

1.Mamindla Balaraju, S/o. Sathaiah, Age: 58 years, Executive Officer, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu village, Mallial mandal, Karimnagar district.

2.Javvaji Manohar, S/o.Ratnaiah, Age: 48 years, Typist, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu village, Mallial mandal, Karimnagar district.

...Accused officer nos.1 and 2

This calendar case has come before me on 27.08.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Kishore Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar for the complainant, and S.Chandrahas Rao and Sri V.Parshaiah, Advocates for the accused officer no.1, and Sri S.Sareen Kumar, Advocate for the accused officer no.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:

:: JUDGMENT::

1.The Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar has filed charge sheet in Cr.no.09/ACB-KNR/2011 against the accused officer nos.1 and 2 to punish them as per law for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code with the following 2C.C. No 91/2015 allegations:

That the accused officer no.1 worked as Executive Officer, Sri

Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu for the period from 30.05.2007 to till 25.06.2011, and the accused officer no.2 worked as

Typist in Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu for the period from 02.07.2007 to till 25.06.2011, and they are public servants as defined under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; that the informant is the President of Yuva Mithra Youth Association and on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi held from 25.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 about 125 labours of Yuva Mithra Youth Association on daily wage of Rs.250/- were engaged by Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam,

Kondagattu for carrying out sanitation work and in that connection a cheque for Rs.1,86,000/- towards wages had to be issued; that the accused officer nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.18,000/- as a bribe to process the bill and hand over said cheque and they did not relent in spite of expression of economic inability by the informant and others to give

Rs.18,000/- as a bribe to them; that on 23.06.2011 at 9.30 am the informant along with one Bathini Srinivas, Sarpanch, Muthyampet village,

Mallial mandal met the accused officer no.1 and requested him to issue the cheque but the accused officer no.1 along with the accused officer no.2 demanded Rs.18,000/- as a bribe for handing over the cheque; that on their repeated request the accused officer nos.1 and 2 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.15,000/- with instruction to arrange on 25.06.2011; 3C.C. No 91/2015 that as the informant was reluctant to give Rs.15,000/- as bribe to the accused officer nos.1 and 2 as such he approached the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar and lodged a report dated 23.06.2011 against the accused officer nos.1 and 2; that on 25.06.2011 between 10.35 am and 11:00 am near the Annadana Sathram, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam,

Kondagattu, the accused officer nos.1 and 2 were trapped by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar when they further demanded and accepted Rs.15,000/- as a bribe from the informant for processing the bill and handing over cheque for Rs.1,86,000/-; that the phenolphthalein test conducted on both the hands of the accused officer no.2 yielded positive result and the tainted amount of Rs.15,000/- was seized by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar when the same was produced by the accused officer no.2 from the right side back pocket of his wearing pant; that when the contact portion of the tainted amount inside the right side back pocket of the wearing pant of the accused officer no.2 was subjected to phenolphthalein test, the same also yielded positive result; that the accused officer nos.1 and 2 were arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar on 25.06.2011 at 5:00 pm and they were produced before the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB

Cases, Hyderabad on 26.06.2011; that the accused officer nos.1 and 2 4C.C. No 91/2015 were granted bail and they were released from the Central Prison,

Cherlapalli, Hyderabad on 05.07.2011 at 7.30 pm; that accused officer no.1 had retired from service on 30.06.2011 as such no sanction is required for his prosecution before this Court of law for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code; that the Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) Department, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad is the competent authority to remove the accused officer no.2 from service and the said Secretary to the Government accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused officer no.2 for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of law vide G.O.Ms.No.122 dated 21.03.2014, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad; and that the trap amount of Rs.15,000/- was reimbursed to the informant through cheque no.282019, dated 28.01.2012 vide Memorandum no.1/B1/Trap-

Reim/2012 dated 28.01.2012 of the Director, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, hence the chargesheet.

2.The learned II-Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB cases,

Hyderabad has taken cognizance of the chargesheet against the accused officer nos.1 and 2 for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and assigned CC no.25 of 2014 to the present case.

5C.C. No 91/2015

3.After appearance of the accused officer nos.1 and 2 the copy of the case documents filed along with chargesheet are furnished to the accused officer nos.1 and 2 according to section 207 of the Criminal

Procedure Code by the learned II-Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE & ACB cases, Hyderabad.

4.Subsequently as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad bearing ROC.no.240/2010-DII(BLDGS) dated 21.04.2015, CC no.25 of 2014 was transferred to this Court, and the same is numbered as CC no. 91 of 2015.

5.Upon hearing the prosecution as well as the accused officer nos.1 and 2 and upon considering the entire materials available on the record, this Court prima facie found that the accused officer nos.1 and 2 have committed offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and accordingly charges under the said sections of law are framed against the accused officer nos.1 and 2 and the same are read over and explained to the accused officer nos.1 and 2 in the Telugu language to which they denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

6.In support of its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P21 and MOs.1 to 8.

7.After the closure of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the 6C.C. No 91/2015 accused officer nos. 1 and 2 are examined under section 313 of the

Criminal Procedure Code and whilst such examination the accused officer nos.1 and 2 denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution against them, and reported defence side evidence. On 29.05.2024 a joint memo is filed by the learned counsels for the accused officer nos.1 and 2 reporting no defence side evidence. However, Ex.D1 is exhibited on the side of the accused officer no.1 during the course of cross examination of

PW4.

8.The accused officer nos.1 and 2 have filed separate written statements denying the allegations of the prosecution against them besides submitting that no official favour of the informant regarding processing of bill and handing over of cheque for Rs.1,86,000/- was pending before them at any point of time, and without conducting preliminary enquiry Ex.P20 was issued against them by the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Karimnagar Range,

Karimnagar, and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case on account of grudge of said Bathini Srinivas, Sarpanch,

Muthyampet village of Mallial mandal against the accused officer no.1 against whom the accused officer no.1 lodged a report regarding encroachment of the land of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam,

Kondagattu on the basis of which a case in Cr. No.197/2009 on 21.12.2009 under sections 506, 447 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code 7C.C. No 91/2015 was registered before Mallial police station in which he was remanded to judicial custody.

9.Heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution and the accused officer nos.1 and 2. Separate written arguments are also filed on behalf of the accused officer nos.1 and 2.

10.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases,

Karimnagar has filed the following decisions rendered by Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India between Syed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2012 SC 3359 and Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs.

State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2001 SC 147; and the Hon’ble

Andhra Pradesh High Court between Tadikalapudi Sesha Rama

Sankhar Kumar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2015 (2)

ALT (Cri) 81.

11.The learned counsel for the accused officer no.1 by way of filing separate memo of citations reported to rely on the judgments of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India between P. Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1971 SC 520, Hari Dev Sharma Vs. State (Delhi

Administration) reported in AIR 1976 SC 1489, V. Venkata

Subbarao Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Andhra

Pradesh reported in 2007 CRLJ 754, and Mukktiar Singh (since deceased) through his LR Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2017 (3)

SCC (Cri) 607; of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court between 8C.C. No 91/2015

Kalukuri Lingaiah Vs. State reported in 2001 (2) ALD(Cri) 779;and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court between Ashok Kumar Bhagchand

Wardhani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2003 ALD (Crl.) 33 (NOC) (Bom).

12.The learned counsel for the accused officer no.2 by way of filing separate memo of citations reported to rely on the judgments of Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India between P. Sirajuddin Vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1971 SC 520; T.Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil

Nadu reported in 2006 (1) SCC (Cri) 401, and Subash Parbat

Sonyane Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2002 CrLJ 2787; and of the

Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court between K. Narasimha Chary Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 CrLJ 3315.

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 officer nos.1 and 2 are public servants within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether valid sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused officer no.2 for the offenses for which charges are framed against him?

2. Whether official favour of the informant of processing the bill and handing over a cheque for Rs.1,86,000/- towards 9C.C. No 91/2015 wages for sanitation work done by the members of Yuva

Mithra Youth Association was pending for discharge before the office of the accused officer no.1 to till 25.06.2011?

3. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused officer nos.1 and 2 initially demanded Rs.18,000/- as a bribe from the informant for doing official favour, later reduced the same to Rs.15,000/- on 23.06.2011 on intervention of PW2, and subsequently on 25.06.2011 in pursuance of their earlier demand of Rs.15,000/- as bribe from the informant, the accused officer no.2 voluntarily accepted Rs.15,000/- as bribe from the informant on the instruction of the accused officer no.1 near the Annadana Sathram, Sri Anjaneya

Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu?

4. Whether the prosecution has proved charges framed against the accused officer nos.1 and 2 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt?

5. To what finding or findings?

POINT NO.1

15.The prosecution has alleged that as on 25.06.2011 the accused officer no.1 was working as an Executive Officer, Sri Anjaneya Swamy

Devasthanam, Kondagattu since 30.05.2007, and the accused officer no.2 was working as a Typist, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, 10C.C. No 91/2015

Kondagattu since 02.07.2007, and by virtue of holding said posts respectively by the accused officer nos.1 and 2, they are public servants as defined under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

This fact is an admitted fact in this case.

16. With regard to section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the case of the prosecution is that prosecution sanction proceedings under Ex.P19 was issued by the then Secretary to the Government,

Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in order to prosecute the accused officer no.2 before the Court of law for the offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

17. In support of the said contention, the prosecution has examined the

Section Officer, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Telangana,

Hyderabad as PW9. Coming to the evidence of PW9, he has deposed that from the year 2016 he has been working as Section Officer,

Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Telangana, Hyderabad, and he has been authorized under Ex.P18 to depose before this Court by the Chief

Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department,

Telangana, Hyderabad. He identifies the signature of the then Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar Rao on Ex.P19. He deposes that the then Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance

IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar 11C.C. No 91/2015

Rao on verification of the connected documents and on due verification of the file, issued Ex.P19. During his cross examination PW7 denies suggestions that he cannot identify signature of the then Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar Rao since he did not work under the then Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar Rao, and that the then Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar Rao on the basis of specimen sanction order, without verification of the documents and without application of mind, issued Ex.P19.

18.The testimony of PW9 proves that he is conversant with the signature of the then Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance

IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar

Rao, and that Ex.P19 was issued by the then Secretary to the

Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar Rao. As seen from the contents of

Ex.P19 the then Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar Rao carefully examined the allegations against the accused officer no.2 right from the first information report to till the final report of the Director

General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad, and after considering the circumstances of the case, he decided to issue Ex.P19.

12C.C. No 91/2015

19. Issuance of the prosecution sanction proceedings is to the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority arrived at on the basis of perusal of the materials placed before it. When on the basis of scrutiny of the materials placed before it the sanctioning authority on due application of mind arrives to the conclusion that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offense/s against the accused public servant therein, it is enough to accord sanction for prosecution against such public servant. Moreover, specimen sanction order is sent to the sanctioning authority for guidance.

20. Ex.P19 is a speaking order clearly passed in discharge of routine official functions by the then Secretary to the Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by name B.

Venkateshwar Rao. It is, therefore, a public document within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In State of

Madhya Pradesh Vs. Jiyalal reported in (2009) 15 SCC 72 it is held 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.”

21. PW9 has identified the signature of the then Secretary to the

Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar Rao on Ex.P19. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW9 to show that he is not a competent witness to identify the signature of the then Secretary to the 13C.C. No 91/2015

Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar Rao on Ex.P19.

22.In C.B.I./SPE Vs. P. Muthuraman reported in 1996 SCC Online

AP 147 it is held that “ For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, I reach the conclusion that the signature on the 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.” Hence in view of said dictum PW9 is held to be a competent witness to prove the contents of Ex.P19.

23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between State of Punjab Vs.

Labh Singh reported in (2014) 16 SCC 807 at para 9 held as “ In the present case the public servants in question had retired on 13-12-1999 and 30-4-2000. The sanction to prosecute them was rejected subsequent to their retirement i.e. first on 13-9-2000 and later on 24-9-2003. The public servants having retired from service there was no occasion to consider grant of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. The law on the point is quite clear that sanction to prosecute the public servant for the offences under the PC Act is not required if the public servant had already retired on the date of cognizance by the court. In S.A.

Venkataraman v. State [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107 :

1958 Cri LJ 254 : 1958 SCR 1040] while construing Section 6(1) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which provision is in pari materia with 14C.C. No 91/2015

Section 19(1) of the PC Act, this Court held that no sanction was necessary in the case of a person who had ceased to be the public servant at the time the court was asked to take cognizance. The view taken in S.A. Venkataraman [S.A. Venkataraman v. State, AIR 1958 SC 107 : 1958 Cri LJ 254 : 1958 SCR 1040] was adopted by this Court in C.R.

Bansi v. State of Maharashtra [C.R. Bansi v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 3 SCC 537 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 143] and in Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of

Orissa [Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa, (1998) 6 SCC 411 : 1998

SCC (Cri) 1455] and by the Constitution Bench of this Court in K.

Veeraswami v. Union of India [K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, (1991) 3

SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] . The High Court was not therefore justified in setting aside the order passed by the Special Judge insofar as charge under the PC Act was concerned.”

24. It is an undisputed fact that the accused officer no.1 attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011 much prior to taking of cognizance of the charge sheet against him by the II Additional Special Court for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad on 01.10.2014for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

25. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Labh

Singh supra no sanction for prosecution of the accused officer no.1 for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was required prior to taking 15C.C. No 91/2015 cognizance of the charge sheet filed in the present case as he ceased to be a public servant as on the date of taking cognizance of the charge sheet.

26.Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is a valid sanction under Ex.P19 issued by the competent sanctioning authority (the then Secretary to the

Government, Revenue (Vigilance IV.1) department, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad by name B. Venkateshwar Rao) to prosecute the accused officer no.2 for the charges under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

This point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution, and against the accused officer nos.1 and 2.

POINT NOS. 2 TO 4

27. Since these points are interconnected with each other hence this

Court intend to answer them together.

INTRODUCTION OF WITNESSES

28. PW1 is one of the mediators in whose presence PW11 conducted pre and post trap proceedings on 25.06.2011. PW2 is the then Sarpanch of Muthyampet village of Mallial mandal erstwhile Karimnagar district.

PW3 is the informant. PW4 is the then Assistant Engineer, Sri Anjaneya

Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu who worked as such from the year 2006 to till 30.05.2011. PW5 is the Assistant Engineer, Sri Anjaneya 16C.C. No 91/2015

Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu who has been working as such since 30.05.2011. PW6 is the then Assistant Commissioner, Endowment

Department, erstwhile Karimnagar district. PW7 is the then Executive

Officer, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu who worked as such from 23.11.2011 to till 25.05.2015. PW8 is the Assistant

Commissioner, Endowment Department, Karimnagar district who has been working as such since 01.07.2020. PW9 is examined on the side of the prosecution to prove prosecution sanction proceedings to prosecute the accused officer no.2 before the Court of law under Ex.P19. PW10 is the President of the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative

Society Limited. PW11 is the trap laying officer. PW12 is the police officer who conducted further investigation, and filed chargesheet in this case upon completion of investigation. PW13 is the police officer who assisted

PW11 during pre and post trap proceedings in laying trap against the accused officer nos.1 and 2, conducted further investigation in this case after receiving case diary file from PW11, and later handed over case diary file to PW12 for further investigation.

NEED FOR DISCREET ENQUIRY

29. In the context of offenses relating to corruption, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in P. Sirajuddin supra expressed the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against public servants. In Lalita

Kumari Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 the

Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a preliminary 17C.C. No 91/2015 enquiry interalia in corruption cases is not mandatory when the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable offense and even when it is conducted, the scope of a preliminary enquiry is not to ascertain the veracity of the information, but only whether it reveals the commission of a cognizable offense, and the need for said will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. As an illustration it was held that corruption cases fall in that category of cases where a preliminary enquiry may be made. The use of the expression may goes to emphasize that holding a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory.

Dwelling on the Central Bureau of Investigation Manual, it is held that :

(I) it is not a statute enacted by the legislature; and (ii) it is a compendium of administrative orders for the internal guidance of the

Central Bureau of Investigation officers and the same cannot supersede the Code Criminal Procedure.

30.Rules 78 and 79 in Chapter VII of the Anti Corruption Bureau Manual also contemplates conducting of discreet/preliminary inquiry and obtaining of permission from the Director, Anti Corruption Bureau,

Hyderabad prior to laying trap by the investigating officer. In the light of the above dictum of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court supra in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the

Criminal Procedure Code itself, the said provisions of the Anti Corruption

Bureau Manual cannot be relied upon to import the concept of holding of discreet/preliminary inquiry in the scheme of the Criminal Procedure 18C.C. No 91/2015

Code and consequently for holding that holding discreet/preliminary enquiry in each and every trap case by the Anti Corruption Bureau is mandatory. The contents of Ex.P6 on its face disclose commission of cognizable offense of demand of bribe by the accused officer nos.1 and

2. Moreover the Anti Corruption Bureau manual is for internal guidance of the Anti Corruption Bureau personnel, and any deviation from its provisions would entail disciplinary action against the erring personnel but the same would not render fatal the case of the prosecution.

PENDENCY OF OFFICIAL FAVOUR OF PW3

31.The testimony of PW3 as seen from his examination-in-chief is that he is the President of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association, and in the month of May, 2011 Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu engaged 125 members on daily wage @ Rs.250/- per member from the Yuva

Mithra Youth Association, and for said purpose the Yuva Mithra Youth

Association was due to receive Rs.1,86,000/- towards wages of 125 members.

32.The above reproduced testimony of PW3 is corroborated with his previous statement under Ex.P6 in all material particulars.

33.The defence of the accused officer nos.1 and 2 is that Sri Anjaneya

Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu did not engage service of any of the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association on the occasion of

Hanuman Jayanthi in the month of May, 2011 rather sanitation work on 19C.C. No 91/2015 the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 was executed by the members of the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract

Cooperative Society Limited, and PW10 as President of said Scheduled

Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited submitted bill for

Rs.1,86,000/- towards wages for sanction of the same, and the said bill was passed by PW4, approved by the accused officer no.1, and PW10 had received the cheque for the said amount, and also encashed the same prior to the alleged date of trap on 25.06.2011, and that no official favour of PW3 regarding handing over any cheque to him towards payment of wages with respect to execution of sanitation work by the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi in the month of May, 2011 was ever pending for discharge before the office of the accused officer no.1.

34.The testimony of PW3 that he is the President of the Yuva Mithra

Youth Association is not disputed by the accused officer nos.1 and 2 during his cross-examination. There is also no controversy between the prosecution and the accused officer nos.1 and 2 that PW10 is the

President of the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society

Limited.

35.PW3 has stated in his cross-examination that in Ex.P6 he mentioned that in view of Hanuman Jayanthi sanitation work from 25.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 about 125 labours @ Rs.125/- per day were 20C.C. No 91/2015 engaged and said amount comes to Rs.93,750/-, and not Rs.1,86,000/-.

PW3 states in his cross-examination that he did not submit any bill but he orally requested to pay the amount; that work in respect of bill under

Ex.P7 was executed by the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative

Society Limited; that he is not aware that the accused officer no.1 awarded tender for carrying out sanitation work on the occasion of

Hanuman Jayanthi held from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 to the

Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited @

Rs.196/-, and total 949 labours in three shifts were employed.

36.PW4 has deposed before this Court that the accused officer no.1 invited tenders for carrying out sanitation work on the occasion of

Hanuman Jayanthi held from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 through advertisement in newspapers, and the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract

Cooperative Society Limited submitted lowest quotation @ Rs.196/- per day per labour, and the bid of said Scheduled Caste Labour Contract

Cooperative Society Limited was approved by the accused officer no.1, and on 28.05.2011 PW10 submitted Ex.P7 before him for sanction of the same, and after due verification he made an endorsement on the reverse of Ex.P7 as Ex.P9, and handed over the same to the Clerk with an instruction to prepare the bill, obtain signatures of the Office

Superintendent and the accused officer no.1, and to send the same to the Local Fund Audit Office, Karimnagar for sanction of the bill.

21C.C. No 91/2015

37.PW4 has stated in his cross-examination that the Scheduled Caste

Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited attended sanitation work; that Ex.P7 was submitted in connection with engaging 949 labours @

Rs.196 per head from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 day and night three shifts; and that the Yuva Mithra Youth Association did not participate in the tender invited for carrying out sanitation work on the occasion of

Hanuman Jayanthi held from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011.

38.PW5 has testified in his examination-in-chief that on 28.05.2011

PW4 prepared the bill for Rs.1,86,000/- pertaining to the Scheduled Caste

Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited and handed over to the

Clerk for obtaining signatures of the Office Superintendent and the accused officer no.1 for onward submission to the Audit Office,

Karimnagar.

39.PW6 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused officer no.1 invited tenders through advertisement in local newspapers, and the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited submitted lowest quotation @ Rs.196/- per day per labour for four days for carrying out sanitation work in the temple in the year 2011.

40.PW6 has admitted in his cross-examination that prior to celebration of Hanuman Jayanthi from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 the accused officer no.1 invited tenders for carrying out sanitation work on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi held from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 for 22C.C. No 91/2015 engaging daily wage workers; that the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract

Cooperative Society Limited was the lowest bidder and said Scheduled

Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited was awarded the sanitation work for the said period, and said Scheduled Caste Labour

Contract Cooperative Society Limited executed the sanitation work, and

PW10 submitted Ex.P7 for Rs.1,86,000/-; that under Ex.P3 the bill under

Ex.P7 was processed and put up by PW4; and that bill under Ex.P7 has to be sanctioned in favour of PW10.

41.PW10 has stated on oath in his examination-in-chief that on 24.05.2011 on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi held from 25.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 Yuva Mithra Youth Association did sanitation work in Sri

Anjaeya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu on daily wage of Rs.250/- per day. PW10 has turned hostile and in his examination by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar under section 154 of the Evidence Act, 1872 he admits that the Scheduled Caste

Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited had also submitted bid for sanitation work, submitted Ex.P7, and the said work was allotted to the

Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited.

42.PW10 during his cross-examination by the accused officer nos.1 and 2 has stated that in connection with sanitation work at Sri Anjaeya

Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi to be held on 24.07.2011 to till 27.05.2011 tenders were invited by the 23C.C. No 91/2015 accused officer no.1, and the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract

Cooperative Society Limited submitted bid for the said work, and the said work was allotted to the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative

Society Limited; that PW4 had checked and put up his file and approved his bill for Rs.1,86,000/- under Ex.P9, and passed the said bill on 28.05.2011; that after passing the said bill the accused officer no.1 sent the said bill to the Audit Office for preparation of the cheque; that after receipt of the cheque from the Audit Office, the same was handed over to him by the Senior Assistant in the office of the accused officer no.1; and that he encashed the said cheque and no amount was due to be paid to him as on 25.06.2011.

43.PW11 has admitted in his cross-examination that Ex.P7 was submitted by PW10; that before lodging of Ex.P6 the bill under Ex.P7 was passed; and that cheque in respect of the bill under Ex.P7 would be drawn in favour of the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative

Society Limited. PW11 has stated in his cross-examination that PW3 did not submit any bill in connection with sanitation work in the office of the accused officer no.1; that on 28.05.2011 PW4 submitted note file on

Ex.P7 under Ex.P9; and that bill under Ex.P7 was passed by the accused officer no.1 and PW4 on 29.05.2011.

44.PW12 has admitted in his cross-examination that under Ex.P7

PW10 had submitted bill for Rs.1,86,000/- for completing sanitation work 24C.C. No 91/2015 from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 in three shifts by engaging 949 labours on daily wages @ Rs.196/-; that since the society of PW10 completed the said work as such bill under Ex.P7 was submitted by

PW10; and that tender was floated by the accused officer no.1 and bids were invited and the work was awarded to the society of PW10. PW12 has stated in his cross-examination that he did not produce any document along with the chargesheet that the sanitation work was attended by the society of PW3 and PW3 had submitted any bill; that bill of PW10 under Ex.P7 was passed by PW4 on 28.05.2011 and the said bill was approved by the accused officer no.1 on 29.05.2011; and that before the date of trap the bill of PW10 was sent to the Audit Office, and the said bill was not pending before the accused officer no.1.

45.Ex.P7 is the bill dated 28.05.2011 addressed to the Executive

Officer, Sri Anjaeya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu (the accused officer no.1) that was admittedly submitted by PW10 as President of the

Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited for

Rs.1,86,000/- regarding engaging 949 labours day and night three shifts from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 for executing sanitation work on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi in Sri Anjaeya Swamy Devasthanam,

Kondagattu.

46.Ex.P9 is the endorsement admittedly made by PW4 certifying the contents of Ex.P7 that 949 labours were engaged in three shifts from 25C.C. No 91/2015 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 for executing sanitation work on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi.

47.Ex.P8 is the voucher admittedly prepared by PW4 in connection with the bill under Ex.P7. Ex.P10 is the note file admittedly prepared by

PW4 on 28.05.2011 regarding sanctioning of the bill under Ex.P7 in favour of the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society

Limited for Rs.1,86,000/-. Furthermore admittedly the accused officer no.1 had also approved the note file under Ex.P10 on 29.05.2011 that was prepared by PW4 on 28.05.2011.

48.On appreciation of the oral testimonies of PWs.3 to 6 and 10 to 12 and documentary evidence under Exs.P7 to 10 adduced by the prosecution as reproduced in foregoing paragraphs the following facts emerge:

A.Prior to holding of Hanuman Jayanthi from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 the accused officer no.1 floated a tender for carrying out sanitation work in Sri Anjaeya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu in which the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited had submitted lowest bid @ Rs.196/- per day per labour, and the said work was allotted to the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society

Limited, and not to the Yuva Mithra Youth Association, by the accused officer no.1.

26C.C. No 91/2015

B. The members of the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract

Cooperative Society Limited, and not the members of the Yuva Mithra

Youth Association executed sanitation work on the occasion of Hanuman

Jayanthi held from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 in Sri Anjaeya Swamy

Devasthanam, Kondagattu.

C.PW10, and not PW3, submitted bill under Ex.P7 for sanction of Rs.1,86,000/- regarding engaging 949 labours @ Rs.196 per head from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 day and night three shifts for carrying sanitation work in Sri Anjaeya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011.

D.The bill under Ex.P7 was certified by PW4 under Ex.P9, note file under Ex.P10 in connection with sanction of Rs.1,86,000/- was put up by PW4 on 28.05.2011, and the same was approved by the accused officer no.1 on 29.05.2011.

E. The bill of PW10 was sent to the Local Fund Audit Office,

Karimnagar, and after receipt of the cheque from the said office, the same was handed over to PW10 by the Senior Assistant in the office of the accused officer no.1, and later PW10 encashed the said cheque and no amount was due to be paid to PW10 as on 25.06.2011 in respect of the bill under Ex.P7.

49. Submission of the lowest bid by the Yuva Mithra Youth Association 27C.C. No 91/2015 in the tender floated by the accused officer no.1 for carrying out sanitation work in Sri Anjaeya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi to be held from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011, and acceptance of the said bid by the accused officer no.1 are conditions precedent for executing sanitation work by the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association in order to entitle PW3 to approach the office of the accused officer no.1 for processing the bill and handing over the cheque for Rs.1,86,000/- to him. Admittedly the Yuva Mithra

Youth Association did not submit any such bid. PW3 also did not submit any bill before the office of the accused officer no.1 regarding alleged engaging of 125 labours @ Rs.250/- per day on the occasion of Hanuman

Jayanthi from 25.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 by Sri Anjaneya Swamy

Devasthanam, Kondagattu from the Yuva Mithra Youth Association.

50.There is no documentary evidence to corroborate the evidence of

PW3 that Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu directly engaged service of 125 members on daily wage @ Rs.250/- per member from the Yuva Mithra Youth Association for carrying out sanitation work from 25.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi.

The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar has vehemently argued that PW10 has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 24.05.2011 on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi held from 25.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011 the Yuva Mithra Youth Association did sanitation work in Sri Anjaeya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu on daily 28C.C. No 91/2015 wage of Rs.250/- per day, and the said testimony of PW10 proves that the sanitation work was in fact executed by the Yuva Mithra Youth

Association, and not the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative

Society Limited.

51.The said testimony of PW10 is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution as appreciated by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs, and no reliance can be placed on the same to infer that sanitation work on the occasion of Hanuman

Jayanthi held in the month of May, 2011 in Sri Anjaeya Swamy

Devasthanam, Kondagattu was actually executed by the members of

Yuva Mithra Youth Association, and not the members of the Scheduled

Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited.

52.A suggestion has been given to PW10 by the learned Special Public

Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar that said sanitation work, by way of a resolution, was entrusted by the Scheduled Caste Labour

Contract Cooperative Society Limited to the Yuva Mithra Youth

Association, however, said suggestion is denied by PW10. The said suggestion appears to have been given to PW10 in order to circumvent contrary oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution establishing that said work was executed by the members of the

Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited in order to drive home the point that the Yuva Mithra Youth Association though did 29C.C. No 91/2015 not submit bid in the tender and no work was allotted to the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association but indirectly the sanitation work was entrusted for execution to the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth

Association by the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society

Limited by way of a resolution as such the same was executed by the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association, and the same provided an occasion for PW3 to approach the office of the accused officer no.1 for processing the bill under Ex.P7 and handing over the cheque. It is significant to note that there is no evidence of PW3 that said sanitation work, by way of a resolution, was entrusted by the Scheduled Caste

Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited to the Yuva Mithra Youth

Association.

53.Suggestion by itself is not evidence until admitted by the witness.

Be that as it may, the said suggestion given to PW10 by learned Special

Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar indicates existence of a resolution. PW11 states in his cross-examination that during his part of investigation he did not collect any document to show that the sanitation work was allotted to association of PW3 by the association of PW10. In absence of evidence of PW3 as well as on account of non-production of alleged resolution before this Court, the argument put forth by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases, Karimnagar that sanitation work was entrusted by the Scheduled Caste Labour Contract

Cooperative Society Limited to the Yuva Mithra Youth Association, does 30C.C. No 91/2015 not hold any water in order to arrive to the conclusion that alleged official favour of PW3 was pending for discharge before the office of the accused officer no.1 as on 25.06.2011.

54.The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of india in

A.R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak reported in (1984) 2 SCC 500 at para 6 held that “ anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary.”

55.As per said ratio except in exceptional circumstances prescribed by the statute even a person who is not a victim is entitled to set criminal law in motion by filing a report before the police station concerned or a private complaint before the learned Magistrate concerned.

56.Even though the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association did not execute sanitation work in Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam,

Kondagattu on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi held from 24.05.2011 to till 27.05.2011, and the same was executed by the members of the

Scheduled Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, that did not debar PW3 from lodging a report before PW11 provided any demand of gratification as a bribe or a reward, either before or after processing the bill under Ex.P7 and handing over a cheque for Rs.1,86,000/-, was made by the accused officer nos.1 and 2 from PW10 directly or through any third person including PW3. This is not the issue here.

31C.C. No 91/2015

57.Here the claim of PW3, as seen from the contents of Ex.P6 as well as his statement on oath before this Court, is that on the occasion of

Hanuman Jayanthi from 25.05.2011 to till 27.11.2011 Sri Anjaneya

Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu village directly engaged service of 125 members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association on daily wage @ Rs.250/- per member, and the Yuva Mithra Youth Association was due to receive a cheque for Rs.1,86,000/- from said Devasthanam, and in connection with processing the bill and handing over of the cheque for said amount he approached the office of the accused officer no.1. The alleged interest of

PW3 behind approaching the office of the accused officer no.1 is not corroborated with the oral testimonies of PWs.3 to 6 and 10 to 12 and documentary evidence under Exs.P7 to 10.

58.Accordingly in view of above appreciation of the facts of the case and marshaling of the evidence adduced by the prosecution this Court concludes that on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanthi held in the month of

May, 2011 the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association did not directly or even remotely provide service of any of its members for carrying out sanitation work in Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam,

Kondagattu, and since the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association did not execute said work hence the Yuva Mithra Youth Association was not due to receive any amount towards wages, and consequently PW3 was not entitled to receive cheque for Rs.1,86,000/-, and that no alleged official favour of PW3 was ever pending for discharge, or discharged, 32C.C. No 91/2015

before the office of the accused officer no.1 even to till 25.06.2011 in

connection with processing of the bill and handing over of the cheque for

Rs.1,86,000/-.

DEMAND & ACCEPTANCE OF GRATIFICATION OTHER THAN LEGAL

REMUNERATION

59.The evidence of PW3 as deposed in his examination-in-chief regarding demand of bribe, reiteration of demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe by the accused officer nos.1 and 2 are as follows:

that 20 days prior to the lodging of Ex.P6 he approached the accused officer no.1 and requested him to issue the cheque but the accused officer nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.18,000/- as a bribe to issue the cheque, and when accused officer nos.1 and 2 reiterated their earlier demand of bribe to him when he approached them several times, he reported the matter to PW2, that on 23.06.2011 PW2 accompanied him to the office of the accused officer no.1 and at 9:30 am PW2 talked to the accused officer nos.1 and 2, and on the request of PW2 the accused officer nos.1 and 2 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.15,000/- and asked them to pay the same on 25.06.2011, that on 25.06.2011 during pre trap proceedings the proposed bribe amount was smeared with chemical (phenolphthalein) powder, and trap 33C.C. No 91/2015 was laid by PW11 in the office of the accused officer no.1 where the accused officer no.1 at the main gate enquired with him about bringing the bribe amount and on his affirmative reply he instructed him to hand over the same to the accused officer no.2 by pointing towards the accused officer no.2 who was present in front of Annadhana Sathram, and that when he approached the accused officer no.2 he also enquired with him about bringing the bribe amount and on his affirmative reply he took him inside the Sathram and further demanded bribe amount from him, and received the same from him with his both the hands and kept inside the right side back pocked of his wearing pant.

60.The learned counsel for the accused officer no.1 has placed reliance on Hari Dev Sharma supra to drive home the point that when the case of the prosecution is integrated one, and the prosecution has failed to prove vital part of its case i.e., pendency of official favour of PW3 under such circumstance the remaining part of the case of the prosecution i.e., demand and acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration by the accused officer nos. 1 and 2, cannot be believed.

61.Kalukuri Lingaiah supra, Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his LR supra, and V Venkata Subbarao are relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused officer no.1 to buttress his argument that in absence of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused public servant legal presumption under section 20 of the 34C.C. No 91/2015

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot be drawn.

62.The learned counsel for the accused officer no.2 has banked on

Subash Parbat Sonvane supra to emphasis that mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence wound not be sufficient for convicting the accused public servant under section 13(1)(d)(i) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

63.In K. Narasimha Chary supra even in a case where trap has been proved successfully the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has sounded a note of caution and held that circumstances such as the accused public servant coming into contact with the tainted notes in the process of pushing the same from table or thwarting the attempts of the informants to thrust the amount into the hands or pocket, need to be taken into account, and mechanical acceptance of trap would be prone to result in injustice.

64.In the present case, the genesis of alleged demand of gratification other than legal remuneration, further demand of said gratification and acceptance of said gratification by the accused officer nos.1 and 2 from

PW3, as per the testimony of PW3, is his (PW3) entitlement to receive cheque for Rs.1,86,000/- in connection with sanitation work executed by the members of the Yuva Mithra Youth Association. Per contra as per the contents of Ex.P6, PW3 claimed that the Yuva Mithra Youth Association was due to receive Rs.93,750/- towards wages, and not Rs.1,86,000/-. Be 35C.C. No 91/2015 that as it may, when no official favour of PW3 regarding processing of the bill and handing over of cheque for Rs.1,86,000/- to him was ever pending for discharge, or discharged, before/by the office of the accused officer no.1, and cheque for said amount was received and encashed by

PW10 towards execution sanitation work by the members of Scheduled

Caste Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited prior to 25.06.2011, there is no occasion for PW3 to approach the office of the accused officer no.1 at any point of time prior to 25.06.2011 and on 25.06.2011, and similarly the accused officer nos.1 and 2 have no occasion to demand, further demand and accept alleged gratification from PW3.

65.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases,

Karimnagar has argued that absence of pendency of official favour of

PW3 is not a ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 and in this regard placed reliance on Syed Ahmed supra. In Syed Ahmed supra it is observed as “It was also contended that the prosecution should,

additionally, prove that payment to the accused was by way of a reward

for doing or proposing to do a favour to the complainant.

We are in agreement with learned counsel on this issue and it is for this reason that we went through the evidence on record.”

66.Therefore, as per dictum in Syed Ahmed supra there must be a nexus between discharge or pendency of official favour, and the demand and acceptance of gratification as a reward or bribe by the accused 36C.C. No 91/2015 public servant, however, the same is absent in the case at hand.

67.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of ACB cases,

Karimnagar has further argued that original of Ex.P3 was produced by the accused officer no.1 during post trap proceedings and the same was got photocopied by PW11 as Ex.P3, and the same was seized by PW11 in the presence of the mediators, and seizure of Ex.P3 post its production by the accused officer no.1 proves pendency of official favour of PW3

before the office of the accused officer no.1 to till 25.06.2011. This Court

do find any merits in the said argument in view of revelation made by

PW12 in his cross-examination that before the date of trap the bill of

PW10 was sent to the Audit Office, and the said bill was not pending

before the accused officer no.1.

68.The evidence of PW2 in his examination-in-chief is that prior to 23.06.2011 PW3 and other villagers of Muthyampet village informed him about demand of the accused officer nos.1 and 2 about Rs.18,000/- as a bribe for issuing cheque for Rs.1,86,000/- for work done by them during

Hanuman Jayanthi festival, and requested him to talk to the accused officer nos.1 and 2, and accordingly on 23.06.2011 he and PW3 went to the office of the accused officer no.1, and met the accused officer nos.1 and 2, and discussed with them about payment to be made to the workers but the accused officer nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.18,000/- as a bribe to release the cheque, and on further deliberation the accused 37C.C. No 91/2015 officer nos.1 and 2 reduced the bribe amount to Rs.15,000/- and asked them to pay the same on 25.06.2011.

69.The learned counsels for the accused officer nos.1 and 2 have argued that PW2 is not a trustworthy witness as prior to the alleged date of trap of the accused officer nos.1 and 2, the accused officer no.1 lodged a report before Mallial police station against PW2 regarding encroachment of land of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu leading to registration of criminal case against him.

70.PW2 admits in his cross-examination that prior to this case a criminal case was registered against him before Mallial police station on the basis of report lodged by the office of the accused officer no.1 alleging that he encroached Ac.0.20 guntas of the land of Sri Anjaneya

Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu. PW10 admits in his cross-examination that in connection with encroachment of land of Sri Anjaneya Swamy

Devasthanam, Kondagattu for construction of house, the accused officer no.1 lodged a report and a first information report was also issued.

71.Inimical disposition of PW2 against the accused officer no.1 on account of lodging of report by the latter against him before Mallial police station, prior to lodging of Ex.P6 by PW3, in connection with allegation of encroachment of land of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu, cannot be ruled out. Hence for the said reason Court finds force in arguments advanced on behalf of the accused officer no.1 to discard the 38C.C. No 91/2015 testimony of PW2 from consideration.

72.In Tadikalapudi Sesha Rama Sankhar Kumar supra the informant turned hostile and official favour of the informant was pending before the accused public servant therein and under such circumstance it is held that contents of report of the informant, who admitted before the mediators and the trap laying officer as true, the evidence of the mediators and the trap laying officer can be relied upon to conclude that the contents of the said report are true.

73.In Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi supra official the favour of the company of the informant was discharged by the accused public servant therein as on the date of trap and in such circumstance it is held that “Once the prosecution established that gratification in any form cash or kind had been paid or accepted by a public servant the Court is under a legal compulsion to presume that the said gratification was paid or accepted as a motive or reward to do (or forbear from doing) any official act, and the only exception to the said rule is, when the gratification is so trivial that no inference of corruption could in fairness be drawn on a particular fact situation the Court has no such legal compulsion to presume, and such a presumption was introduced in the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1947 through a later amendment and the said legal presumption was carried forward into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.” 39C.C. No 91/2015

74.The facts in Syed Ahmed supra, Tadikalapudi Sesha Rama Sankhar

Kumar supra and Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi supra thus are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, therefore, ratio laid in the said precedents do not squarely apply to the facts of the present case, and with due respect same is not followed by this Court.

75.The learned counsel for the accused officer no.1 has relied on

Ashok Kumar Bhagchand Wardhani supra to reinforce his argument that as per admission made by PW1 in his cross-examination that during post trap proceedings the accused officer no.1 stated that he did not demand any bribe from PW3 nor directed the accused officer no.2 to accept the bribe amount from PW3 hence disclosure of defence of the accused officer no.1 at the stage of trap gives it a ring of truth. In T. Subramanian supra in the light of the peculiar facts of the said case the explanation given by the accused public servant therein was held to clearly explain all the circumstances raising serious doubt about the amount received as illegal gratification.

76.On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of

ACB cases, Karimnagar has vehemently argued that as per initial version of the accused officer no.1 as incorporated in Ex.P5 he stated that as per his instructions/directions, the accused officer no.2 received MO.1 from

PW3, and subsequently the accused officer no.1 improved his said version during same post trap proceedings denying demanding any bribe 40C.C. No 91/2015 from PW3 or directing the accused officer no.2 to accept the bribe amount from PW3, and contrary to the defence set up in this case, the accused officer no.1 stated during post trap proceedings that PW3 voluntarily offered Rs.15,000/- as a goodwill for their co-operation.

77. The above arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused officer no.1 and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for trial of

ACB cases, Karimnagar regarding above noted versions of the accused officer no.1 is incorporated in Ex.P5. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether or not development of the version of the accused officer no.1 during post trap proceedings, and inconsistency in the spontaneous version of the accused officer no.1 vis a vis the defence of denial of voluntary acceptance of the tainted amount by the accused officer no.2 on his direction/instruction from PW3 during post trap proceedings by itself prove the charges against the accused officer nos.1 and 2 for which they stand charged before this Court. The answer is in negative as prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness in the defence of the accused officer nos.1 and 2 without discharging its initial burden of establishing motive behind alleged demanding, and accepting

MO.1 as gratification other than legal gratification by the accused officer nos.1 and 2 from PW3 in reiteration of their earlier demand of gratification other than legal gratification.

78.Though PW3 has spoken on oath before this Court about the 41C.C. No 91/2015 manner of handling of MO.1 by the accused officer no.2 during post trap proceedings, and PWs.1 and 11 have described in their examination-in- chief about the circumstances where under MO.1 was seized from the possession of the accused officer no.2 during post trap proceedings, and their said evidence coupled with contents of Exs.P2 and P5 also corroborates the testimony of PW3 regarding the manner of handling of

MO.1 by the accused officer no.2 during post trap proceedings, however, when no alleged official favour of PW3 was ever pending for discharge, or discharged before/by the office of the accused officer no.1 it creates any amount of doubt that PW3 alone approached the office of the accused officer no.1 about 20 days prior to lodging of Ex.P6, and subsequently visited the said office on 23.06.2011 along with PW2, and the accused officer nos.1 and 2 demanded gratification other than legal remuneration from PW3 on the said days.

79.It is axiomatic that mere recovery of the amount laced with phenolphthalein powder from the possession of the accused public servant divorced from the circumstances of the case cannot be made basis to convict the accused public servant. When the facts of the present case casts suspicion regarding the allegation of the prosecution of demand of gratification other than legal remuneration by the accused officer nos.1 and 2 from PW3, the subsequent recovery of MO.1 cannot be made basis to assume that such demand was made by the accused officer nos.1 and 2.

42C.C. No 91/2015

80.Accordingly in view of appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record this Court sums up by adjudicating that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused officer nos.1 and 2 demanded and accepted Rs.15,000/- as a bribe from PW3 for processing the bill and handing over a cheque towards wages in favour of the Yuva

Mithra Youth Association, and obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves, therefore, the essential ingredients of sections 7 and 13(1)

(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 are not established, and consequently the prosecution has failed to prove both the charges under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused officer nos.1 and 2 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. These points are answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused officer nos.1 and 2.

POINT NO.5

81.In the light of the findings of this Court in points no.2 to 4, the accused officer nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for commission of offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they are acquitted for the said offenses under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused officer nos.1 and 2.

82.In the result, the accused officer nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for 43C.C. No 91/2015 commission of offenses punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and they are acquitted for the said offenses under section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of the accused officer 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 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

M.O.1 is ordered to be confiscated to the State by way of depositing into the exchequer, and the rest of the material objects i.e., MOs. 2 to 8 are ordered to be destroyed, after the appeal time is over.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer grade II, transcribed by him and corrected by me, and partly prepared by me on my official laptop, and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of August, 2024.

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION FOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1M.A Raffee

P.W.2Bathini Srinivas

P.W.3Siddanki Ravi

P.W.4Eegala Shankar

P.W.5Regulapati Laxman Rao

P.W.6Tadhuri Ramesh Babu

P.W.7Gajaraju Narsimhulu

P.W.8A. Chandrashekar

P.W.9Rathod Guru Singh 44C.C. No 91/2015

P.W.10Myaka Laxman

P.W.11P. Jaipal

P.W.12V. V. Ramana Murthy

PW.13T.Srinivas Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1Attested copy of report dated 23.06.2011

Ex.P.2Mediator report-I dated 25.06.2011

Ex.P.3Attested copy of connected file pertaining to bills of sanitation work

Ex.P.4Rough sketch

Ex.P.5Mediator report-II dated 25.06.2011

Ex.P.6Report dated 23.06.2011

Ex.P.7Attested copy of bill dated 28.05.2011

Ex.P.8Attested copy of voucher

Ex.P.9Attested copy of endorsement on reverse of Ex.P7

Ex.P.10Attested copy of note file

Ex.P.11 Authorization letter dated 25.08.2022 issued by Commissioner, Endowments Department, Telangana, Hyderabad

Ex.P.12 Letter no.E1/30534/2011 dated 24.08.2011 regarding furnishing service particulars of the accused officer no.1

Ex.P.13Service particulars of the accused officer no.1

Ex.P.14Job chart of the accused officer no.1

Ex.P.15 Office proceedings of Executive officer, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu dated 01.08.2010

Ex.P.16Job chart of the accused officer no.2

Ex.P.17Service particulars of the accused officer no.2

Ex.P.18 Authorization letter issued by Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vigilance. I) department dated 11.11.2022

Ex.P.19Prosecution sanction proceedings dated 21.03.2014

Ex.P20First information report

Ex.P21Section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement of PW10 45C.C. No 91/2015

FOR THE DEFENCE

Ex.D1 Attested copy of office order of the Executive Officer, Sri Anjaneya Swamy Devasthanam, Kondagattu in RC No. A/99/2010 dated 16.05.2011

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1Rs.15,000/- cash

M.O.2Sealed cover containing sample phenolphthalein powder used in the pre-trap proceedings

M.O.3Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in the pre-trap proceedings

M.O.4Sealed cover containing sodium carbonate powder used in the post-trap proceedings

M.O.5Sealed bottle containing right hand rinse of the accused officer no.2

M.O.6Sealed bottle containing left hand rinse of the accused officer no.2

M.O.7Sealed bottle containing rinse of contact portion of tainted amount

M.O.8Blue color jeans pant

Special Judge,

for trial of SPE and ACB cases, Karimnagar