C.C.No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool
In the Court of the Spl. Judge for Trial of C.B.I. Cases, Kurnool
Present : Smt.M.Sobharani, Spl. Judge for Trial of C.B.I Cases, Kurnool
Monday, the 8th day of December, 2025
C.C. No. 15/2022
Between
State represented by Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Hyderabad. …. Complainant AND
Sri C.Sreenivasulu, son of Pedda Rangaiah, 54 years, Occ: Account Assistant at Office of the Sr.DFM, Guntakal, SC Railway, Resident of H.No.20/193-E3, Hanumesh nagar, Guntakal, A.P. …. Accused
This case coming on 17.11.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Avinash Chandra Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor
for the Complainant and Sri.B.V.Ravi Kumar, learned Counsel for the
accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:
J U D G E M E N T
1. The Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad laid a charge sheet in RC.No.22(A)/2017-CBI-HYD against the accused for the offences
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 2 u/s.7 and 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “P.C.Act ” in short).
2.It is the case of the prosecution in brief as follows:
(i) The Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, Sri.P.Raja
Kumar/PW15 while camping at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh on 20.11.2017 at about 11.45 hours, received a written complaint from Chimbili Dorai
Rajulu Naidu/PW1 alleging demand of illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- by C.Srinivasulu/Accused for doing official favour of processing contract bill for the months of July, 2017 to September, 2017 and also previously sanctioned bills for the months of March to May, 2017 and June, 2017.
After receipt of the complaint, PW15 discreetly verified the genuineness of the allegations in the complaint and registered a case vide
RC.No.22(A)/2017-CBI-HYD against the accused and the FIR was issued
at 15.50 hours on 20.11.2017.
(ii) The accused had been working as Account Assistant at the office of Senior Divisional Finance Manager (Senior DFM), Guntakal,
Andhra Pradesh. As such, the accused is a Public Servant as defined under Section-2(c) of P.C.Act. PW1 is a private person who is a
Contractor. PW1 and his son Satish are partners in a firm namely
M/s.Global Agency. The business of the firm is providing Cleaning
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 3
Services, Mechanized Cleaning Services etc. M/s.Global Agency represented by PW1 and his son C.Satish got contract work for “Mechanised Cleaning including pest control (Anti-Fly & other insects) &
Rag picking up to Home signal at RU Railway & Garbage disposal at station and colony at Renigunta Station” for two years from 2016-2018 at a value of Rs.2.69 crores (approximately).
(iii) PW1 was submitting bills for approximately Rs.10 lakhs per month with regard to this contract work. On 28.10.2017, PW1 submitted a CC Bill vide No.11, 12 and 13 regarding the work done from July, 2017 to September, 2017 for an amount of Rs.29.91 lakhs to T.Satish
Kumar(PW13) Chief Health Inspector, Renigunta. PW13 after preparation of CC bill, forwarded the same along with M-Book (Measurement Book) to the Assistant Division Medical Officer (ADMO), Renigunta. ADMO,
Renigunta verified the CC bill and forwarded the same to the Chief
Medical Superintendent Office, Guntakal on 14.11.2017. PW8-M.
Margaret, the then Office Superintendent (Budget Section) received the said letter, verified it and again prepared the bill for an amount of
Rs.30.78 lakhs by giving refund of EPF amount. After obtaining the signature of PW6/Dr.N.Ramesh, Chief Medical Superintendent, Divisional
Railway Hospital, Guntakal on 16.11.2017, she handed over the said bill
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 4 along with Measurement Book to the accused at the office of Senior DFM,
Guntakal and obtained acknowledgment from the accused in dispatch register.
(iv) While so, PW1 requested PW3-M.Anjaiah and the accused to hold his bill up to 20.11.2017 (Monday) as he would get clarity regarding
GST deduction. After receiving the bill, the accused demanded
Rs.15,000/- as bribe for processing the said bill and also as a reward for previously sanctioned bills of March to May, 2017 and June, 2017 (two bills). When PW1 expressed his inability to give the said demanded amount, the accused threatened him that his bill would not be processed until he gives the demanded bribe amount and further asked PW1 to come to the office and give Rs.15,000/- on 20.11.2017.
(v) As PW1 was not willing to give Rs.15,000/- as bribe to the accused, he lodged a written complaint dated 20.11.2017 before PW15-
Inspector of Police, CBI, Hyderabad who was camping at Guntakal for taking necessary legal action against the accused. As per the instructions of DIG/HOB, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, PW15-Inspector of Police laid a trap against the accused and accordingly secured the presence of two independent witnesses i.e., PW2/V.Vinay Sheel and LW3/Sanjay D Korde.
Pre-trap proceedings were conducted at room 304, Ashoka Paradise
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 5
Hotel, Guntakal in the presence of PW2 and LW3 and 1st Mediators Report was prepared and duly authenticated by all the members present including independent witnesses by affixing their signatures thereon. The details of currency notes of Rs.15,000/- produced by PW1 sought to be given as bribe on the demand of the accused were noted down in the 1st
Mediators Report and a detailed description of the happenings between 15.30 hours and 16.30 hours were also noted down in the said report.
(vi) Thereafter, the trap team headed by PW15/P.Raja Kumar,
Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad along with PW1 and both independent witnesses left for Senior DFM Office, Guntakal situated at
DRM compound at 16.40 hours and reached there at about 16.55 hours and laid a trap against the accused and caught him red-handedly while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from PW1 in the presence of two independent witnesses in the office premises. The tainted bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- was recovered when the accused took out the same from his left side pant pocket and threw on the floor
before the independent witnesses. The same were found tallied with the
denomination and numbers mentioned in the 1st mediators report. The right hand fingers wash, left hand fingers wash and left side front pant pocket wash of the accused gave positive results indicating handling of
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 6 tainted currency notes. PW15 the Inspector of Police seized the said bribe amount, pant of the accused and three sealed water glass bottles containing hand washes of both hands of the accused and pant pocket wash under the cover of Second Mediators Report.
(vii) PW15 the Inspector conducted personal search of the accused and found one dual SIM Mobile and two SIMS. He also collected bill for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2017 and other related bills from
PW5-Avvari Nagaraja Rao, Senior Section Officer and seized the same
before the independent witnesses. He has also drawn rough sketch of the
scene of offence. The Second Mediators Report was duly authenticated by all the members present there. PW15 arrested the accused and produced him before the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad and he was remanded to the judicial custody and subsequently he was released on bail on 05.12.2017. During the course of investigation, the seized glass bottles containing washes of both hand fingers and pant pocket of the accused were sent to CFSL, Hyderabad for examination. The report was received from PW13-T.Satish Kumar, Junior Scientific Officer. The report confirmed that the material objects contained phenolphthalein, sodium and carbonate ions. This report gives independent scientific
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 7 evidence to prove that the accused accepted the tainted currency from
PW1.
(viii) PW17-Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad recorded the statements of witnesses under Section-161 Cr.P.C., and collected the documents as per the list enclosed with the charge sheet. The documents collected and the statements of the witnesses established the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. Thus, the accused while working as Accounts Assistant at Senior DFM Office, Guntakal committed criminal misconduct by abusing his official position as Public Servant by demanding and accepting Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification from PW1 on 20.11.2017 for doing official favour of processing contract bill for the months of July, 2017 to September, 2017 and also previously sanctioned bills for the months of March to May, 2017 and June, 2017.
(ix) PW11/Pasupuleti Chandra Sekhar Babu, Senior Divisional Finance
Manager, Guntakal who is competent authority accorded sanction vide
No.AAD/GTL/DAR/CS dated 20.03.2018 under Section-19(1)(c) of PC Act for prosecuting the accused for the offence under Sections.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act. Thus, the investigation revealed that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act. Hence, the charge.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 8
3. Originally, the charge sheet has been filed by the Inspector of
Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad in RC.No.22(A)/2017-CBI-HYD on the file of the Principal Spl.Judge, for CBI Cases, Hyderabad and cognizance was taken U/sec.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act and charge sheet was numbered as C.C.6/2018 by the said court on 7-11-2020 and thereafter, the case was transferred to II Additional Spl.Judge for CBI Cases,
Vishakapatnam in ROC No.48/E1/2019 dt.23-1-2020 and renumbered as
C.C.37/2020. As II Additional Special Judge’s Court for CBI Cases,
Vishakapatnam was shifted to Kurnool as per the orders of the Hon’ble
High Court of A.P. in ROC No.48/E1/2019 dt.28-9-2022, the case was re- registered as C.C.15/2022 on the file of this court. Subsequently, the accused in this case preferred W.P.No.5441/2022 before Hon’ble High
Court of A.P., Amaravathi seeking direction in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus by declaring the action of conducting trial in above case as illegal and quash the same and the said Writ petition was allowed on 13.04.2023 and this court closed the proceedings in C.C. No.15/2022.
The prosecution preferred an appeal in Crl.Appeal No.899/2024 @ SLP (Crl) No.010038/2023 against the judgment in W.P.No.5441/2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the same was allowed on 02-01- 2025 and directed this court to restore the C.C.15/2022 on the file of this court to its original number. Accordingly, this court proceeded further.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 9
4. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to him in compliance with S.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined u/s. 239 Cr.P.C and he pleaded not guilty. Charges were framed for the offences under Sections.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trail, to substantiate it’s case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and got marked Ex.P.1 to
P.33 and M.O.1 to M.O.6.
6. On the strength of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same and reported no evidence. The accused further filed his written statement.
7. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and both filed written arguments.
Submissions on behalf of the Public Prosecutor:
8.(i) It was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in every trap case there are three essential ingredients i.e., demand, acceptance and recovery, inspite of these ingredients, the accused must
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 10 work as a Public Servant as on the date of offence. The evidence available on record proved that the accused was working in the capacity of Public
Servant as on the date of offence. As per the mandate under Section.19 of the P.C.Act, to proceed against any Public Servant of Central
Government or State Government, necessary sanction should be obtained. In the instant case, the prosecution examined PW11/Pasupuleti
Chandra Sekhar Babu, Senior Divisional Finance Manager, SCR, Guntakal and proved that he issued sanction order vide Ex.P22 against the accused to prosecute him before the Court of Law after perusing relevant documents placed before him and due application of mind. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution initiated the proceedings against the accused after obtaining valid sanction order from the Competent Authority.
(ii) The learned Public Prosecutor has drawn the attention of this court to the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 15 and submitted in respect of the demand of bribe that the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 15 established the allegation of demand levelled against the accused in Ex.P1-Written
Complaint and submission before PW15 (TLO) and both punch witnesses put their signatures on the complaint after going through its contents, further their evidence established that the accused demanded and
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 11 accepted the bribe amount from the complainant which was incorporated in post-trap proceedings (Ex.P4).
(iii) In so far as recovery of bribe amount from the possession of the accused is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that PW1 deposed that when the accused tried to ran away from the Accounts
Office, he had thrown cash of Rs.15,000/- on the ground which was recovered by the trap team member. PW2 corroborated the evidence of
PW.1 and deposed that when PW15 (TLO) questioned the accused as to where he kept the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/-, the accused removed
Rs.15,000/- from left side pocket of his pant and tried to throw away into the back side room, but the said money fell on the ground near by the accused, on that, on the instructions of PW15, LW3-/Sanjay D Korde collected the money from the ground and verified the numbers of the currency notes and compared with the numbers mentioned in the 1st mediators report and found them tallied, hand washes of the accused were collected which turned into pink colour, Pant of the accused was also subjected to chemical test which yielded positive result. Thus, recovery was proved from the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 15.
(iv) It was further submitted in respect of official work pending with the accused so also motive or reward that as per the evidence of PW1,
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 12 the bills were received by the accused on 16.11.2017 and the accused demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- from PW1 for processing the bills. PW3 deposed about the procedure for passing of the bills submitted by PW1.
PW4 deposed that on 16.11.2017, Ex.P7 bill was placed before him and he verified the bill and put his initial indicating availability of the funds and forwarded the said bill to the accused. PW5 deposed that on 20.11.2017 about 8.30 pm, he handed over Ex.P7, Ex.P11 and two other bills submitted by two other Contractors to the CBI Inspector which were received from PW3 for generation of cheque, his Assistant generated the cheque on 21.11.2017 and they sent the said cheque to the Bank. PW6 deposed that he handed over contract bills, dispatch register (Ex.P13) to the CBI and he was the custodian of Ex.P12. PW7 deposed that he handed over Exs.P5, P6 and P14 to the CBI Inspector. PW8 deposed that she received Ex.P7 bill from the Assistant Division Medical Officer (ADMO),
Renigunta, she made entry (Ex.P12) on the same day, on 16.11.2017, on the reverse of Ex.P7, she made endorsement to the effect that funds are available and placed Ex.P7 before the Chief Medical Superintendent,
Divisional Hospital, Guntakal and obtained his approval then and she had taken Ex.P7 Bill on 16.11.2017 to the accused, PW1 accompanied her to the office of Senior Divisional Finance Manager, she handed over Ex.P7 to the accused, PW1 told her that he had some work in the said office.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 13
(v) It was further submitted that PW13 deposed that Ex.P7 Bill was prepared by him, he obtained the signature of PW1 on the bill on 14.11.2017, he forwarded Ex.P7-Bill along with Measurement book to the
Assistant Divisional Medical Officer (ADMO), Renigunta for verification, after verification, ADMO forwarded the same to the Medical
Superintendent, South Central Railway, Guntakal, after verification, the said Chief Medical Superintendent forwarded the same to the Divisional
Financial Manager for sanction of bills amount.
(vi) It was further submitted that during pre-trap proceedings, the accused made call to PW.1 and asked PW1 as to why he did not bring money and questioned as to where he was present and PW1 told the accused that he would come. PW9 Nodal Officer furnished Ex.P16-CDR and certificate under Section.65-B. As per Ex.P16 there was a call made by the accused from his Mobile phone to the Mobile phone of PW.1. On behalf of LW15-Sanganaboina Deepak Kumar who worked in Bharathi
Airtel Company, Hyderabad from 2008-2020, the prosecution got examined PW14 who identified all the signatures of LW15 appearing in
Ex.P27 to Ex.P30. Accordingly, the prosecution proved that the accused demanded bribe from PW1 by making phone call from his Mobile to the
Mobile phone of PW1. Thus, demand was proved. The Expert opinion
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 14 issued by PW12 proved that phenolphthalein sodium carbonate ions were detected in Exs.P1 to P3.
(vii) It was also submitted with regard to the conduct of the accused that when the CBI team went into the Chamber of the Accused pursuant to the signal given by PWs.1 and 2, the Accused attempted to escape and ran towards the office gate where he was apprehended by the
CBI team. PW10 Sentry Guard who was on Guard duty on 20.11.2017 also supported the prosecution case stating that one person ran away infront of him when he was attending Guard duty, meanwhile two or three persons ran after the first person, on the next day he came to know that an employee of Accounts Department, by name Challa Sreenivasulu was caught in the trap. The said conduct of the accused acquires great legal significance. His attempt to flee at the very movement of CBI teams introduction amounts to conduct relevant under Section.6 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 being part of the res gestae. The Act of escaping is inseparability connected with the fact in issue namely the receipt of illegal gratification and therefore forms part of the same transaction. Such spontaneous conduct, contemporaneous with the official action provides corroborative value to the prosecution case.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 15
(viii) It was finally submitted that further more, under Section.8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the post conduct of the accused namely his attempt to abscond is clearly relevant. Conduct before, through and after the commission of the offence can be relied upon as a corroborative circumstance to prove intention and knowledge. Thus, the attempt of the accused to flee unequivocally strengthens the chain of circumstances against him and supports the prosecution case beyond mere recovery.
Thus, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the demand and acceptance of bribe amount from the complainant and recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In such circumstances, the accused has to rebut the presumption by disproving the case of the prosecution. But, he failed to do so and thus the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned
Public Prosecutor relied on the following decisions in support of his submissions:- 1). M.Narasinga Rao Vs State of A.P (AIR 2001 SC 318, of the
Hon’ble Apex Court)wherein it was held that in the process the Court may have
regard to common course of natural events, human conduct, etc., of the facts of the particular case. The discretion is clearly envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
(para 16 of the citation). Presumption is an inference of certain fact drawn from other proved facts. While inferring the existence of a fact from another, the Court is only
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 16 applying a process of intelligent reasoning which the mind of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances. Presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. But it could as well be final if it remains undisturbed (para 17 of the citation). In the case on hand, the presumption drawn under Section 20(1) is neither disproved nor dispelled by the accused, hence the fact of demand and acceptance by the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court may presume that a person who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession, illustration (a) to Section 114 of Evidence Act. … who a few minutes earlier was shown to have been in possession of the notes. Once we arrive at the finding that the accused had obtained money from the complainant the statutory presumption of PC Act is immediately attracted (para 22 of the citation).
2). Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Criminal Appeal No.1669/2009). It was observed in this decision that in the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary/oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution .
3).State of Karnataka Vs Chandrasha (Criminal Appeal
No.2646/2024). It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex court in Page
No.20 “ it is a common knowledge that when the bill was submitted to the office of Sub
Treasury for sanction, only after issuance of the cheque to the concerned, the work will be treated as completed. In the instant case, no cheque was issued, and it was pending
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 17 as on the date of trap, therefore, the contention so made on the side of respondent cannot be countenanced”.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Para No. 21 further observed “ It is settled law that the two basic facts viz., ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification have been proved, the presumption U/sec.20 can be invoked to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted is a motive or reward as contemplated U/sec 7 of the Act”.
Submissions on behalf of the accused:
9. i)The learned defence counsel submitted that while deciding a trap case, 3 points to be considered 1) Whether any official favour is pending on the table of accused? 2) Whether P.W.1 has grudge against the accused to implicate him in a false case? 3) Demand of accused, acceptance and recovery of the amount from the accused on the date of trap and whether the prosecution established its case?
ii) In so far as the first point is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the bills are not on the table of the accused and no official favour pending on his table as on the date of trap, the procedure for passing Ex.P.7 bill was deposed by P.W.3. P.W.3 deposed that Ex.P.7 bill was received by the Account Section/Bill section on 16-11-2017, on 20- 11-2017, the accused verified Ex.P.7 bill, put his initial and forwarded the
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 18 same to G.Ramana Murthy (L.W.5), the section officer (Accounts) for verification, in turn, the said G.Ramana Murthy verified Ex.P.7 bill, put his initial and forwarded the same to P.W.3 on the same day, after examination of Ex.P.7, P.W.3 put his initial and sent the same to the Bill section for preparation of C.O.7 bill, the accused prepared C.O.-7(Cash order-7) on 20-11-2017 in connection with Ex.P.7 bill and two other bills and sent the same to G.Ramana Murthy for verification on the same day,
G.Ramana Murthy verified C.O.-7 bill, put his initial and forwarded the same to P.W.3 on 20-11-2017, after examining Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.11 (consolidated bill of P.W.1 and two others), P.W.3 put his initial on 20-11- 2017 and forwarded the same to Book section on the same day for cheque generation.
iii) It was further submitted that thus the evidence of P.W.3 makes it clear that the accused completed his part of duty. Accordingly, there is no pending work on the table of the accused and he processed the bills of P.W.1 so also the bills of other two contractors. The time for clearing Ex.P.7 is three working days. The accused processed/cleared
Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.11 bills well within three working days. Moreover, P.W.1 also requested DFM (P.W.3) to hold bills up to 20-11-2017. P.W.3 also deposed that bills of a contractor have to be cleared within three working
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 19 days and no delay occurred in passing Ex.P.7 bill. The accused not only processed the bill of P.W.1 alone, he also processed the bills of two other contractors. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused demanded bribe from two other contractors. Hence, it is incongruous and unsafe to believe the version of P.W.1 that the accused demanded bribe from P.W.1 for processing the bills.
iv) It was further submitted that the prosecution further alleges that the accused also demanded bribe for already processed bills of May, 2017 and July, 2017 of P.W.1. This aspect was introduced only to falsely implicate the accused. Moreover, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused demanded bribe at the time of passing bills of May, 2017 and June, 2017. By reading Sec.7 of P.C. Act, 1988, it can be said that bribe is for doing official act and not for the work already done. If that does not be the intention of legislature, every complainant in order to take grudge against a public servant would lodge false reports stating that the public servants demanded bribe for the work already done. In support his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:-
1) K.Shankar Vs. State of ACB represented by Inspector of police,
Karimnagar Range, Karimnagar (Crl. Appeal No.463 of 2007),
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 20 wherein it was held “ in the absence of proof of demand and also that any official work was pending with the appellant, mere recovery of the amount at the instance of appellant cannot be made basis to convict him ” .
2) Banasi Dass Vs. State of Hariyana (2010 (4) SCC 450). In this decision, it was observed by the Apex court “ the demand and acceptance of the money for doing a favour in discharge of its official duties is sine qua non to convict the accused”.
v) In so far as the second point that raised by the accused as to whether P.W.1 has grudge against the accused to implicate him in a false case is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that P.W.1 claimed that he has given his bank current account Number to the office of Senior
DFM, Gunthakal to credit his contract bills. However, he says that his first contractor claim bill of Rs.20,00,000/- was credited by the Accounts
Department to his personal savings account instead of current account and thereafter, the bill amount to a tune of Rs.20,00,000/- was withdrawn by Basha, his employee and absconded and caused huge monetary loss to P.W.1. Due to this, P.W.1 bore grudge against the accounts department officials more particularly against the accused.
P.W.1 also questioned the accused regarding crediting of first bill in his personal saving account instead of current account of his firm. In view of
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 21 this, P.W.1 falsely implicated the accused in this case. P.W.1 also admitted in his cross examination that he nursed grudge against the employees of Railways as his first bill amount of Rs.20,00,000/- was credited to his personal savings bank account instead of current account of his firm. He further, deposed that he thought that the accused is responsible for crediting the said amount to his personal savings bank account. By above, it is clear that P.W.1 was under mistaken impression that the accused is the person who generated the cheque and bore grudge against him.
vi) It was further submitted that the grudge of P.W.1 against the employees of accounts department is also evident from the evidence of P.W.3 who was working as DFM and P.W.11 who was working as senior
DFM during relevant period. P.W.3 stated that P.W.11 called himself, accused and G.Ramana Murthy(L.W.5) to his chamber and questioned about crediting of bill amount of P.W.1 to his savings bank account instead of current account, P.W.1 quarreled with the staff members and left the chambers of P.W.11 stating that he would see what to be done.
P.W.11 also deposed that he called the staff members to his chamber,
P.W.1 quarreled with them and left the chamber ferociously declaring that he would do what he can do. Thus it is clear that P.W.1 to wreck
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 22 vengeance against railway employees, more particularly against the accused, falsely implicated the accused in this case. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:
1) Paritala Sudhakar Vs. State of Telangana (Crl.Appeal No. Of 2025 (spl.Leave petition (Criminal) No.6066 of 2024) wherein it was observed in Para No.21 “ as far as the submission of the State is that the presumption under Sec.20 of the Act, as it then was, would operate against the appellant is concerned, our analysis supra would indicate that the factum of demand, in the backdrop of an element of animus between the appellant and the complainant is not proved ”.
2) Vaibhav Chawhan Vs. State of M.P. to CBI, Jabalpur (Crl.Appeal
No.2073 of 2011) wherein it was observed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in Para No.31 as follows:
“ it is settled proposition of criminal jurisprudence that conviction of accused cannot be found on the basis of inference or presumption. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct or by circumstantial evidence by leading cogent evidence. In the light of conflicting versions and suspicious features of the trap proceedings, the claim of appellant that he was falsely implicated at the instance of Deputy Chief Vigilance officer does not appear to be improbable and it would be hazardous to base a
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 23 conviction as the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt”.
vii) In so far as the third point raised by the defence counsel as to demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount on the date of trap and whether the prosecution established its case is concerned, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Admn) 1979(4) SCC 725) wherein it was observed that “mere recovery of amount divorced from the circumstances of the case is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence is not reliable”.
viii) The learned counsel further relied on a decision in
Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Hariyana (2010 (4) SCC 450). In this decision it was observed “ it is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards against the guilt of the accused. It was further held “the demand and acceptance of money for doing a favour in discharge of its official duties is sine qua non to the conviction of the accused”.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 24 ix) It was further submitted that the prosecution is trying to falsely establish that accused had initially demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- from P.W.1 on 16-11-2017 for processing the bills of July, 2017 to
September, 2017 and for already sanctioned bills of May, 2017 and June, 2017 for which, P.W.1 refused. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that bills were received by the accused on 16-11-2017, but it is unclear when the alleged initial demand was said to have been made by the accused on 16-11-2017 and at which place. P.W.1’s evidence is also silent as to where he met the accused. No where, in his evidence P.W.1 deposed that accused also demanded bribe for already sanctioned bill.
Further, there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1. In view of lack of details/information, P.W.1’s evidence cannot be considered.
Moreover, P.W.1 nursed grudge against the accused as already submitted.
x) In this connection, the learned counsel relied on a decision in
Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Hariyana (2010 (2) Supreme 760) it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision in Paragraph
No.10that it is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of accused cannot be found on the base of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct or even by
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 25 circumstantial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused”.
xi) It was further submitted that FIR is not substantive evidence and the allegations in FIR are not conclusive proof. It is proved only when it is supported by inspiring oral evidence or any other supporting evidence. Absolutely, there is no oral evidence, for that reason there is no other evidence on the record to prove the allegations in
FIR that the accused demanded bribe for processing three bills i.e., July to September, 2017 bills as well as demanded bribe for already sanctioned bills of May and June, 2017. Hence, the allegations in FIR cannot be considered. P.W.1 in his report stated that he personally submitted the bills to the accused on 16-11-2017. But in fact, P.W.8 submitted the bills to the accused on 16-11-2017. P.W.8 never deposed that P.W.1 met the accused on 16-11-2017 when she submitted the bills to the accused, she only deposed that P.W.1 accompanied her stating that he had some work in the office. It does not mean P.W.1 met the accused on 16-11-2017. Moreover, P.W.1 did not depose that he accompanied
P.W.8 on 16-11-2017. Thus, it can be concluded that it is only a make believe version of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 report that he personally submitted the bills to the accused. The story of demand on 16-11-2017 is a concocted
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 26 story invented by P.W.1 to falsely implicate the accused and in fact, the accused did not demand bribe on 16-11-2017.
xii) It was further submitted that P.W.1 during his cross examination deposed that on 20-11-2017 about 10.00 am, he met the accused in his office, the accused told him that he would process Ex.P.7 bills by the evening and he would inform him. But, P.W.1 no where in his
Ex.P.1 report mentioned that he met the accused on 20-11-2017. There is no demand of accused when P.W.1 met him on 20-11-2017. It is natural that when accused is anticipating some bribe for processing the bills, he would definitely demand bribe on 20-11-2017. But there is no demand on 20-11-2017. So, it is clear that P.W.1 met the accused to know the stage of his bills and also to know whereabouts of the accused in his office and it is clear that after meeting the accused on 20-11-2017, P.W.1 lodged report to the CBI at 11.45 am. Thus, it can safely be concluded that P.W.1 tactically played his role in falsely implicating the accused by verifying whereabouts of the accused on 20-11-2017. This may also be done at the advise of CBI/Trap laying officer (P.W.15).
xiii) With regard to the alleged demand of the accused to P.W.1 over phone on 20-11-2017 during trap proceedings, it was submitted that the accused called to P.W.1 on 20-11-2017 at 16.17 hours only to inform
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 27 that his bills were processed and there is no malafide intention on the part of the accused. Moreover, P.W.3 also deposed that the contractors make inquiry regarding the status of bills by making calls to the staff members of bill section, some times the clerks informed the contractors about passing of the bills over phone. Thus, it is clear that exchanging of phone calls is common between the railway officials and contractors and no malafide intention can be attributed to the accused.
xiv) It was further submitted that as per the evidence of
P.W.2 (mediator) he did not over hear the conversation between P.W.1 and the accused. Due to animosity against the accused, P.W.1 took advantage of the call made by the accused and twisted the conversation.
In trap case, it is dangerous and unsafe to believe the version of decoy/P.W.1. In trap case, decoy is a person who is used to bait a suspect, often a public servant in the course of alleged demand and accepting bribe. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on a decision in Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs. The State of AP (Crl.Appeal
No. Of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9091 of 2022) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in para No.31 as follows:
“ it is settled convention in such cases that the trap laying officer makes efforts to verify the factum of demand of bribe by the public servant before
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 28 initiating the trap proceedings. The factum of demand of bribe can also be verified by recording the telephonic conversation between the decoy and the suspect public servant. Often a recording device is secretly placed on the person of the decoy to record the conversation which would transpire during the course of acceptance of bribe by the public servant. However, no such steps were taken by the Dy.S.P. (P.W.10), who straight away organized the trap without making any effort whatsoever to verify the factum of demand attributed to the appellant (AO1 and AO2)”.
xv) The learned counsel further submitted that in the absence of any evidence, it is unsafe to believe the version of P.W.1 about the demand of bribe. The accused filed his written statement after his examination under 313 Cr.P.C. and submitted that on 20-11-2017 when he was on a phone call in his mobile phone in record room, P.W.1 who was standing besides him, without any demand, all of a sudden, P.W.1 thrust M.O.1 (tainted cash) in his left side pant pocket and went away.
He was stunned and surprised for this uncalled act of P.W.1. Then immediately he recovered and threw away the tainted cash on the floor in the record room and called P.W.1 with his name with an intention to return his money available on the floor, but P.W.1 did not listen to him and went away, in the meantime, CBI officers came and cornered him and gave picture that he received money, threw it on the floor after watching
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 29 the CBI officials. The said allegation is totally false and incorrect. Further,
P.W.2 deposed that he was instructed by the Inspector to observe whether the accused would accept the bribe and further instructed to give signal. But P.W.2 sat in a chair in that office room while P.W.1 approached the accused, then P.W.1 and the accused went in side a room. Thus P.W.2 did not follow the instructions of the Inspector and the trap was conducted in a different way other than that what the prosecution is claiming. Hence, it is clear that P.W.2 is not an eye witness for what has been transpired between the accused and P.W.1 on 20-11- 2017 in the office. Moreover, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in respect of the events happened prior to and at the time of alleged demand and acceptance are contra to each other. P.W.1 improved his version step by step and changing his stand at one or other stage, hence his version cannot be believed as it was far away from the truth.
xvi) It was further submitted that P.W.1 in his cross examination deposed that when accused was talking with some person through cell phone, he put M.O.1 cash in the left pocket of his pant from his behind, after keeping M.O.1 cash in the left pocket of accused’s pant he had gone away from that place. Thus, it is clear that P.W.1 thrusted
Mo.1 amount in the left side pant pocket of the accused when the accused
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 30 was talking over his cell phone and left the place. It is also the case of the prosecution that when the accused and P.W.1 went inside the record room, the accused was taking over his cell phone. P.W.1 also deposed the same in his chief examination. P.W.9 Nodal officer of Tata Tele- services also deposed that the accused received a call to his mobile phone at about 17.30 hours and the duration of the said call was 112 seconds.
Thus, the version of the accused that P.W.1 thrusted the amount in his left side pant pocket when the accused was talking over phone is reliable, authentic and true.
xvii) It was also further submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, the accused received the amount from P.W.1 with his left hand and kept the same in his left side pant pocket, so the chemical test conducted on the left hand and left side pant pocket of the accused yielded positive result. However, the right hand of the accused also yielded positive result. This is because when P.W.1 thrusted the amount in the left side pant pocket, the accused took out the amount with his left hand and then transferred it to his right hand and threw the amount with his right hand on the floor. P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed contra to each other as to when and where the accused threw the tainted amount on the floor.
P.W.2 in order to save his skin, deposed convenient version. Further, no
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 31 chemical test was conducted on the floor where the tainted currency was recovered and no photographs were taken to show the place of recovery.
The accused was allegedly caught by the CBI officers at Northern side gate of the compound. But in Ex.P.3 rough sketch, there was no such gate. If really the accused was detained at that place, the prosecution would have clearly mentioned it in the rough sketch. The prosecution did not show the alleged recovery of bribe notes in its rough sketch. In view of the contradictory evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the accused did not run away from that place. P.W.10 (the then Head constable, RPF) deposed that on 20-11-2017 about 5.30 pm, one person ran away infront of him when he was attending guard duty, he questioned the said person as to why he was running but he ran away from that place, meanwhile two or three persons ran after the first person and he cannot identify those persons. Thus the evidence of P.W.10 is no way helpful to the prosecution.
xviii) It was further submitted that P.W.15, the investigating officer did not verify the antecedents of P.W.1 and the accused properly.
It is not out of place to mention that P.W.15 only reached Gunthakal to lay gtrap against the accused and not for any other purpose. P.W.1 improved his evidence in chief examination than that of his alleged
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 32 statement U/sec 161 Cr.P.C. When those improvements were questioned in his cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that he did not state the same to Inspector and it clearly cut the root of the prosecution case. Further,
P.W.1 deposed in his cross examination at page No.10 last line and page
No.11 first line that he has not witnessed any of the incidents referred to by him supra, as such he did not state before the Inspector about those incidents. Thus, it is clear that P.W.1 did not witness anything on the date of trap. The changing of versions of P.W.1 at one or other place of his evidence leads to an irresistible conclusion that he is not a trustworthy witness. Further, P.Ws.2 and 15 gave different versions about securing of pant. Thus, it is clear that all attempts were made by the prosecution right from the first mediators report for that reason right from reaching
Gunthakal after making phone call by P.W.1 on 18-11-2017 would clearly show that every attempt was made to falsely implicate the accused in this case. Prosecution twisted the events that had taken place on 20-11-2017 and converted all the events to suit it’s false case.
xix)The learned counsel finally submitted that the accused never tried to abscond. He always cooperated with the investigating agency during Ex.P.4 proceedings. Hence, it cannot be termed that the post conduct of accused with regard to the alleged fleeing attracts Sec.8
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 33 of Indian Evidence Act. The conduct of accused on the date of trap is good and consistent. In this case, the ingredients ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of gratification have not been proved. Hence the presumption U/sec.20 of P.C. Act 1988 cannot be invoked. The said presumption comes into play only when the accused voluntarily accepted the alleged bribe amount. In this case, P.W.1 clearly stated that he thrusted the amount in the pant pocket of accused. Hence, presumption
U/sec.20 does not attract. Above being the position, the material is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty. There are discrepancies to reach a firm conclusion that the accused is guilt. The accused proved his case by the test of preponderance of probability and accordingly it can be safely held that the accused never demanded bribe and he did not accept any amount as illegal gratification. The accused therefore, prays to acquit him from the charges leveled against him by the prosecution as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against him.
10. Upon hearing the submissions of learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused and on perusal of the material available on record, the following points are arisen for determination:
1.Whether the prosecution is successful in establishing the demand acceptance and recovery of bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from the
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 34 accused on 20-11-2017?
2. Whether the prosecution established its case against the accused for the offences alleged beyond reasonable doubt?
Sanction Proceedings:
11. At the outset, before answering the above core points, let us see whether the sanction proceedings issued by PW.11 are valid.
12. Concededly, the accused herein is a Government Servant. As per Section 19 of the Act, to proceed against any public servant of the
Central Government or State Government, necessary sanction should be obtained for a Court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under
Sections, 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act as rightly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. In this case, the prosecution obtained necessary sanction (Ex.P.22) from P.W.11, who is the disciplinary authority as well as the competent authority. The sanction order (Ex.P.22) clearly states that the Senior Divisional Finance Manager, South Central
Railway, Guntakal (P.W.11) after perusal of the documents forwarded by the D.I.G./Head of the Branch, C.B.I., A.C.B.,Hyderabad, such as copies of FIR, statements of the witnesses and other documents mentioned in the report pertaining to the case, accorded sanction to initiate prosecution
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 35 against the accused. Therefore, no procedural irregularity was found in grant of sanction. It was also deposed by the sanctioning authority (P.W.11) that after going through all the documents which were made available to him by the D.I.G./Head of the Branch, C.B.I., A.C.B.,
Hyderabad and after satisfying himself that there was a prima facie case to initiate the prosecution against the accused and after having arrived at such satisfaction, he accorded sanction (Ex.P.22). Thus, it is clear that the prosecution initiated the proceedings against the accused, after obtaining valid sanction order from the competent authority.
Procedure for passing the bill of PW.1 and role of the accused in
passing the bill of P.W.1:
13. Next point to be seen is the procedure for passing the bill of
PW.1 and role of the accused in passing the bill of P.W.1.
14. For this, the prosecution got examined P.W.3/ Modukuri
Anjaiah, P.W.4/ N.Bhaskar Kumar, P.W.5/A.Nagaraja Rao, P.W.8/Murthoti
Margaret and P.W.13/ T.Satish Kumar who are the concerned employees of South Central Railways, who played their respective roles in processing the bill of P.W.1. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the procedure for processing the bill of P.W.1. However, it is necessary to take note of relevant portion of evidence of the above witnesses for better
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 36 appreciation.
15. The procedure for passing the bill of P.W.1 was deposed by
P.W.3, who is the Divisional Finance Manager Guntakal, South Central
Railways from 2014 to 2017 and who is the final authority to pass the bill. It is not in dispute that along with the bill of P.W.1, bill of two other contractors was also processed. Thus, Ex.P.7 bill is relating to 3 firms namely Global Agency (firm of P.W.1), Mahatma Phule Services and
K.Bheemalingappa.It is the evidence of P.W.3 that on 16.11.2017, they received Ex.P.7 bill from the Medical Department of Guntakal Railway
Division, after receipt of the bill, the accused registered the same and allotted serial number of C.O.-6 bill and forwarded the same to the
Budget section for funds verification, N.Bhaskar Kumar/P.W.4 Senior
Section Officer in budget section certified that funds are available and signed the said C C bill and returned to the Bill section, Ex.P.7 bill was received by the Accounts Section/Bill section on 16-11-2017, on 20.11.2017, the accused verified Ex.P.7 bill, put his initial and forwarded the same to one G.Ramana Murthy(L.W.5), the Section officer for verification, in turn the said G.Ramana Murhty verified Ex.P.7 bill, put his initial and forwarded the same to P.W.3 on the same day, after examination of Ex.P.7 bill, he put his initial and sent the same to the Bill
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 37 section for preparation of C.O.-7 bill, the accused prepared C.O.-7 bill on 20-11-2017 in connection with Ex.P.7 bill and two other bills and sent the same to L.W.5 for verification, L.W.5 verified C.O.-7 bill, put his initial and forwarded the same to P.W.3 on 20.11.2017, (consolidated C.O.-7 bill of
P.W.1 and two others was marked as Ex.P.11), after examining Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.11, P.W.3 put his initial on 20-11-2017 and forwarded the same to the Book Section on the same day for cheque generation, on 21.11.2017 A.Nagaraja Rao/P.W.5 prepared consolidated cheque and sent the cheque to the Bank.
16. It is the evidence of P.W.4, Senior Section Officer (Accounts),
Senior Divisional Finance Manager Office, South Central Railways,
Gunthakal that on 16-11-2017, Ex.P.7 bill was placed before him by his assistant, he verified the said bill and put his initial indicating the availability of funds, then he forwarded the said bill to the accused who was working as Accounts Assistant/Clerk in the bill section.
17. It is the evidence of P.W.5, who worked as Senior Section
Officer (Books Section) in the office of Senior Divisional Finance Manager,
South Central Railways Gunthakal Division, Gunthakal at relevant point of time that he received Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.11 and two other bills from
Divisional Finance Manager (P.W.3) for generation of cheque, after
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 38 examining the bills and initials of P.W.3, L.W.5 and accused, he instructed his assistant to generate the cheque, accordingly his assistant generated the cheque on 21-11-2017 and sent it to the Bank.
18. It is the evidence of P.W.8 who worked as Office
Superintendent in the office of Chief Medical Superintendent, Gunthakal
Divisional Hospital, Gunthakal at relevant point of time that on 14-11- 2017, she received Ex.P.7 bill from the Assistant Divisional Medical
Officer, Renigunta, immediately, she made an entry in Ex.P12 on 14.11.2017 itself, on 16.11.2017 on the reverse of Ex.P7, she made endorsement to the effect that funds are available and put her signature and placed the bill before the Chief Medical Superintendent and obtained his approval, then she had taken Ex.P.7 on 16.11.2017 to the accused who was working as Senior Accounts Assistant in the office of Divisional
Finance Manager, South Central Railway, Gunthakal.
19.It is the evidence of P.W.13, who worked as Chief Health
Inspector, Medical Department, South Central Railway, Renigunta at relevant point of time that Ex.P.7 bill of P.W.1 was prepared by him for the period from 01.07.2017 to 30.09.2017, in fact P.W.1 submitted the bill claiming Rs.29,91,246/-, after deducting the penalties imposed on
P.W.1, he prepared Ex.P7 bill for Rs.27,93,399/-, he obtained signature of
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 39
P.W.1 in Ex.P7 bill in respect of the penalties imposed against him, on 14- 11-2017 he forwarded the bill along with Measurement book to the
Assistant Divisional Medical Officer, Renigunta for verification.
20. Accordingly, the above witnesses played their respective roles in processing the bill of PW.1 and there is no dispute about their respective roles including the accused. It is understood from the above procedure that the accused also played vital role in processing the bill of
P.W.1.
21. It is also not in dispute that the CBI officer seized Ex.P12
Contract Bills Dispatch Register from 2014 to 2017 from PW.6 the then
Chief Medical Superintendent, SC Railway Divisional Hospital, Guntakal who was custodian of Ex.P12 and further seized Ex.P5 and P6 Bills from
PW.7, the then DFM, SCR, Guntakal Division.
POINT NO.1:-
Whether the prosecution is successful in establishing the
demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount of Rs.15,000/-
from the accused on 20-11-2017?
22.In order to bring home a charge under u/S 7 of the PC Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused accepted illegal
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 40 gratification, which was not the remuneration for which he was legally entitled to and that he has accepted the same as motive or reward for doing an official act. In so far as the offence under Section 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of P.C Act is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that the accused by corrupt or illegal means obtained for himself a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and that he has committed criminal misconduct being a public servant.
23.To substantiate it’s case against the accused for the offences
U/sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, the prosecution got examined
P.Ws.1 to 17 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.33 and M.Os.1 to 6. As mentioned above, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8, and P.W.13 are employees of South Central Railways, whose evidence has been discussed in brief in the above paragraphs. Further, the role of the above witnesses in processing the bill of P.W.1 has also been discussed supra.
Now, before proceeding to the merits of the main points under determination, it is important to appraise the particulars of remaining witnesses. P.W.1 is the complainant who set the law into motion by giving Ex.P.1-complaint to the CBI Inspector, P.W.2 is the mediator who said to have accompanied P.W.1 throughout the trap proceedings, P.W.9 is Nodal officer, Tata teleservices limited who furnished call data records
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 41 and customer application form in respect of mobile net work number 7207115899 belongs to Ch.Sreenivasulu(accused) on the requisition of
CBI, P.W.10/B.Ramanjaneyulu is is Head Constable, Railway Protection
Force, Gunthakal at relevant point of time and who said to have witnessed while the accused ran away at the time of raid, P.W.12/Satish Ramaram
Naikar is the scientific officer who conducted chemical test and who issued examination report, P.W.14/S.Muralidhara is Nodal Officer Bharathi
Airtel Company, Hyderabad, who gave evidence on behalf of S.Deepak
Kumar, who furnished call data particulars relating to the phone number 9701374542 belongs to T.Satish Kumar along with 65-B certificate,
P.W.15 P.Raj Kumar is the trap laying officer, P.W.16/M.Kishore is
Assistant Sub Inspector, RPF at relevant period, who furnished duty register to the CBI and P.W.17/P.Naresh Kumar is Inspector of Police,
CBI, ACB who is the investigating officer.
24. Before answering the above point, it is necessary to answer the question raised by the learned defence cousel as to whether
Sec.7 of P C Act applies to the cases only where the demand for bribe is for doing official act ?
25.The learned counsel contended that by reading Sec.7 of P.C.
Act, it can be said that bribe is for doing official act and not for the work
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 42 already done, if that does not be the intention of the legislature, every complainant in order to take grudge/vengeance against a Public Servant would lodge false report before the Investigating Agencies by stating that
Public Servants demanded bribe for the already committed work.
26.In view of the above submission of the learned counsel, it is necessary to take note of the meaning of “ A motive or reward for doing” defined U/sec.7(d) of P.C. Act.
Sec.7 (d) of PC Act: “A motive or reward for doing” A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression”.
27.From a careful reading of the above definition with the help of an observation in a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Charthudas
Bhagwandas Patel Vs The State of Gujarath (AIR 1976 SC 1497)
wherein it was observed in Para No.21 that a person who receives a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, as a reward for doing what he has not done, comes within the purview of the words “a motive or reward for doing”, it is very clear that the word “motive” refers to the gratification for the work to be done and the word “reward” refers to the gratification for the work already done. So, it is
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 43 clarified that the demand of bribe for the work pending and already done both comes under Sec.7 the of P.C.
28. It is also to be noted in view of the above contention raised by the learned counsel that in order to prevent frivolous and malicious prosecutions, the legislature incorporated sanction proceedings in the P.C.
Act. This safeguard ensures that frivolous or baseless prosecutions do not disrupt a public servant duties. The purpose of a sanction is to ensure that only genuine cases proceed to trial protecting public servants from unnecessary harassment. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the learned counsel is unable to make good his argument on this aspect.
Proof of demand:
29.In so far as the demand of alleged bribe of Rs.15,000/- by the accused from PW.1 is concerned, the learned public prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1, P.W.2 and P.W.15 established the allegation of demand whereas the learned defence counsel contended that there is no demand by the accused, further the alleged demand was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
30. It is established principle in catena of judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court that proof of demand of illegal gratification is gravamen of
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 44 the offence under Section 7 ans Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P C Act and in the absence thereof the charge would fail and mere recovery of tainted currency notes does not suffice the proof of the fact. Reliance laid in P.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of A.P (2015(10)SCC 152);
B.Jaya Raj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014(2) ALD (crl) 73),
Suraj Mal Vs. State ( Delhi administration) (1979(4)SCC 725) and
The State Of Karnataka Vs. Chandrasha cited by the prosecution.
31. Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal principle, now let us see how far the prosecution is able to establish the demand of bribe by the accused. P.W.1 set the law into motion by giving Ex.P.1-complaint wherein it was mentioned as follows; “He being partner in M/s Global Agency, Bangalore has been doing contracts in S.C. Railway Gunthakal Division for 10 years. In September, 2016 they were sanctioned mechanised cleaning work in respect of Renigunta Railway station for two years worth Rs.2,40,00,000/-. They were submitting bill for
Rs.10,00,000/- in every month in Railway accounts department, Gunthakal. He submitted a bill for 3 months from July, 2017 to Sep., 2017 for Rs.30,00,000/- on 16-11-2017 to bill clerk-C.Srinivasulu in Railway accounts department,
Gunthakal. The said C.Srinivasulu demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- for processing the above bill and already processed bills for the months of May and June, 2017. Inspite of his request, the accused demanded the bribe and further
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 45 informed that if PW.1 did not pay bribe, he would not process the bill and demanded to bring bribe of Rs.15,000/- and give the same to him in his office on 20-11-2017. Since he has no interest to give bribe of Rs.15,000/-, he is requesting to take action against the accused as per law .”
32. P.W.1 corroborated the contents of the complaint in his chief examination and further deposed that the bills were received by the accused on 16-11-2017, the accused demanded money of Rs.15,000/- from him for processing the bills, he refused to pay, he found phone numbers of CBI office, Hyderabad on notice board in DRM office,
Gunthakal, on 18-11-2017, he made call to the CBI, Hyderabad, the CBI officer who received his call told him that the CBI officials are coming to
Gunthakal on 20-11-2017 and he could meet one Rajkumar, CBI officer at
Gunthakal, on 20-11-2017 about 11-45 am, he met the said CBI officer and presented Ex.P.1-complaint which was already prepared by him in his hand writing.
33. P.W.15/P.Raj Kumar, Inspector of Police CBI, Trap Laying
Officer also deposed that on 20-11-2017, while he was camping at
Gunthakal in connection with confidential work, he received written complaint/Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, immediately he forwarded the same to the
Head of the Branch, Hyderabad through e-mail, on the same day around
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 46 12.05 hours, he received instructions from the Head of the branch and he verified the genuineness of the complaint and came to know that the accused was in the habit of receiving bribe, then he decided to lay trap.
34.P.W.17/Investigating officer also deposed that on 20-11-2017,
Head of the branch, Hyderabad handed over him an e-mail copy of complaint with an endorsement to register the case and to investigate, accordingly he registered the case and took up investigation.
35.Accordingly, as per the version of P.W.1 both in his complaint and in his chief examination, after receiving the bills of P.W.1 on 16-11- 2017, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/-. Though P.W.1 in his complaint mentioned that the accused demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- for processing the pending bills and also for the bills already processed by him, but in his evidence P.W.1 deposed only to the extent that the accused demanded Rs.15,000/- for processing the pending bills.
36. Thus, the first demand as per P.W.1 was made by the accused on 16-11-2017. As per the prosecution case, the accused again demanded P.W.1 to give bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- on 20-11-2017 during pre-trap proceedings through phone call. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that after he met the CBI officer on 20-11-2017 and after presenting the complaint, the CBI Inspector asked him to wait outside the
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 47 room for some time, about 3.45 pm, he was called to the room, by that time Assistant Manager and clerk of Syndicate Bank were present, after their introduction, they asked P.W.1 as to the contents of Ex.P.1, as per the instructions of CBI officer/Raj Kumar, P.W.1 handed over Rs.15,000/-, the Bank officer noted down the currency notes numbers and applied chemical powder and conducted chemical test, the CBI officer kept the tainted currency notes in his right side pant pocket and instructed not to touch the currency notes, in the meantime the accused made a call
to P.W.1 and enquired as to why he did not bring money and
asked as to where he was present, he told the accused that he
was coming, the CBI officer prepared a document and obtained his signature.
37.P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and he also stated that P.W.1 received a phone call during pre-trap proceedings, P.W.1 talked with the said person and told them that it was
Srinivasulu(Accused) who made the said call and he further informed them that the accused asked him to bring bribe amount. P.W.15- Trap laying officer also deposed that after receipt of the complaint, he forwarded Ex.P.1-complaint to the Head of the branch, after verifying its genuineness, he decided to lay trap, he secured the mediators, they
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 48 conducted chemical test, they applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes and in the mean time, around 16-17 hours, the complainant received a call from the accused in their presence and accused asked about the bribe amount.
38. Admittedly, the bill of P.W.1 was handed over to the accused by P.W.8/M. Margorate, the then Office Superintendent in the office of
Chief Medical Superintendent, Guntakal Divisional Hospital, Guntakal on 16-11-2017. She further clearly deposed that P.W.1 accompanied her to the office of Senior Divisional Finance Manager, when she went to hand over Ex.P.7 bill to the accused stating that he had some work in that office. P.W.8 denied the suggestion in her cross examination that P.W.1 did not accompany her to the office of Senior Divisional Finance Manager on 16-11-2017. It is not the case of the accused that PW.8 had animosity against the accused. Hence, it can be said that P.W.8 who was working in the same department has no necessity to speak falsehood against the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.8 is said to be reliable and considerable.
39. In the earlier paragraphs, the role of the accused and other witnesses who are employees in South Central Railways in connection with processing the bills has already been discussed. P.W.3 may be the
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 49 final authority who has to pass the bill finally, but the accused also plays vital role in processing the bill of P.W.1. Unless the accused forwarded the
Bill from his table after completing his role, even PW.3 also can not proceed further. Thus, the role of the accused is said to be considerable as well as vital in processing the bill of P.W.1.
40. Admittedly, there is no other corroborative evidence to the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- on 16-11-2017. But, as discussed above, it was proved from the evidence of
PW.8 also that PW.1 went to the office of the accused on 16-11-2017.
Here, it is pertinent to note that the demand of illegal gratification need not be always direct and the demand can be inferred even from the circumstances. The conduct of P.W.1 also to be examined which plays vital role in deciding the demand aspect. The conduct of P.W.1 depicting the natural human behaviour that provoked him to file complaint against the accused and his testimony that Ex.P.1 complaint was given and drafted by himself substantiate the case of the prosecution with regard to demand of illegal gratification by the accused prior to the registration of the crime. Therefore, in view of the above discussed conduct of PW.1 and the role of the accused in processing the bill of PW.1, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of demand of bribe by the
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 50 accused at the first instance on 16-11-2017. However, it was only proved that the said demand is only for processing the pending bills.
41.As rightly submitted by the defence counsel, P.w.1 in his cross examination for the first time stated that on 20-11-2017 at about 10.00 am, he met the accused in his office, the accused told him that he would process his bill by the evening of 20-11-2017 and he would inform the same to P.W.1, the accused demanded him to pay bribe for processing Ex.P.7-bill. Admittedly, the same was not mentioned either in
Ex.P.1 or in his chief examination by P.W.1. But for that reason, it cannot be said that the entire evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy. What P.W.1 in his chief examination deposed that he presented the written complaint already prepared by him to the CBI officer. So, it can be said, P.W.1 has already prepared Ex.P.1 by the time he met the accused on 20-11-2017, therefore he might not have mentioned the demand of the accused on 20- 11-2017 in his complaint.
42.The learned defence counsel vehemently contended as mentioned above in his arguments that no official work was pending on the table of the accused, the accused completed his part of duty and made call to P.W.1 to inform the same and at that time pre-trap proceedings might have been going on. On the other hand, the learned
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 51
Public Prosecutor submitted that by the time of giving complaint, the work has already been pending with the accused and he relied on a decision in
The State of Karnataka Vs. Chandrasha as already mentioned above wherein it was observed that only after issuance of cheque to the concerned, the work will be treated as completed.
43. In this case, indisputably cheque has been prepared on 21- 11-2017 on the next date of trap. Even otherwise, it was proved from the evidence of P.W.3 to 8 and 13 who involved in processing the bill of PW.1 that the accused started processing of Bill on 20.11.2017. The process might have been completed with in three working days as contended by the learned counsel. But, what has been proved from the evidence of above witnesses that by the time of giving complaint by P.W.1 to the CBI officer on 20-11-2017 about 11.45 am, accused has not completed his part of duty in processing the bill of P.W.1 and further cheque has not been prepared by the time of trap. It is also important to note that it has already been proved that the first demand for bribe was made on 16-11- 2017 which is much prior to commence the process by the accused.
Therefore, without hesitation, it can be said that official favour is pending on the table of the accused by the time of giving complaint by P.W.1.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 52
Thus, this court is not agreeing with the learned defence counsel on this aspect.
44.Coming to the demand of bribe at the second instance during pre-trap proceedings, there was corroboration among P.Ws.1, 2, and 15.
In order to prove that the accused made call to P.W.1 at 16.17 hours, during pre-trap proceedings, the prosecution got examined P.W.9-Nodal officer, Tata Teleservices Limited. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the evidence of P.W.9. However, relevant portion of his evidence to be noted down briefly. P.W.9 stated that he furnished attested photostat copies of customer application, ID card, submitted by
Ch.Srinivasulu/accused and call data record pertaining to cell phone
No.7207115899 from 10-11-2017 to 20-11-2017. He further deposed that as per Ex.P.16 call data records, there was a call made from mobile net work number 7207115899 to the mobile net work number 9704347265 at 16.17 hours on 20-11-2017.
45.P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that his cell phone number is 9704347265 and the cell phone number of the accused is 7207115899.
So, it was proved that the accused made call to P.W.1 during pre-trap proceedings on 20-11-2017 at 16.17 hours. The accused is also not disputing the said fact but, his contention is that he made call to inform
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 53 that the process of Bill has been completed. Admittedly, the call was not recorded by P.W.1 in his cell phone and it was not over heard by the trap team members and mediators. The learned defence counsel relied on a decision in MIR Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs. The State of A.P.( already mentioned in defence arguments) wherein it was observed that the factum of demand of bribe can also be verified by recording the telephonic conversation.
46.A careful perusal of evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 15 would go to show that P.w.2 is neither relative of P.W.1 nor he is stock mediator.
Here, a decision in State of Kerala Vs. MM. Mathew (AIR 1978 SC 1571) is relevant wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Apex court that the evidence of Investigating officer cannot branded as highly interested on the ground that they want the accused is convicted. In this case also, the accused failed to prove animosity between himself and any of the CBI officials or
P.W.2 to implicate him in this case. Thus, it is held that either the CBI officer or P.W.2 has no animosity against the accused to depose falsehood against him in respect of the telephonic conversation between P.W.1 and the accused. Unless P.W.1 informed P.W.2 and P.W.15 that the accused demanded bribe over phone, they have no necessity to speak falsehood against the accused. Unless the accused demanded bribe over phone,
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 54 there was no necessity to P.W.1 to convey wrong message to P.W.2 and
P.W.15. While so, it is the contention of the defence counsel that P.W.1 falsely implicated the accused in this case due to grudge.
47. The fact remained from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and
P.W.11 that first bill amount of subject contract i.e.,Rs.20,00,000/- was credited to the personal savings bank account of P.W.1 instead of current account of the firm, the same has been withdrawn by his worker Basha and he escaped, then P.W.1 approached Senior Divisional Finance
Manager/PW.11 and questioned him and he also called the accused, PW.3 and LW.5 and questioned them.
48. In this regard, it is not the evidence of P.W.1 that he bore grudge against the accused only. In his evidence, he clearly deposed that he nursed grudge against the employees of Railways for crediting of
Rs.20,00,000/- to his savings account instead of current account of his firm. Therefore, in view of the specific evidence of P.W.1, it cannot be said that he nursed grudge against the accused only. Admittedly, even after the said incident, PW.1 continued his contract work. Thus, it appears,the accused is trying to take advantage of this situation and it can be stated that it is not a ground to discard the entire case of the prosecution.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 55
49.As rightly contended by the learned defence counsel, P.W.1 asked P.W.3 to hold the bill up to 20-11-2017. P.W.3 in his cross examination clearly explained the purpose as to why P.W.1 asked him to hold the bill till 20-11-2017. P.w.3 deposed that on 16-11-2017 P.W.1 approached him and requested him to pass the bill without deducting GST and further requested to hold the bill up to 20-11-2017, then P.W.3 told
P.W.1 that he would wait for clarification from the Head quarters,
Secunderabad in respect of deduction of GST from the Contractor Claim
Bill and take further action on 20-11-2017. Accordingly, it was clearly elicited from the cross examination of P.W.3 itself that the purpose of holding the bill up to 20-11-2017 is only to get clarification about deduction of GST and the said fact is no consequence in this case.
Further, the accused processed the bill of P.W.1 and two other contractors. Whether the accused demanded bribe from the said two other contractors or not also has no consequence to this case.
50.Further, on the other hand, though the conversation was not recorded, the corroborative evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 15 clearly proved that the accused made call to PW.1 during pre-trap proceedings and demanded bribe. The ratio observed in the above decision relied on by the accused has no application to the facts of the case on hand. Accordingly,
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 56 the prosecution is able to establish the demand of bribe from the above discussed evidence of prosecution witnesses.
Proof of acceptance:
51.The next componentof offence U/sec.7 of P.C. Act is acceptance of bribe. The entire concept of accepting of bribe can be reduced only upon the strict proof of successful trap proceedings, which includes pre-trap and post- trap proceedings.
Pre Trap Proceedings:
52.As per the case of the prosecution, the accused accepted bribe of Rs.15,000/- on 20-11-2017 in his office i.e., Divisional Finance
Manager, Gunthakal. To prove the fact of acceptance, the prosecution got examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.15.
53.It is the evidence of P.W.15 that on 20-11-2017, while he was camping at Gunthakal town, he received a written complaint from P.W.1, he forwarded the same to the Head of the branch, Hyderabad through e- mail, on the same day, around 12.05 pm, he received instructions to proceed further and lay trap, he verified the genuineness of the complaint and came to know that the accused was in the habit of receiving bribe, then he decided to lay trap, he secured P.W.2-V.Vinaysheel and
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 57
L.W.3/Sanjay.D Koirde employees of Syndicate Bank to act as mediators, they also spoke with the complainant and confirmed the contents of the complaint, P.W.15 demonstrated a demo, chemical test was conducted by the Head constable on his instructions, on production of bribe amount of
Rs.15,000/- by P.W.1, currency notes numbers were noted down, phenolphthalein powder was applied to all the currency notes, around 16.17 hours, the complainant received a call from the accused and the accused asked about the bribe amount, later a personal search was conducted on the person of P.W.1, currency notes were placed in the right side pant pocket of the complainant, chemical test was then conducted and explained about the significance of the chemical reaction and he instructed P.W.1 not to touch the tainted currency notes until and unless the same was demanded by the accused and also instructed to give pre- arranged signal, he instructed P.W.2 to accompany the complainant and observe the events and he prepared first mediator report/Ex.P.2.
54.P.Ws.1 and 2 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.15 with regard to the pre-trap proceedings as to verification of contents of the complaint by the mediators, verification of amount, noting down the denomination and numbers of currency notes, conducting chemical test and smearing the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 58 endorsement of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.15. Thus Ex.P.2 pre-trap proceedings were proved efficiently without any clog of doubt or ambiguity.
Post-trap Proceedings:
55.According to P.W.15, after completion of pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P.2, at first P.W.1 P.W.2 went on one motor bike, the other team members followed them on four wheeler, P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the office and reached the table of the accused, around 5.10 pm, P.Ws.1 and 2 gave pre-arrange signal, then they rushed towards them, P.Ws.1 and 2 told them that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe amount, then they reached the accused and after confirming his identity, the accused ran away from the office, they apprehended him at North side gate of DRM office compound and brought him to his table and on questioning the accused, he agreed that he demanded and accepted the bribe from P.W.1, chemical test was conducted on both hands which yielded positive result.
56.He further deposed that on questioning the accused as to where he kept the tainted currency notes, the accused went towards record room which is behind his office table and took out the currency
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 59 notes and threw it on the floor, on his instructions, L.W.3 picked up the said currency notes and compared the numbers with the first mediator’s report and both are tallied, on enquiry, P.W.2 informed him that the accused had taken P.W.1 behind the office table and received bribe amount, the complainant also informed P.W.15 that the accused demanded and received the bribe amount, when questioned the accused, the accused had taken currency notes from his left side pant pocket and threw it on the floor, then chemical test was conducted on left side pant pocket of the accused, which yielded positive result and he prepared second mediator’s report.
57.P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of P.W.15 with regard to post -rap proceedings and his evidence is that himself and P.W.1 went to the Divisional Finance Manager office on his motor cycle, the other team members followed on four wheeler, after parking his two wheeler of the said office, they found the accused was entering the office, on seeing
P.W.1, the accused gave signal to him and asked him to come to
his office room, on that P.Ws.1 and 2 entered the office room of the
Accused, P.W.2 sat in a chair while P.W.1 approached the accused, then the accused and P.W.1 went inside a room located on back side of office table of accused, two or three minutes later both of them came out side
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 60 the room, then P.W.1 gave signal and told P.W.2 that the accused received the bribe amount, thereafter P.W.1 and P.W.2 came out side the office room and gave pre-arranged signal, then CBI trap team members approached them, they showed the accused to them, the Inspector introduced himself to the accused and ascertained the identity of the accused, then the accused tried to escape, the CBI officers, himself and
L.W.3 ran after the accused and caught him at North side gate of said compound, the accused was brought to his office table, the Inspector questioned him repeatedly as to whether he received bribe amount, for which the accused finally nodded his head from up to down, chemical test was conducted on both the hands of the accused, which yielded positive result, when the Inspector questioned the accused as to where he kept the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/-, the accused removed Rs.15,000/- from his left side pant pocket and tried to throw away into back side room but the money fell on the ground near by the accused, on the instructions of the Inspector, L.W.3 collected the money and counted it and compared the currency numbers with the first mediator’s report and both were tallied, the Inspector seized the bribe amount, further chemical test was conducted on the pant pocket of the accused, which yielded positive result, mobile phone of the accused was also seized (P.W.2 identified the accused in open court), the Inspector prepared second mediator’s report
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 61 and they all signed on it and he identified his signatures on all the proceedings.
58. In respect of acceptance of bribe by the accused, the learned defence counsel introduced thrust theory. As rightly submitted by the learned defence counsel, P.W.1 in his cross examination in page No.11 deposed that when accused was talking with some person through
cell phone, he put M.O.1 cash in the left pocket of his pant from
his behind, after keeping M.O.1 cash he had gone away from that
place. When the defence counsel questioned as to the contents of his statement before the CBI officer in respect of the events happened in the office of the accused, P.W.1 stated that he has witnessed none of the incidents, as such he did not state before the Inspector about those incidents.
59. Now, let us take note of evidence of PW.1 regarding post trap proceedings. P.W.1 deposed that on the instructions of CBI officer, himself and Bank clerk proceeded to the accounts office by two wheeler and other trap team members also came to the accounts office by four wheeler and took their positions outside the office. The accused who
was entering into Accounts office after having a tea saw P.W.1
and asked about the money and he made gesture by touching his
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 62 thumb with index finger, P.W.1 told the accused that he would be present there. The Bank clerk remained at some distance. By that time,
P.W.1 reached the accused, he was talking over cell phone and instructed
P.W.1 to come to the Record room which is situated behind the seat of the accused. Accordingly, P.W.1 went there. There also, the accused was talking with some person over his cell phone and again the accused made gesture by touching with his thumb with index finger indicating questioning him whether he brought money, on that P.W.1 handed over
Rs.15,000/- to the accused, who received the same with left hand
and kept the same in left side pocket of his pant. Thereafter, the accused came to his seat and sat in his seat. Then P.W.1 gave signal to the Bank clerk, the Bank clerk in turn gave signal to the trap team members. All the trap team members entered into the office room, the
CBI officer proceeded to the accused and introduced himself. Thereafter,
P.W.1 came outside the Accounts Office and remained at window. At that time, the accused tried to run away from his seat but he was detained and caught hold by the C.B.I Officers. The accused was brought to his seat and he was made to sit. P.W.1 was asked to come inside the
Accounts Office. The Accused was taken into another separate room. All the C.B.I Officers and trap team members were present in that room.
When questioned by the C.B.I Officer, the accused initially kept quiet and
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 63 thereafter he accepted that he received Rs.15,000/- from P.W.1. When the accused tried to run away from Accounts Office he had thrown cash of
Rs.15,000/- on the ground and it was recovered by C.B.I Officer.
60.P.W.1 further deposed about the chemical test conducted on the both hands of the accused which yielded positive result. He further deposed that pant of the accused was also subjected to chemical test and which also yielded positive result. He further deposed that on verification, numbers of currency notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in pre- trap proceedings, the CBI officer arrested the accused, rough sketch was prepared and he also singed on it, the entire proceedings were completed by 11-30 p.m. He further stated that his cell phone number is 9704347265 and cell phone number of accused is 72071158899.
61. The learned counsel submitted that PW.2 did not follow the instructions of PW.15 and sat in a chair in the office of the accused without following PW.1, thus he deviated the pre-arranged plan further,
PW.15 came to Guntakal for the purpose of laying trap only and not for any other work. Here, it is significant to mention that there is no fixed procedure to be followed by either the complainant or mediators or trap team members during the trap and they can act as per the circumstances warrant. So also, whether PW.15 came to Guntakal for the purpose of
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 64 laying trap or on any other work need not be given much weightage since, it would no way effect the prosecution case. Accordingly, this court does not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel.
62.A perusal of the entire evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 complaint, pre and post-trap proceedings would go to show that except admitting that he thrust money into the pant pocket of the accused while the accused was talking over phone, P.W.1 never contradicted the contents of Ex.P.1 complaint and his statement made before CBI officer during pre and post trap proceedings. Here, it is significant to mention that trap was conducted on 20-11-2017, chief examination of P.W.1 was conducted on 6-9-2022 after five years, where as cross examination was done on 19-1-2023 which is after more than four months after chief examination.
63.It is established principle in catena of judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court that minor discrepancies are not to be given due emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs State of
Gujarath (AIR 1983 SC 753) wherein it was held that over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies, by and lodge people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 65 them or heard by them, they can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
In Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabir Singh (2017(11) SCC 195), it was observed that it needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and therefore minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence.
In Krishnegowda Vs State of Karnataka (2017 (13) SCC
98), it was observed that generally in criminal cases, discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses is bound to happen because there would be considerable gap between the date of incident and the time of deposing evidence before the
Court.
64.As mentioned above, when P.W.1 did not contradict his entire case, contents of Ex.P1 complaint and the statement made before the CBI officer, basing on the single stray sentence which was stated by P.W.1 after more than four months after his chief examination, it cannot be concluded that the entire evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy.
65.In so far as the events that have been happened after P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the DRM office are concerned, there are minor
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 66 discrepancies among the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 15. P.W.1 in his chief examination stated that the accused who was entering into accounts office after having a tea, saw him and asked about the money and he made gesture by touching his thumb with index finger whereas in his 161
Cr.P.C. statement, he stated the same except to the extent that the accused was having tea. This is not major discrepancy which does not go to the root of the case. Like wise, there is no much discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.2 and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Further, it is not the specific evidence of P.W.1 that he never stated in his 161 Cr.P.C.
statement that the accused after having tea saw him and asked about the money by making gesture by touching his thumb with his index finger.
Both P.Ws.1 and 2 also stated before TLO as mentioned in post trap proceedings that they had seen the accused out side the office and the accused asked P.W.1 about the bribe amount and asked to come to his seat. Accordingly, even after entering the DFM office also the accused questioned P.W.1 as to whether he brought bribe amount which is nothing but demand of bribe and it also strengthens the prosecution case. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the evidence of PWs1, 2 and 15 is in corroboration with each other in respect of all material aspects, hence their evidence is found reliable and considerable. Further, it is held that minor discrepancies which are found in their evidence would no way
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 67 effect the prosecution case in view of the observations found in the above decisions.
66.Coming to the thrust theory introduced by the accused, in post trap proceedings, there was no such reference which goes to show that the accused did not state about the alleged theory before T.L.O.
Both P.Ws.1 and 2 in one voice stated that the accused himself called
P.W.1 into the record room located behind his seat. When the accused has no intention to receive bribe from P.W.1, there was no necessity to call P.W.1 who is third person into the record room which is a place where no third person has direct access. Inviting of PW.1 to the record room by the accused is relevant and useful to help the court to draw a factual presumption that the accused had willingly received the bribe. It is not the evidence of P.W.1 both in chief examination and cross examination that the accused immediately threw the cash on the floor in his presence.
It is the contention of the accused that immediately, he took out the cash with his left hand and transferred it into his right hand and threw on the floor. Assumed for a while that P.W.1 thrust money into the left side pant pocket of the accused from his behind while he was speaking in cell phone with somebody, there was no necessity to the accused to use his right hand. If the accused had called P.W.1 loudly with his name, the same
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 68 would have been heard by P.Ws.1 and 2. But no one spoke that the accused called P.W.1 with his name after P.W.1 allegedly thrust money in his pant pocket. Strictly speaking, it is highly impossible to thrust money into the back pant pocket of another person without his knowledge. For this, a decision in K.Chandra Sekhar Rao and another Vs. The State of A.P. (Crl.Appeal No.641/2013 is relevant where it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court in Para No.28 and 36 as follows:
“This story of AO1 not being present in his seat at the time of trap on 6-11-2008 and the cash being thrusted into the back side pant pocket of AO2 was not taken by Aos 1 and 2 at the time earliest opportunity nor was stated by any of the witnesses in the post trap proceedings accorded by P.W.10. The post trap proceedings are contemporaneous record of the happenings taken at the time of trap. If AOs 1 and 2 had stated as such at that time, it would have made their defence some what reliable. No such defence being taken in the post trap proceedings and the gradual improvement in the defence elicited from the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, who were the colleagues of AO1, makes it suspicious”.
“The theory of thrust taken by AO2 cannot be believed particularly when the tainted currency was recovered from his back side pant pocket, which is not a possible place of thrust by the complainant”.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 69
67.In view of the above legal preposition and detailed discussion, it is held without hesitation that that the accused failed to prove the thrust theory and on the other hand, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 15 which is found believable, reliable and considerable coupled with post trap proceedings proved that the accused accepted bribe amount of
Rs.15,000/- from P.W.1.
Recovery of tainted amount from the possession of the accused:
68.It is the evidence of P.Ws.1, P.W.2 and P.W.15 that when the
CBI Inspector asked the accused as to where he kept the tainted amount, the accused took out the cash from his pant pocket and threw it on the floor. Admittedly, there are minor discrepancies with regard to the place of recovery of tainted amount and the said place was not shown in the rough sketch also. In view of of the ratio laid down in the judgments of
Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the earlier paragraphs, minor
discrepancies may arise in the evidence of witnesses in view of recording of their evidence after some years. But in this case, the said minor discrepancy would no way effect the prosecution case because, all the witnesses corroborated recovery of tainted amount from the floor after it was thrown by the accused from his pant packet in their presence.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 70
69. As per the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 15, after his introduction by PW.15 to the accused, he ran away from his office, the CBI team apprehended him and brought him back to his seat. Admittedly, north side gate where the accused was allegedly caught hold by the CBI team was not shown in the rough sketch. The learned defence counsel contended that there was no such gate to the DRM office on north side and the accused never tried to ran away and he cooperated with the CBI team.
70. The prosecution also examined P.W.10 who was working as
Sentry guard in Railway Protection Force, Gunthakal, who said to have witnessed while accused was running. He deposed that on 20-11-2017 around 5.30 pm, one person ran away infront of him, he questioned the said person as to why he was running, meanwhile two or three other persons ran after that first person and he can not identify them, on the next day, he saw in news that an employee of Accounts department, SCR,
Guntakal by name Ch. Srinivasulu was caught in the trap. Though, P.W.10 could not identify the said person as the accused, but his evidence is supporting the prosecution case to the extent that one person ran away in front of him, he was chased by two or three persons. As per the evidence of PW.15/TLO, accused ran away from his office at the same time. So, it
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 71 can be construed that the person who ran away infront of PW.10 is no other than the accused.
71. When the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and P.W.15 coupled with
P.W.10 made it clear that the accused ran away from his office and he was apprehended by the CBI team, though the place where he was caught hold by the CBI was not shown in the rough sketch, it is said to be not fatal to the prosecution case, in view of corroborative evidence of above witnesses. Moreover, the post conduct of the accused that he fled away from the office during post trap proceedings is relevant under Sec.8 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which acquires great significance as rightly submitted by the Learned Public Prosecutor and it strengthens the prosecution case.
72. Further, the scientific evidence produced by the prosecution by examining P.W.12 also proved that phenolphthalein sodium ions and carbonate ions were detected in M.Os. 2 to 4. P.W.12 was cross examined at length but nothing was elicited to contradict with the opinion of P.W.12. The purpose of phenolphthalein powder test is a crucial corroboratory material to assert the case of the prosecution on the point that the actual bribe amount was smeared with phenolphthalein in the pre-trap proceedings was accepted by the accused and further to prove
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 72 that the same was handled by him and recovered from hispersonal possession. When the prosecution proved that the chemical test done on the pant wore by the accused was yielded positive result, who handed over the spare pant to the accused and where it was secured need not be given much importance. Accordingly, from the evidence of P.Ws.1, P.W.2 and P.W.15, it is clearly evident that the tainted bribe amount was received by the accused and it was recovered by the CBI team from his possession.
Presumption U/sec.20 of P.C. Act:- 73.Once demand and acceptance by the accused has been proved, then the statutory presumption U/sec.20 of the PC Act arises against him and the onus of proof shifts on to the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing acceptable evidence. For better understanding, let us take note of Sec.20 of the PC Act.
Sec.20:- Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration:- (1) Where, in any trail of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause(a) or clause (b) of sub-section(1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 73 remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in
Section 7 or, as the case may, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
74.The above presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, the accused can rebut the same. In this case, the accused introduced thrust theory which was watered down as discussed above. Further, the ratio observed in the decisions relied on by the accused do not come in the way of this case and this court is not agreeing with the learned counsel in any of the aspect. Thus, the accused has not successfully rebutted the presumption U/sec.20 of the Act.
Further, on the other hand, the evidence of the prosecution completed the chain of events from the trap proceedings to recovery proceedings and those were corroborated by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.15. Accordingly, the prosecution is successful in establishing the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount of Rs.15,000/- from the accused on 20-11- 2017.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 74
POINT No.2:
Whether the prosecution established its case against the
accused for the offences alleged beyond reasonable doubt?
75. In view of the above discussion and observations, it is held that the prosecution is able to prove that the accused being public servant demanded and accepted Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant for processing the Bill for which the accused is liable for punishment U/Sec.7 of PC Act. The prosecution thereby established that the accused being public servant abused his official position and obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.15,000/- as bribe from the complainant for which the accused is liable for punishment
U/Sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act.
In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence
U/sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and accordingly, he is convicted for the said offences under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of December, 2025.
Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Kurnool.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 75
When questioned as to quantum of sentence that may be imposed against him, the accused submitted that he is suffering from B.P.
and Sugar, his wife is also suffering from ill-health, he has two sons, he has to perform marriage of his younger son and he has to look after his entire family and pleaded mercy of the court.
On an earnest consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, social impact of the crime and the plea submitted by the accused with regard to quantum of sentence, this court opines that a lenient view shall not be warranted.
In the result, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable U/sec.7 of P.C. Act. The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable U/sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act.
Total fine comes to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 76
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
The period of detention of 14 days (remanded to judicial custody on 21-11-2017 and released on 5-12-2017) undergone by the accused shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.P.C.
M.O.2 to 6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 cash of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) shall be returned to the complainant/P.W.1-Ch.D.Rajula Naidu after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment and certification. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.
The accused is informed about his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this court. The accused is informed that he is entitled to free legal aid for preferring the appeal against the judgment of this court, if he has no means.
Free copy of Calendar and Judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of December, 2025.
Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Kurnool.
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 77
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1:Ch.D.Rajulu Naidu PW.2:V.Vinay Sheel PW.3:Modukuri Anjaiah PW.4:N.Bhaskar Kumar PW.5:A.Nagaraja Rao PW.6:Dr.N.Ramesh PW.7:B.Harish Babu PW.8:Muthoti Margaret PW.9:Routhula Srinivas PW.10:Boya Ramanjaneyulu PW.11:Pasupuleti Chandrasekhar Babu PW.12:Satish Ramaram Naiker PW.13:T.Satish Kumar PW.14:S.Muralidhara PW.15:P.Rajakumar PW.16:M.Kishore PW.17:P.Naresh Kumar
DEFENCE SIDE: NIL
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 78
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1:Written Complaint Dt.20.11.2017 Ex.P2 :First Mediator report Dt.20.11.2017 Ex.P3:Rough Sketch Ex.P4 :Second Mediator report Dt.20.11.2017 Ex.P5 :Bill for the period from 1.3.2017 to 31.5.2017 Ex.P6 :Bill for the period from 1.6.2017 to 30.6.2017 Ex.P7 :Part of LD.7 – 1st single sheet is Bill for the period from 1.7.2017 to 30.9.2017 Ex.P8 :e-Mail copy of the complaint given by PW.1. Ex.P9:Personal search memo Ex.P10:Sheet of paper which contains metal seal impression (ink and lac) Ex.P11:Consolidated C.O-7 bill consisting of four sheets (part of LD-7) Ex.P12:Contract bill despatch register from 2014 to 2017 Ex.P13:Letter dt.16.2.2018 Ex.P14:Covering letter Dt.24.1.2017 Ex.P15:Letter Dt.4.1.2018 Ex.P16: Attested copy of call data records phone bearing No. 7207115899 from 10.11.2017 to 20.11.2017. Ex.P17:Attested Copies of customer application (house hold card) Ex.P18:Certificate under Sec.65-Bof Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P19:Letter Dt.23.12.2017. Ex.P20:Attested photostat copy of duty register sheet Dt.20.11.2017. Ex.P21:Handing over/ taking over register’s sheet from 8 AM 20.11.2017 to 8.00 AM 21.11.2017. Ex.P22:Sanction order dt.20.03.2018 Ex.P23:Attested copy of schedule – II (Rule 4 and Sub Rule (2) of Rule 7.) consisting of 4 pages Ex.P24: Letter Dt.20.3.2018 Ex.P25:CFSL Examination report issued by PW.12 Ex.P26:Letter Dt.26.12.2017. Ex.P27:System generated call data record Ex.P28:Certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian evidence Act. Ex.P29:Copies of customer application form of accused Ex.P30:Letter Dt.8.3.2018 Ex.P31:Covering letter Dt.20.03.2018
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 79
Ex.P32:F.I.R Ex.P33:Copy of complaint which contains the original endorsement of D.I.G., CBI, Hyderabad
FOR DEFENCE
Ex.D1:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.D2:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1:Cash of Rs.15,000/-. M.O.2:The glass bottle which contained right hand finger wash of accused M.O.3:The glass bottle which contained left hand finger wash of accused M.O.4:left hand side pant packet wash of accused M.O.5:Black colour pant M.O.6:One Plus brand cellphone
Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Kurnool.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
in C.C.No.15/2022
DISTRCT OF KURNOOL
Calendar of Cases tried by the Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Kurnool.
Date of Offence: 20-11-2017
Date of report or complaint: 20-11-2017
Date of apprehension of accused: 21-11-2017
Date of release on bail: 05-12-2017
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 80
Date of commencement of trial: 06-09-2022
Date of closure of trial: 10-07-2025
Date of sentence or order: 08-12-2025
Explanation of delay and remarks:
This case was taken on file on 14-6-2018 against the accused.
Accused was appeared before the court of III Addl.Special Judge for C.B.I.
cases, Hyderabad on 3-7-2018. On 3-8-2018 charges were framed against the accused. The examination of witnesses was commenced on 6-9-2022.
The delay is due to shifting of court from Visakapatnam to Kurnool and the accused preferred W.P.No.5441/2022 before Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Amaravathi and the prosecution also preferred an appeal in
Crl.Appeal No.899/2024 @ SLP (Crl) No.010038/2023 against the judgment in W.P.No.5441/2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and
Ex.P.1 to 33 and M.Os.1 to 6 were marked. On behalf of the accused none were examined but Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 were marked. The trial was completed on 10-7-2025. Judgment is pronounced on 8-12-2025.
Judgment in Calendar Case No.15/2022 (R.C.No.22(A)/2017-CBI-
HYD) on the file of Special Judge for C.B.I, Cases, Kurnool.
Complainant: State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Inviestigation, ACB, Hyderabad
Accused: C.Srinivasulu S/o Pedda Rangaiah, 54 years, Occ: Account Assistant at office of the Sr.DFM, Guntakal, SC Railway, Resident of H.No.20/193-E3, Hanumesh Nagar, Guntakal,
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 81
A.P.
Offence: U/sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act.
Finding: Accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. As such, the court intends to impose punishment on accused.
Sentence: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act and accordingly, he is convicted for the said offences under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable U/sec.7 of P.C. Act. The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months for the offence punishable U/sec.13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act.
Total fine comes to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only).
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
The period of detention of 14 days (remanded to judicial custody on 21-11-2017 and released on 5-12-2017) undergone by the accused shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.P.C.
M.O.2 to 6 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 cash of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) shall be returned to the complainant/P.W.1- Ch.D.Rajula Naidu after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment and certification. The bail bonds of the
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 82 accused shall stand cancelled.
The accused is informed about his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this court. The accused is informed that he is entitled to free legal aid for preferring the appeal against the judgment of this court, if he has no means.
Free copy of Calendar and Judgment shall be furnished to the accused forthwith.
Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Kurnool.
Copy to:
1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., Nelapadu, Guntur District, PIN : 522237
2. The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, Visakhapatnam
3. C.Srinivasulu (Accused)
C.C. No.15/2022 C.B.I. Court, Kurnool 83