In the Court of the Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Kurnool.
Present: M.Venkata Ramana,
Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases
Friday, the 7th day of July, 2023
C.C. No.11/2022
Between:
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.
... Complainant
And:
Sri Sigamala Danam, 54 years, S/o late S. Subbanna, The then Lower Divisional Clerk, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, Kadapa, R/o D.No.1-4-165, C/o Smt. Aruna Kumari, Road No.22, O, Santhi Nagar, Kadapa. Permanent R/o Nadimpalli Village, Buddayyapalli, Kadapa Mandal and District.
... Accused
This case is coming on 27.06.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Avinash Chandra Singh, Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri P. V. Subba Rao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over to this day for consideration and this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The charges stand against accused are for the offences punishable u/sec.7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act (for short P.C. Act), 1988. Originally, the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., Visakhapatnam in RC 12(A)/2016-CBI/ACB/VSKP on the file of Principal Special Judge’s Court for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad and the cognizance was taken and charge sheet was numbered as CC 21/2016 by said Court on 27.12.2016 and the case was made over to III Addl. Special Judge’s Court for C.B.I.
Cases, Hyderabad. Subsequently, as per the orders of Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, the case was transferred to II Addl. Special
Judge’s Court for C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam and the case was re-
C.C.No.11/2022-2- CBI Court,Knl.
registered as CC 33/2020. As II Addl. Special Judge’s Court for C.B.I.
Cases, Visakhapatnam was shifted to Kurnool, the case is re-registered as CC 11/2022 on the file of this Court.
02.The case of prosecution is as follows:
The accused worked as Lower Divisional Clerk in the
Accounts Section of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub
Regional Office, Kadapa (for the sake of convenience herein after it is referred to as E.P.F. Office, Kadapa) from 23.12.2011 to 09.09.2015 and later during internal transfers, the accused was transferred from
Accounts Section to Inward Section of the same office where he worked till 25.07.2016. It is further case of prosecution that Malli Ankaiah (PW1), B. Mala Kondaiah (PW7), S. Balaji (PW8) are outsourcing employees in Kavali Municipal office and they have E.P.F. Accounts maintained by E.P.F. Office, Kadapa. In the month of May 2016, PWs 1,
PW7 and PW8 have submitted their E.P.F. loan applications to the office of Commissioner, Kavali Municipal office for sanction of loans against their deposits in E.P.F. Accounts and same were forwarded to E.P.F.
Office, Kadapa for sanction of the loans as per their eligibility. During the month of July 2016, PW3-Jr. Assistant of Kavali Municipal office informed
PW1 that his loan application was returned by E.P.F. Office, Kadapa and he also informed that the loan applications of PWs 7 and 8 were still pending with E.P.F. Office, Kadapa and he advised PWs 1, 7 and 8 to meet the officials concerned at E.P.F. Office, Kadapa for knowing the exact reason for return of the loan application of PW1 and for not processing the applications of PWs 7 and 8. On 19.07.2016, PW1 visited the E.P.F. Office, Kadapa to ascertain the reasons as to why his loan application was returned back and applications of PWs 7 and 8 were kept
C.C.No.11/2022-3- CBI Court,Knl.
pending and he met the accused and asked the reason for the return of his application and as to the status of the applications of PWs 7 and 8.
The accused informed PW1 that the application of PW1 was returned and applications of PWs 7 and 8 also would be returned shortly. When PW1 again asked the accused the reason for return of his application, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- each for application of PWs 1, 7 and 8 and the total amount of Rs.9,000/- for processing their E.P.F. loan applications and accused further threatened PW1 that unless and until bribe of Rs.9,000/- is paid to him, he would not process their applications for sanction of loans. Then PW1 immediately contacted PWs 7 and 8 over phone and told about the demand of accused for payment of bribe and PWs 7 and 8 requested PW1 to meet accused once again and explain their financial condition and their inability to pay Rs.3,000/- each as bribe. When PW1 again contacted, accused repeated his demand for bribe and told that unless bribe of Rs.3,000/- each paid by PWs 1, 7 and 8, he would not process their loan applications.
03.It is further case of prosecution that PW1 with the help of
PW3 and ‘dealing clerk of E.P.F.,’ Kavali Municipal office, Kavali prepared another fresh loan application which was made ready by 24.07.2016 and after having discussion with PWs 7 and 8 as to how to go ahead for sanction of their loan applications, he made a call to accused at about 10:45 A.M. on 24.07.2016 and requested the accused to process their loan applications. In the phone, the accused repeated his demand for bribe of Rs.3,000/- for each application of PWs 1, 7 and 8 and he also threatened them that unless they paid bribe amount, their applications would not be processed further. It is further case of prosecution that as
PWs 1, 7 and 8 were not willing to pay bribe amount to accused as
C.C.No.11/2022-4- CBI Court,Knl.
demanded by him, they decided to lodge complaint with C.B.I., A.C.B.,
Visakhapatnam and PWs 7 and 8 asked PW1 to lodge complaint with
C.B.I. on their behalf also. Accordingly, PW1 lodged a written complaint
dated 25.07.2016 with Inspector of Police, C.B.I. P. Srinivasa Rao (PW11)
who was camping at Kavali addressing the complaint to Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam for taking necessary action against the accused. As the contents of complaint, dated 25.07.2016 were found to be genuine, a case in RC 12(A)/2016-CBI-ACB/Hyd u/s.7 of P.C. Act was registered by C.B.I., Visakhapatnam branch.
04.It is further case of prosecution that on the same day i.e., 25.07.2016, the trap was laid against the accused in the presence of independent witnesses/PW2 and LW3-Y.L.Manohar Reddy who were working as Administrative Officers, New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Kadapa and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kadapa respectively. The accused was caught red handed when he demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.9,000/- from PW1 in the presence of PW2 who accompanied PW1 to the place where the accused received bribe of Rs.9,000/- from PW1.
The accused was caught red handed near main gate of office of E.P.F.,
Kadapa while accepting the bribe of Rs.9,000/-. The illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- was recovered from the left side pant packet of the accused in the presence of independent witnesses. During the trap proceedings, Phenolphthalein Sodium Carbonate tests were conducted.
05.It is further case of prosecution that as inward clerk the accused has to receive the applications forwarded by different organizations/members, separate the applications district wise and after making entries concerned in the system he has to forward the applications to the respective sections. The accused is not authorized to
C.C.No.11/2022-5- CBI Court,Knl.
scrutiny or process any type of loan applications. But the accused who knows this fact very well, took advantage of the ignorance of PWs 1, 7 and 8, planned to collect money from them by deceitful words.
Thereafter, accused was produced before Principal Special Judge’s Court,
C.B.I., Cases, Hyderabad and he was remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, PW12 filed charge sheet.
06.On appearance of accused before Court, copies of charge sheet and documents were furnished to him as contemplated under
Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
07.Accused was examined u/s.239 of Cr.P.C and charges were framed against him for the offence punishable u/s. 7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.
08.To prove the case of prosecution, PWs 1 to 12 are examined and Exs.P1 to P193 and MOs 1 to 6 are marked. On behalf of defence,
Exs.D1 to D4 are marked. PW1 is defacto complainant, PW2 is independent mediator, PW3 is Jr. Assistant of Kavali Municipal office, PW4 is the then Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, E.P.F. Office, Kadapa,
PW5 is the then Accounts Officer, E.P.F. Office, Kadapa, PW6 is the then
Social Security Assistant, Sub Divisional Office, Kadapa, PWs 7 and 8 are co employees of PW1, PW9 is Nodal Officer of Bharthi Airtel Ltd., PW10 is the then Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I who issued sanction order for prosecution of accused, PW11 is Trap Laying Officer and PW12 is investigating officer.
09.PW1 deposed that he is resident of Kavali and he is working as
Public Health Worker (Outsourcing), Kavali, and he is paid daily wages.
He nextly deposed that by the year 2016, he used to get Rs.11,000/- per
C.C.No.11/2022-6- CBI Court,Knl.
month towards wages and 12% out of Rs.11,000/- was being deducted towards Employment Provident Fund and he has E.P.F. Account bearing
No.50193000/0000033 and his E.P.F account was being maintained by
E.P.F. Office, Kadapa and that his colleague employees also have E.P.F.
accounts and by the April, 2016 there was a balance of Rs.1,46,000/- in his E.P.F. account. In the month of May 2016, he made an application seeking for loan out of his E.P.F. amount.
10.He further deposed that himself and 120 other co-employees including PWs 7 and 8 made applications seeking for E.P.F. house loan.
He further deposed that he enquired PW3 who was working in Kavali
Municipal office as to status of his loan application and PW3 told him that his loan application was forwarded to E.P.F. Office, Kadapa. He further deposed that subsequently himself and PW7 went to E.P.F. Office, Kadapa and on enquiry they were informed that they have to meet the clerk of that office. There they saw two clerks in that office, but he does not know their names. When they entered the E.P.F. Office, two clerks were attending their work by sitting side by side and that himself and
Malakondaiah approached one of those clerks and enquired about the status of their loan applications. He further deposed that said clerk had shown the loan applications to them and told them that they were busy with their work and advised them to come at later point of time. On that, they came back from that office. He further deposed that when he enquired the clerk of Kavali Municipal office, he told him that his loan application was returned by E.P.F Office and the loan applications of PWs 7 and 8 were not yet returned. He further deposed that one Aruna, the clerk of Kavali Municipal office advised him to make another application and she further told him that if he paid money to the employees of E.P.F.
Office, his loan application would be cleared. He further deposed that
C.C.No.11/2022-7- CBI Court,Knl.
on that, after getting another loan application prepared, he approached
E.P.F. Office, Kadapa once again and he met two clerks whose names he does not know and he again stated that name of one of those two clerks is Danam. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution to the full extent. He deposed that as this incident took place about 6 or 7 years back, he does not remember anything regarding this incident.
However, he deposed that Ex.P1 is his application for advance from the fund and connected papers and he also stated about his 3 passport size photographs pinned to Ex.P1. He nextly deposed that the cell phone network number No.95505 16808 is mentioned on top of Ex.P1 and said cell phone is of him. He further deposed that he is having Bank account bearing No.30510793904 maintained with S.B.I., Kavali main branch and he annexed first page of his Bank passbook to Ex.P1 and he also stated that one of the clerks prepared Ex.P1 application basing on the documents annexed to it furnished by this witness. He nextly deposed that PW3 prepared Ex.P1 and PW3 told him that his loan application
Ex.P1 was returned by E.P.F. Office. He identified photograph of PW7 annexed to Listed Document No.11. He further deposed that Ex.P3 is
Form-31 application for advance from the fund and connected documents submitted by him to E.P.F. Office and it contains his signatures. He further stated that on 19.07.2016, himself and PW7 went to E.P.F. Office and enquired there as to the status of their loan applications. He further stated that on 25.07.2016 at about 12:45 P.M., himself and C.B.I. team had left Kavali for Kadapa and they reached Kadapa at about 6 P.M. He voluntarily stated that C.B.I. Officers put currency notes of Rs.9,000/- in a paper envelop cover and handed over the same to PW7 who inturn gave the same to this witness.
11.PW2 deposed in support of entire case of prosecution. He
C.C.No.11/2022-8- CBI Court,Knl.
deposed that at present he is working as Assistant Manager, New India
Assurance Company Limited, Tirupati and previously he worked as
Administrative Officer, Divisional Office, New India Assurance Company
Limited, Kadapa from 2015 to December, 2021. He nextly deposed that on 25.07.2016 their Divisional Manager at Kadapa instructed this witness to assist C.B.I. in a case and that on the same day at about 4:30 P.M., their Divisional Manager told this witness to report to C.B.I. officer who was camping in Room No.203, Hotel Hasmi Residency, Kadapa Town and that accordingly, he went there and met C.B.I. Officer (Inspector) by name Srinivasa Rao and he introduced himself to C.B.I. Inspector. He nextly deposed that there were some other C.B.I. Officials in Room
No.203, Hasmi Residency at that time and one civil person was also present along with C.B.I. Officials in said room. He further deposed that within 10 minutes, another witness by name Manohar Reddy who was working as Administrative Officer in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Kadapa came to that room. He nextly deposed that the C.B.I Inspector
Srinivasa Rao introduced this witness and another witness Manohar
Reddy to PW1 who was present in that room and vise versa. He nextly deposed that the C.B.I. Inspector told them that PW1 gave a report to
C.B.I. alleging that one official of E.P.F. Office, Kadapa was demanding bribe for processing E.P.F loan applications of PW1 and his friends namely
Malakondaiah and Balaji and that they enquired PW1 about the complaint given by him. He further deposed that PW1 told them that himself and his friends were working as casual labour workers in Kavali Municipal office and they submitted applications to Kavali Municipal office for loans out of E.P.F. amounts and PW1 further told him that his (PW1) application was returned and the applications of his friends were not yet processed.
He further deposed that he had gone through the complaint given by
C.C.No.11/2022-9- CBI Court,Knl.
PW1 and PW1 confirmed that Ex.P2 is the report given by him to the
C.B.I. Inspector. After going through Ex.P2, himself and Manohar Reddy (LW3) put their signatures in Ex.P2. He nextly deposed that in Ex.P2,
PW1 mentioned that when he met one Danam who is clerk of E.P.F.
Office, Kadapa in connection with his loan application, said Danam demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- each from PW1, Malakondaiah and Balaji for processing their loan applications. He further deposed about other contents of Ex.P2 report. He further deposed about the procedure followed by the C.B.I. Inspector and other C.B.I. Officials at Hasmi
Residency in Room No.203. He further deposed about demonstration of
Phenolphthalein Sodium Carbonate solution test done in the presence of himself, PW1 and Manohar Reddy (LW3). He further deposed about the instructions given by the inspector to himself and PW1. He nextly deposed about preparation of pre trap proceedings-I in Room No.203 of
Hasmi Residency. He nextly deposed that as per the instructions of
C.B.I., Inspector, himself and PW1 proceeded to E.P.F. Office, Kadapa where they found the accused coming out of office. He further deposed that PW1 went to accused and paid Rs.9,000/- to the accused on his demand and accused received Rs.9,000/- bribe amount from PW1 and fresh loan application Ex.P3. He further deposed that Inspector of C.B.I.
caught red handed the accused when he accepted the bribe amount of
Rs.9,000/- from PW1. He further deposed about all the incidents taken place after accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount. He further deposed that when the Inspector questioned the accused whether he received bribe amount, he gave answer in positive.
He further deposed that the accused led the C.B.I. officials to his table where the C.B.I. Inspector seized Ex.P49 to P85 loan applications. He further deposed about the preparation of post trap proceedings, rough
C.C.No.11/2022-10- CBI Court,Knl.
sketches of scenes of offence. He further deposed about putting of signatures on all relevant documents by himself and Manohar Reddy (LW3).
12.PW3 deposed that at present he is working as Senior
Accountant, Tenali Municipal office, Guntur District and previously he worked as Junior Accountant, Kavali Municipal office, Kavali, Nellore
District from 03.06.2013 to 13.02.2017. He nextly deposed that as a
Junior Accountant, he used to send the applications submitted by outsourcing employees seeking for loans from Provident Fund Accounts to E.P.F. Office, Kadapa. The Public Health Workers who were appointed on Outsourcing basis used to get Rs.11,000/- each per month. The outsourcing employees have Employee Provident Fund Accounts and the outsourcing employee has to contribute 11% of his gross salary towards
Provident Fund Contribution, whereas the Employer (Kavali Municipal office) has to contribute 13.61% of the gross salary of the employee towards Provident Fund. He nextly deposed that the Kavali Municipal
Commissioner sends E.P.F. Contributions of Employer and Employee to the E.P.F. Office, Kadapa and the E.P.F. Office credits respective amounts of the contributions to the respective accounts of outsourcing employees.
He nextly deposed that in the year 2016, he was looking after the
Provident Fund Section in Kavali Municipal office and that several outsourcing employees made applications seeking for loans from
Provident Fund Accounts. The loans are sanctioned to meet the medical expenses, marriage expenses and house construction etc. He further deposed that he can identify Malli Ankaiah (PW1), B.Mala Kondaiah (LW4) and S.Balaji (LW5) if they are shown to him and they might have worked in Kavali Municipal office. He identified the photograph of Malli
Ankaiah (PW1). He further deposed that after the outsourcing
C.C.No.11/2022-11- CBI Court,Knl.
employees submitted loan applications to him, and he used to obtain signatures of Kavali Municipal Commissioner and forward those loan applications to Provident Fund Office, Kadapa. He further deposed that
Ex.P49-application was submitted by one B. Mala Kondaiah. He further deposed that in the year 2016 some of the loan applications sent to
Employees Provident Fund Organization Office were returned by said office, but he does not remember the names of the employees whose loan applications were returned by E.P.F.O. Office. He further deposed that due to lapse of time he cannot say whether the loan application of
PW1 was also returned by E.P.F.O. Office. He nextly deposed that PW1 might have contacted him personally and enquired about the reason for return of his loan application and he (this witness) must have informed
PW1 through Sanitary Inspector that his (PW1) loan application was returned by E.P.F.O. Office. He nextly deposed that due to lapse of lot of time he does not remember whether the loan applications of PWs 7 and 8 were also returned by E.P.F.O. Office, Kadapa.
13.PW4 deposed that at present he is working as Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner Grade-II, Regional Office, Kochhi, Kerala
State from August, 2021 and previously he worked as Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Kadapa (Now upgraded as Regional Office) from April, 2014 to August, 2016. He further deposed that as per provisions of Employees’ Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, if any business establishment engaged 20 employees they have to contribute, their share every month and that in case any employer who employed less than 20 employees they can voluntarily contribute their share. He nextly deposed that if any employer who employed 20 or more than 20 employers failed to get his
C.C.No.11/2022-12- CBI Court,Knl.
business organization registered with the Employees Provident Fund
Organization, the officers concerned inspect and enforce the Act against him. He nextly deposed that every business establishment which is registered with E.P.F Organization is given unique Id number. He nextly deposed that the benefits of Employees’ Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 are extended to outsourcing employees of Local Bodies such as Municipal Council and Municipal
Corporation also. He nextly deposed that the employees are entitled to obtain non refundable advances from E.P.F. Organization and till the year 2016, the employees have to submit applications for non refundable advances (loans) through their employers and the following documents are to be enclosed to the application for non refundable advances:
i)Copy of the Bank Pass Book or Cheque leaf.
ii)Agreement of Sale (while seeking for advance for purchase of house or plot).
iii)Marriage Invitation Card (while seeking for advance for performing the marriage of son or daughter of the employee).
iv)S.S.C. certificate or Matriculation Certificate (while seeking for advance for meeting the expenses of higher education of son or daughter of employee), etc.
He further deposed that the Dealing Assistant of Account Section of
Regional Office or Sub Regional Office is initial verifier of claim of the employee (application for advance) and after verification of the claim of the employee, the Dealing Assistant puts note to the effect that it is complete and he sets the claim application in motion. If it is incomplete one he submits his application for “rejection order”. He nextly deposed that the Inward Clerk of Regional Office sorts out all the applications received by him and places the same before the Section Supervisors in the Account Section of District concerned and that before placing the
C.C.No.11/2022-13- CBI Court,Knl.
applications before Section Supervisors, the Inward Clerk generates
Unique Claim Id for each application. He nextly deposed that after
Dealing Assistant of the Account Section places the loan application
before Section Supervisor concerned, said Section Supervisor processes
the applications and approves the same if it is in order. The Section
Supervisor is competent to approve the loans up to Rs.25,000/- and if the claim is for more than Rs.25,000/- Accounts Officer is competent to approve the same.
14.He nextly deposed that on 25.07.2016 at about 6:30 P.M., while he was attending his office work in Sub Regional Office, E.P.F.
Organization, Kadapa, the Inspector of C.B.I. by name Srinivasa Rao came to his chamber and informed him that one Danam who is Lower
Divisional Clerk (accused herein) of his office was trapped while he accepted bribe amount of Rs.9,000/- from PW1. He nextly deposed that he identified said Danam who is present in the court hall when this witness was giving evidence. He nextly deposed that the Inspector further told him that the accused was taken to compliance section room in 1st floor of our office building as such, he accompanied Inspector
Srinivasa Rao to compliance section room and thereafter the Inspector
Srinivasa Rao introduced this witness to his team members (C.B.I. team members), PW1 and two independent witnesses who belong to
Government Insurance Company and they were also introduced to this witness. He nextly deposed that he was asked to witness the
Phenolphthalein Sodium Carbonate Test procedure which was going to be conducted at that time and he agreed for the same and that before conducting the Phenolphthalein Test, the Inspector Srinivasa Rao enquired him whether he was aware that the employees of his office
C.C.No.11/2022-14- CBI Court,Knl.
were demanding money from E.P.F. Organization members (employees) for processing claims and he gave answer in negative. He nextly deposed that the Inspector Srinivasa Rao read over contents of complaint (Ex.P2) given by PW1 as said complaint was in Telugu language. He nextly deposed that the contents of complaint show that the claims of
PW1, Balaji (PW8) and Kondaiah (PW7) were not processed. He nextly deposed that he explained the Inspector that the claims of the members of E.P.F. Organization are processed by Dealing Assistant in the Account
Section, but not by the Inward Clerk. He nextly deposed that then, the
Inspector and this witness went to Cupboard which was operated by the
Inward Clerk and there they found 37 claims in that cupboard and accused was working as Inward Clerk as on that date. He nextly deposed that the Inspector further told this witness about the registration of case against the accused. He nextly deposed that the
Sodium Carbonate Phenolphthalein Test was conducted in the presence of this witness and independent witnesses and about procedure followed during the course of conducting of Sodium Carbonate Phenolphthalein test. He nextly deposed that the denominations of tainted government currency notes which were shown to me by the C.B.I. Inspector are as follows:
i)Rs.1000/- X 2 = Rs.2000/- ii)Rs.500/- X 14 = Rs.7000/-
15.He nextly deposed that the C.B.I. Team members counted the currency notes and confirmed their numbers and that the C.B.I.
Inspector told this witness that the tainted government currency notes were recovered from the accused. He nextly deposed that Ex.P88 is the
Post-Trap Proceedings prepared by the C.B.I. team members and he
C.C.No.11/2022-15- CBI Court,Knl.
signed each and every page of Ex.P88. He identified his signatures appearing in all pages of Ex.P88. He nextly deposed that the Post-Trap proceedings were completed in between 11:30 P.M. and 11:45 P.M. on 25.07.2016 and he signed Ex.P88 only after going through the contents of the same. He nextly deposed that the rough sketch of the scene of offence was prepared in his presence, but he did not sign it. At about 11:30 P.M. on 25.07.2016, the Inspector told him that he was arresting accused. He nextly deposed that he did not find the loan claim application of Balaji (PW8) in the cupboard of the accused and in the cupboard maintained by the accused they found 37 claim loan applications of E.P.F. Organization members (employees). He nextly deposed that being the Inward Clerk the accused is authorized to receive the claim applications of the employees, but he is not supposed to retain those claim applications with him without sending to the concerned.
16.PW5 deposed that at present he is working as Enforcement
Officer, District Office, E.P.F. Organization, Ongole and previously he worked as Accounts Officer, Sub Regional Office (Now upgraded as
Regional Office) Employees Provident Fund Organization, Kadapa from
May, 2016 to 2018. He further deposed that he was in-charge of the
Accounts Section for Nellore and Kurnool Districts and one Shivashankar
Reddy was working as Social Security Assistant for Nellore District in
Regional Office, Kadapa while he was working there. One Danam was working as Lower Divisional Clerk in Kadapa Sub Regional Office, but he cannot identify said Danam as he (this witness) worked for short time in
Kadapa Sub Regional Office. He further deposed that he does not remember physical features of Danam.
C.C.No.11/2022-16- CBI Court,Knl.
17.He further deposed that as per provisions of Employees’
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, if any business establishment engaged 20 employees they have to contribute, their share every month and that in case any employer who employed less than 20 employees they can voluntarily contribute their share. He nextly deposed that if any employer who employed 20 or more than 20 employers failed to get his business organization registered with the
Employees Provident Fund Organization, the officers concerned inspect and enforce the Act against him. He nextly deposed that every business establishment which is registered with E.P.F Organization is given unique
Id number. He nextly deposed that the benefits of Employees’ Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 are extended to outsourcing employees of Local Bodies such as Municipal Council and Municipal
Corporation also. He nextly deposed that the employees are entitled to obtain non refundable advances from E.P.F. Organization and till the year 2016, the employees have to submit applications for non refundable advances (loans) through their employers and the following documents are to be enclosed to the application for non refundable advances:
i)Copy of the Bank Pass Book or Cheque leaf.
ii)Agreement of Sale (while seeking for advance for purchase of house or plot).
iii)Marriage Invitation Card (while seeking for advance for performing the marriage of son or daughter of the employee).
iv)S.S.C. certificate or Matriculation Certificate (while seeking for advance for meeting the expenses of higher education of son or daughter of employee), etc.
He further deposed that the Dealing Assistant of Account Section of
Regional Office or Sub Regional Office is initial verifier of claim of the employee (application for advance) and after verification of the claim of
C.C.No.11/2022-17- CBI Court,Knl.
the employee the Dealing Assistant puts note to the effect that it is complete and he sets the claim application in motion. If it is incomplete one he submits his application for “rejection order”. He nextly deposed that the Inward Clerk of Regional Office sorts out all the applications received by him and places before the Section Supervisors in the Account
Section of District concerned and that before placing the applications
before Section Supervisors, the Inward Clerk generates Unique Claim Id
for each application. He nextly deposed that after Dealing Assistant of the Account Section places the loan application before Section Supervisor concerned, said Section Supervision processes the applications and approves the same if it is in order. The Section Supervisor is competent to approve the loans up to Rs.25,000/- and if the claim is for more than
Rs.25,000/- Accounts Officer is competent to approve the same.
18.He further deposed that on 25.07.2016 at about 5:45 P.M., he had left the office for his home and at about 9:30 P.M. on the same day, he came to know that a trap was laid against one Danam in his office and he further came to know that basing on written complaint of
PW1 the trap was laid against Danam (accused herein). He nextly deposed that on 02.09.2016 the C.B.I. Inspector asked him to furnish the Member Data pertaining to 37 loan claim applications and that he instructed his Social Security Assistant Shivashankar Reddy (LW9) to furnish the Data sought for by the Inspector. Accordingly said
Shivashankar Reddy (LW9) downloaded the data from computer system, signed those documents (hard copies of the data) and submitted the same to the C.B.I. Inspector. He did not sign the hard copies of the data.
19.PW6 deposed that at present he is working as Social Security
Assistant, E.P.F. Organization, Regional Office, Kadapa and his office was
C.C.No.11/2022-18- CBI Court,Knl.
upgraded to Sub Regional Office to Regional Office about 4 years back.
He nextly deposed that as per provisions of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, if any business establishment engaged 20 employees they have to contribute, their share every month and that in case any employer who employed less than 20 employees they can voluntarily contribute their share. He nextly deposed that if any employer who employed 20 or more than 20 employers failed to get his business organization registered with the Employees Provident Fund
Organization, the officers concerned inspect and enforce the Act against him. He nextly deposed that every business establishment which is registered with E.P.F Organization is given unique Id number. He nextly deposed that the benefits of Employees’ Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 are extended to outsourcing employees of Local Bodies such as Municipal Council and Municipal
Corporation also. He nextly deposed that the employees are entitled to obtain non refundable advances from E.P.F. Organization and till the year 2016, the employees have to submit applications for non refundable advances (loans) through their employers and the following documents are to be enclosed to the application for non refundable advances:
i)Copy of the Bank Pass Book or Cheque leaf.
ii)Agreement of Sale (while seeking for advance for purchase of house or plot).
iii)Marriage Invitation Card (while seeking for advance for performing the marriage of son or daughter of the employee).
iv)S.S.C. certificate or Matriculation Certificate (while seeking for advance for meeting the expenses of higher education of son or daughter of employee), etc.
He further deposed that the Dealing Assistant of Account Section of
Regional Office or Sub Regional Office is initial verifier of claim of the
C.C.No.11/2022-19- CBI Court,Knl.
employee (application for advance) and after verification of the claim of the employee the Dealing Assistant puts note to the effect that it is complete and he sets the claim application in motion. If it is incomplete one he submits his application for “rejection order”. He nextly deposed that the Inward Clerk of Regional Office sorts out all the applications received by him and places same before the Section Supervisors in the
Account Section of District concerned and that before placing the applications before Section Supervisors, the Inward Clerk generates
Unique Claim Id for each application. He nextly deposed that after
Dealing Assistant of the Account Section places the loan application
before Section Supervisor concerned, said Section Supervisor processes
the applications and approves the same if it is in order. The Section
Supervisor is competent to approve the loans up to Rs.25,000/- and if the claim is for more than Rs.25,000/- Accounts Officer is competent to approve the same.
20.He nextly deposed that after receipt of loan claim applications of employees from Inward Clerk, the Head Clerk asks this witness to scrutinize the applications and that he scrutinizes the applications and submits the loan claim applications to Head Clerk and
Accounts Officer, if the applications are found in order. He nextly deposed that the Head Clerk is competent to sanction loan up to
Rs.25,000/- and the Accounts Officer is competent to Sanction loans more than Rs.25,000/-. He nextly deposed that if the applications are not found in order, he submits those applications to Assistant
Commissioner for necessary orders and he nextly deposed that he does not know anything about facts of the case. He nextly deposed that he came to know that on 25.07.2016 the accused was arrested by C.B.I.
C.C.No.11/2022-20- CBI Court,Knl.
Inspector. He nextly deposed that on 02.09.2016, PW5 instructed this witness to furnish data pertaining to 37 loan applications and accordingly he downloaded said data from computer system and as per instructions of PW5, he certified hard copies of data. He marked Ex.P89 to P166.
Ex.P89 to P166 are claim status query memberwise, copy of member ledger pertaining to different employees and certificates issued by him u/s.65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act. He nextly deposed that he was not at all examined by C.B.I. Inspector. He nextly deposed that he handed over
Ex.P89 to P166 to C.B.I. Inspector and he further deposed that he is the person who downloaded Ex.P89 to P166 from Computer system.
21.PW7 deposed that he has been working as Public Health
Worker (Outsourcing) Kavali Municipal office, Kavali since the year 2011 and he does sweeping in Kavali Town. During the year 2016, he used to get Rs.8,000/- per month towards salary and he again says that in the year 2016, he was working as Daily Wage Labour. He further deposed that in the year 2016, he used to get wages on monthly basis without any deductions and he got P.F. Account in the year 2013, but he does not remember his P.F. Account number. He further deposed that previously he made an application seeking for loan from his P.F. Account credit balance, but he does not remember in which year he applied for loan.
He identified his photograph annexed to Ex.P49 and signatures appearing in Ex.P49 to be of him. He further deposed that he knows PW1 and LW5-
S.Balaji and they are his colleagues and that they are also working as
Public Health Workers in Kavali Municipal office. He further deposed that
PW1 and PW8 also made applications seeking for loans from their respective Provident Fund Accounts. He further deposed that himself and PW8 handed over their loan applications to PW1 who submitted loan
C.C.No.11/2022-21- CBI Court,Knl.
applications of PWs 1, 7 and 8 to one Clerk of Kavali Municipal Office. He further deposed that he never visited Provident Fund Office, Kadapa in the year 2016 and that it is PW1 who went to P.F. Office, Kadapa and submitted loan applications of this witness, PWs 1 and 8. However, he did not support the case of prosecution to the full extent.
22.He further deposed that though he made application seeking for loan from his P.F. account, loan was not sanctioned and he does not know as to what was happened to his loan application.
23.PW8 deposed that he has been working as Public Health
Worker (Outsourcing) Kavali Municipal office, Kavali since the year 2010 and he does sweeping in Kavali Town. He further deposed that during the year 2016, he used to get Rs.8,000/- per month towards salary and in the year 2016, he used to get wages on monthly basis after deductions. He further deposed that he does not remember in which year he got his P.F. Account number and that previously he made an application seeking for loan from his P.F. Account credit balance. But he does not remember in which year he applied for loan. He further deposed that he knows PW1 and PW7 and they are his colleagues and that they are also working as Public Health Workers in Kavali Municipal office. He further deposed that PW1 and PW7 also made applications seeking for loans from their respective Provident Fund Accounts and that this witness and PW7 handed over their loan applications to PW1, but he does not know to whom PW1 submitted three loan applications. He further deposed that he never visited Provident Fund Office, Kadapa in the year 2016 and it is PW1 who went to P.F. Office, Kadapa and submitted loan applications of this witness PW1 and PW7 and subsequent to submission of loan applications of this witness, PW1 and PW7, PW1 told him that he
C.C.No.11/2022-22- CBI Court,Knl.
gave report in connection with P.F. loan applications and he further told this witness that he gave his name as witness. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution to the full extent. He further stated that PW1, himself and PW7 are friends to each other.
24.PW9 deposed that at present he is working as Regional Head,
Uber Company, Hyderabad and previously he worked as Nodal Officer,
Bharti Airtel Company from 2006 to 2020. He further deposed that as per the request of Superintendent of Police C.B.I., Visakhapatnam, he furnished system generated Call Data Records pertaining to mobile phone bearing network numbers 9550114655 and 9550516808 from 10.07.2016 to 30.07.2016. He further deposed that he also submitted certificate U/Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. He marked Ex.P181Call
Data Records, Ex.P182Certificate issued by me U/Sec.65-B of Indian
Evidence Act and Ex.P183letter dated 01.11.2016 under cover of which he submitted Exs.P181 and P182 to the Superintendent of Police Head of the Branch, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.
25.He further deposed that the mobile phone bearing network number 9550114655 belongs to one Sigamala Danam, S/o.Subbanna,
Address 2 Nadimpalli, Hyderabad-4 and date of activation was 16.06.2009 and that mobile phone bearing network number 9550516808 belongs to M.Ankaiah, S/o.Kotaiah and address was H.No.8-32-77A,
Vaikuntapuram, Gandhi Colony, Kavali and date of activation was 29.06.2009.He further deposed that Exs.P181 to P183 bear his signatures and office stamps.
26.PW10 deposed that at present he is working as Additional
Commissioner, Provident Fund, Bhuvaneswar and previously he worked
C.C.No.11/2022-23- CBI Court,Knl.
as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Regional Office, Guntur from 2015 to April, 2018. He further deposed that as Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner-I, Regional Office, Guntur he was in-charge of 4 Regional
Offices i.e., Kadapa, Guntur, Rajamahendravaram and Visakhapatnam.
He further deposed that he accorded Sanction for prosecution of accused by name S.Danam in the month of September, 2016 and that being
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, he is the competent to remove
S.Danam from service. He further deposed that he had gone through the documents produced by Stenographer before him and he had gone through the complaint given by PW1 against the accused S.Danam, copies of F.I.R., statements of the witnesses, Pre-Trap Proceedings, Post-
Trap Proceedings and Report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory,
Hyderabad. He further deposed that after due application of mind, he accorded Sanction Order under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption
Act. He marked Ex.P184Sanction Order dated 21.09.2016 issued by him. He further deposed that all the pages of Ex.P184 contain his signatures and his office designation stamps. He marked Ex.P185the letter dated 21.09.2016 under the cover of which he had sent Ex.P184 to
R.Gopalakrishna Rao I.P.S., Superintendent and Head of the Branch,
C.B.I., Visakhapatnam. He also marked Ex.P186attested copy of C.C.A.
Rules 1971 consisting of 2 sheets and Ex.P187attested copy of Circular
dated 18.01.1989 issued by Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New
Delhi. He further deposed that as per Ex.P187, he is the competent to make appointments to all Group-“C” and “D” Posts. He further deposed that S.Danam being Lower Divisional Clerk falls under the category of
Group-“C”. As such he is competent to appoint S.Danam and remove him from service. He further deposed that the Superintendent of Police and Head of the Branch, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam gave requisition under
C.C.No.11/2022-24- CBI Court,Knl.
cover of the letter dated 09.09.2016 for issuance of Sanction Order for prosecution of S.Danam (accused herein).
27.PW11 deposed that he has been working as Inspector of
Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam since 23.02.2023 and previously also he worked as Inspector of Police, C.B.I. Visakhapatnam from June, 2011 to 31.12.2017. He further deposed that while he was working as Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam during previous tenure, on 25.07.2016 as per instructions of Superintendent of Police, himself, other two
Inspectors namely Jeevan Bhagath and V.S.R. Sharma, Head Constable
B.Santhaiah and three constables namely P.Sathyanarayana, B.V.S.
Murthy and G.M. Rao camped at R & B Guest House, Kavali, Nellore
District and that they came to Kavali on official duty. He further deposed that at about 10:00 A.M. on 25.07.2016, he received phone call from
Superintendent of Police who told this witness that PW1 informed
Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Visakhapatnam that accused demanded
PWs 1, 7 and 8 to pay Rs.3,000/- each as bribe for processing of their
E.P.F. Loan Applications. He further deposed that Superintendent of
Police further told this witness that he directed PW1 to meet this witness in R & B Guest House, Kavali. He further deposed that the
Superintendent of Police instructed this witness to look into the matter and verify the genuineness complaint made by PW1 against accused. He further deposed that immediately, he made a call to PW1 and at about 12’O’ clock noon on 25.07.2016, PW1 came to R & B Guest House, Kavali and submitted Ex.P2 report. He further deposed about sending of Ex.P2 to Superintendent of Police by fax and he marked Ex.P188 the Fax copy received in C.B.I. Office, Visakhapatnam. He further deposed that the
Superintendent of Police issued written instructions to PW12-D.Vasu
C.C.No.11/2022-25- CBI Court,Knl.
Krishna the Inspector of Police, C.B.I. Visakhapatnam to register the case and investigate and he also gave instructions to this witness to lay trap.
The Superintendent of Police informed about registration of case in RC 12(A)/2016-CBI-ACB/VSKP u/s.7 of P.C. Act. As such, he decided to lay trap against the accused. He further deposed that as the accused told
PW1 to come to Kadapa and to pay bribe money, this witness decided to proceed to Kadapa and lay trap there. He further deposed about preparation of pre trap proceedings-I Ex.P189 at R&B Guest House,
Kavali. He further deposed that at about 12:45 P.M. they left Kavali for
Kadapa and on the way he made arrangements to secure the presence of independent witnesses PW2 and LW3-Manohar Reddy and they reached
Kadapa at about 4:30 P.M. and proceeded to Hasmi Residency Hotel. He further deposed that at about 5:00 P.M., LW3-Manohar Reddy and PW2 came to Hasmi Residency Hotel where the C.B.I. team members along with PW1 were staying. He further deposed about introduction of PW1 to
PW2 and LW3 vise-versa, about demonstration of Sodium Carbonate-
Phenolphthalein Test, giving of Rs.9,000/- by PW1 to this witness, denomination of those currency notes and preparation of pre trap proceedings-II. He further deposed about all the incidents taken place at
Hasmi Residency before preparation of post trap proceedings-II (Ex.P47).
He further deposed that he instructed PW2 to accompany PW1 to the office of the accused and he also gave instructions to PW1 and PW2 to give pre arranged signal after accused demanded and accepted bribe money of Rs.9,000/- from PW1. He further deposed that they reached
E.P.F. Office, Kadapa at about 6:15 P.M. He further deposed that he told
PW1 and PW2 to go to Provident Fund Office and that himself and other trap team members took strategic positions to conceal themselves nearby Provident Fund Office. He further deposed that at about 6:30
C.C.No.11/2022-26- CBI Court,Knl.
P.M., PW1 gave pre-arranged signal by moving his fingers on his head and immediately, this witness and other trap team members rushed to the place where PW1, PW2 and the person who talked with PW1 were present. PW1 pointed the accused as the person who demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.9,000/- from him and PW2 also confirmed the information of PW1 given by PW1. He further deposed that accused was taken to compliance section room of P.F. Office building, Kadapa and then he secured the presence of PW4 and when he questioned the accused whether he received bribe amount from PW1, accused kept mum for some time and on being repeatedly questioned by this witness, accused told that PW1 himself gave Rs.9,000/- voluntarily. He further deposed about conducting of Sodium Carbonate Solution test and all other incidents taken place in compliance section room and preparation of post trap proceedings-II. He further deposed that PW4 was informed about laying of trap against Danam. He further deposed that PW4 came to the compliance section and in his presence Sodium Carbonate Solution test was conducted and post trap proceedings were drafted. He further deposed that the arrest of accused was informed to wife of accused, PW4 and one Balakrishna Naik-the then Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner-II. He further deposed about recovery of Rs.9,000/- from the possession of accused. He further deposed about bringing of accused to Hyderabad and production of accused before Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases who remanded the accused. He further deposed that that he handed over C.D. file of this case to PW12 for further investigation.
28.PW12 deposed that at present he is working as Inspector of
Police, A.C.B., Rajamahendravaram and previously he worked as
C.C.No.11/2022-27- CBI Court,Knl.
Inspector of Police, C.B.I., A.C.B., Visakhapatnam on depuration from
May, 2012 to December, 2017. He further deposed that while he was working as Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam, on 25.07.2016 at about 12.25 P.M., the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam called him to his chamber and gave an endorsed complaint of PW1 with instruction to register the case. He further deposed about registration of case in R.C.No.12(A)/2016 U/Sec. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and issuance of printed proforma F.I.R.-Ex.P190. He further deposed that later he received relevant documents and material objects of the case from PW11 and continued his further investigation. He further deposed that on 27.07.2016, he forwarded M.Os. 3 to 5 to
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad along with letter of advice for chemical analysis and report and on 11.08.2016, he filed memo before the Hon’ble C.B.I. Court, Hyderabad and obtained the fresh loan application of PW1 which was seized from the possession of the accused during Post-Trap Proceedings. He further deposed that on 31.08.2016 he visited Kavali, examined PWs 1, 7 and 8 and recorded their statements and on the same day, he also examined 37 other persons whose loan applications were recovered from the possession of the accused during Post-Trap Proceedings. But as those 37 persons stated that they do not know the accused person, he did not choose to reduce their statements into writing. He further deposed that on 01.09.2016 he visited Municipal Office, Kavali and examined PW3 and recorded his statement and he also obtained rejected loan application (Ex.P1) of PW1 from PW3. He further deposed that on 02.09.2016 he went to Kadapa, examined PW2 and LW3-Y.L.Manohar Reddy, PW5,
Dasarathi Nag, PW6 and recorded their statements. He further deposed about addressing of letter to Nodal Officer, Airtel, Hyderabad requesting
C.C.No.11/2022-28- CBI Court,Knl.
for call data records pertaining to cell phone network Nos. 9550114655 (of accused) 9550516808 (of PW1). He further deposed about receipt of chemical analysis report and he marked Ex.P191 examination report and
Ex.P192 the letter under cover of which LW10-S. Srivasthava sent chemical analysis report. He nextly deposed that PW1 stated before him as in Ex.P4 to P23, PW3 stated before him as in Ex.P88A and P88B and that PW7 stated before him as in Ex.P167 to P173 and that PW8 stated
before him as in Ex.P174 to P180. He nextly deposed that with the
permission of Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad, he deposited Rs.13,300/- recovered by PW11 from the possession of accused in State Bank of India, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam and obtained Fixed Deposit Receipt i.e., Ex.P193. He nextly deposed that after receipt of sanction order from competent authority and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
29.After completion of recording of evidence of PW1 to PW12, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. and he was put all the incriminating material appearing against him and he denied the same, and he filed written statement during the course of examination of accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C.
30.Now the point for consideration is whether the accused committed the offences punishable u/s.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and prosecution proved guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
31.Heard Public Prosecutor. He filed written arguments. In the written arguments, Public Prosecutor reiterated the case of prosecution.
He further submitted about the evidence of PWs 1 to 9, 11 and 12 and
C.C.No.11/2022-29- CBI Court,Knl.
he reproduced the material portion of the depositions of PWs 1 to 9, 11 and 12. He further submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses sufficiently establish the guilt of the accused. He further stated that though PWs 1, 7 and 8 not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile to the case of prosecution, the other evidence of PWs 2 to 6 and 9 to 12 sufficiently establish the guilt of the accused. He further stated that the evidence of material witnesses categorically establishes the demand of accused for bribe and receipt of bribe amount from PW1. He further submitted that evidence of PWs 2 and 11 categorically establishes giving of report by PW1 to PW11, receipt of bribe amount by accused from PW1. He further contended that PWs 4 to 6 deposed about the procedure of obtaining loan applications at E.P.F. Office, Kadapa and PW6 verified the status of 37 loan applications. He placed reliance on the following judgments and circular orders:
1.Neeraj Datta vs State (NCT, Delhi)
2.Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd., vs CBI
3.Circular Memo No.13665/SR/2014, dated 26.05.2014.
4.G.O.Ms.No.88, dated 07.08.2012.
5.Union of India vs Prakash P. Hinduja
32. He further contended that the order of the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh passed in W.P.No.26990/2022 and
W.P.No.5441/2022 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. He further contended that the order of the Hon’ble High
Court given in about two Writ Petitions is not general order and is not applicable to all the cases. It is further contended that prosecution established that PWs 1, 7 and 8 made applications seeking for loan out of their E.P.F. amounts. He further contended that u/s.20 of P.C. Act, there
C.C.No.11/2022-30- CBI Court,Knl.
is assumption of law and nextly contended that the prosecution had proved demand and acceptance of bribe done by accused. It is further contended that the accused took the stands only for the sake of defence.
It is prayed to convict the accused.
33.Counsel for defence also filed written arguments. He mainly contended that there are several discrepancies, infirmities and lacunae in the case of prosecution and in the evidence of PWs 1 to 12. He mainly contended that PWs 1, 7 and 8 have not supported the case of prosecution. As such, their evidence is not at all helpful to the case of prosecution. It is nextly contended that the evidence of PW2 is suffering from several discrepancies and infirmities. It is nextly contended that the admissions of PW2 create grave doubt about the version of the prosecution and about credibility of his evidence. It is further contended that the evidence of PW3 is also not helpful to the case of prosecution.
As per the evidence of PW3, he does not remember whether investigating officer had shown him Exs.P1 and P3 when investigating officer examined him and his initials or signatures are not there in both the applications. He further contended that the evidence of PWs 4, 5, 6 and 10 show that the accused is not competent person to process the loan applications of PWs 1, 7 and 8. It is nextly contended that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW4 on material aspects. It is further contended that admissions of PW9 also create doubt about call data record. It is further contended that the evidence of trap laying officer-PW11 is suffering from several discrepancies, infirmities and lacunae. He nextly contended that admissions made by PW11 in his cross examination create grave doubt about his version in respect of pre- trap proceedings-I prepared at Kavali, pre-trap proceedings-II prepared
C.C.No.11/2022-31- CBI Court,Knl.
at Hasmi Residency, Kadapa. It is further contended that the alleged rough sketches of scenes of offence Exs.P86 and P87 do not show the main gate or portico of the E.P.F. Office building. It is further contended that the evidence of PWs 4 and 11 are contradicting each other regarding the presence of PW4 at the time of post-trap proceedings. It is nextly contended that the investigation conducted by PW12 is also defective one. It is nextly contended that the judgment of Hon’ble High Supreme of India given in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
AIR (2023) SC 330 is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. It is further contended that evidence of PW11 regarding arrival of C.B.I. Team to Kavali from Visakhapatnam also creates grave doubt. It is nextly submitted that as per the evidence of PW2, Ex.P3 fresh loan application of PW1 was not subjected to
Phenolphthalein Sodium Carbonate solution test as such there is possibility of passing of Phenolphthalein powder two hands of accused through Ex.P3. It is nextly contended that the verdict of Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati given in
W.P.No.26990/2022 (sic 2012) and W.P.No.5441/2022 (common
order) is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
It is nextly contended that in the above referred case, the F.I.R. was registered on 09.05.2017, but the Government of India did not issue notification u/s.5 of D.S.P.E. Act by the date 09.05.2017. It is nextly contended that the cognizance of the offence taken by Principal Special
Judge’s Court for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad is invalid under law as lack of
notification goes to the root of the case. It is prayed to acquit the accused.
C.C.No.11/2022-32- CBI Court,Knl.
34.Perused the entire material on record consisting of oral evidence of PWs 1 to 12 and documentary evidence Exs.P1 to P193,
Exs.D1 to D4. The arguments of Public Prosecutor and counsel for defence are taken into consideration. When we come to the facts and circumstances of the case, oral evidence and documentary evidence adduced by prosecution, I am of the view there is sufficient force in the contention of Public Prosecutor. The oral evidence of PWs 2, 4 to 6 and 9 to 12 categorically and sufficiently establish that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.9,000/- from PW1. It may be true PWs 1, 7 and 8 did not support the case of prosecution to the full extent.
Admittedly, PWs 1, 7 and 8 are employees of Kavali Municipal office and they made applications with E.P.F. Office, Kadapa for sanction of loans.
PW1 admitted his signature in Ex.P2 written report given by him. Only because of PWs 1, 7 and 8 not supported the case of prosecution to the full extent, it cannot be said that prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused. The Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) date of judgment
15.12.2022. In the above said decision, it is held that “23. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG drew our attention to the report of the Committee on the Prevention of Corruption Act submitted by the K.Santanam Committee and contended that it has been stated therein that corruption has increased to a large extent and people have started losing faith in the integrity of public administration. Reliance was placed on State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88 (“Ram Singh”) to draw our attention to the fact that the Act has been intended to make effective provisions for the prevention of bribery and corruption which has been rampant amongst the public servants. The Act is a social legislation intended to curb the illegal activities of public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its object. Procedural delays and technicalities of law should not be permitted to defeat the objects sought to be achieved by the Act while interpreting various provisions of the Act and deciding cases under it. She further drew our attention to various decisions of this Court wherein despite the complainant having died or having turned “hostile” or not being available for letting in evidence, on the basis of the other evidence on record, conviction has been ordered. Many of the decisions referred to by her have been cited above. She submitted that even if the complainant turns “hostile” with regard to certain aspects of the evidence referred by him, his entire evidence cannot be discarded.
C.C.No.11/2022-33- CBI Court,Knl.
24. Learned ASG submitted that the judgments of this Court in B.Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy have been correctly decided and the questions raised may accordingly be answered.
25. Learned ASG Shri J.K. Sud submitted that the issue before the Constitution Bench pertains to the proof of guilt of a public servant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act in a case where the complainant’s evidence is unavailable. He submitted that proof does not mean proof in the sense of a rigid and mathematical demonstration, as that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion. In reaching the conclusion, the court can use the process of inferences to be drawn from the facts produced or proved and such inferences are akin to presumptions in law. That a presumption of fact can be made by a court of law by exercise of discretion, having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, public or private business in relation to the facts of the particular case. This discretion is envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act. A presumption can thus be drawn on proof of certain facts. Also, a presumption is not a final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. A presumption of certain facts would remain until such inference is either disproved or dispelled. Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted the court can treat the presumption as tantamounting to proof. However, a presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumptions by a process of probable and logical reasoning. As opposed to presumptions on facts, there is what is known as legal presumption which is a compulsory presumption such as under Section 20 (1) of the Act. That under Section 20 of the Act, it could be a presumption that the accused accepted or agreed to accept any gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Hence, the conditions envisaged under Section 20 have to be satisfied before raising a presumption against the accused, namely that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any illegal gratification. This proof need not be through direct evidence which is only one of the basis for proving a fact.
27. Dr. Joseph Aristotle, learned counsel submitted on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu that the death or the non-availability of complainant or the complainant turning “hostile” are three instances when there would not be availability of complainant’s direct evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused-public servant. That death or non-availability of the complainant would not vitiate the case of the prosecution as the incriminating circumstance of demand can be proved by circumstances even in the absence of the complainant. The quality of the evidence let in by the prosecution is more significant than the sole direct evidence of demand being spoken to. In the case of a trap, the court has to consider the ingredients of the factum of offences namely, acceptance of demand and recovery of tainted money in its entirety. Hence, the case of the prosecution does not come to an end with the death of the complainant, as even in the absence of a complainant, it is possible to prove the factum of demand and recovery of tainted money by an independent witness whose evidence can be the basis for passing an order of conviction. Question for consideration:
28. On consideration of the aforesaid cases, the question framed for determination by the larger Bench is as under: “1) Whether, in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not 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 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution?” In order to answer the aforesaid question, it would be useful to recapitulate the relevant provisions of the law of evidence vis-à-vis tendering of oral and documentary evidence; presumptions and circumstantial evidence. Thereafter to analyse the three cases and also other cases cited at the Bar in the background of the question raised and to derive a conclusion from the said discussion.
61. Learned senior counsel Shri Aristotle, further contended that in those cases, where the complainant becomes “hostile”, his evidence does not get
C.C.No.11/2022-34- CBI Court,Knl.
effaced as the court must consciously ascertain as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of a “hostile” witness “complainant” stands on a different footing than the death of the complainant or the non-availability of the complainant. It was submitted that when the complainant turns “hostile”, the evidence of the shadow witness would play a vital role as he can also tender primary evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification. Similarly, Nayan Kumar Shivappa Waghmare vs. State of Maharashtra (2015) 11 SCC 213 (“Nayan Kumar Shivappa Waghmare”), was relied upon to buttress the fact that if the complainant turns “hostile”, the conviction is permissible on the basis of presumption and other evidence. On the other hand, in B. Jayaraj the acquittal was based on the fact that the complainant had turned “hostile” and there was no other witness to support the case of the prosecution and hence, there was lack of evidence against the accused. In C.P. Rao, the acquittal was based not merely on the non- availability of the complainant but the fact that there was previous animosity between the complainant and the accused and also on the ground that money was thrust into the hands of the accused. Similarly, in N. Sunkanna, the accused was acquitted on the ground that the witness had turned “hostile” and the demand was not proved. So also, in the case of M.R. Purushotam.
65. Learned senior counsel Shri Nagamuthu submitted that when the prosecution examines awitness who does not support the case of the prosecution he cannot be “declared” to be a “hostile witness” and his evidence cannot be discarded as a whole. Although, permission may be given by the Court to such a witness to be cross-examined by the prosecution as per sub-section (2) of Section 154 of the Evidence Act, it is not necessary to declare such a witness as a “hostile witness”. This is because a statement of a “hostile witness” can be examined to the extent that it supports the case of prosecutor.
68. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mereacceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn
C.C.No.11/2022-35- CBI Court,Knl.
there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d)
(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
69. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the three judge Bench decision in M. Narasinga Rao, with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or “primary evidence” of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns “hostile” is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.
70. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under: 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.”
Said decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Though PWs 1, 7 and 8 not supported the case of prosecution, the evidence of PWs 2 and 11 categorically establishes that accused demanded and accepted
Rs.9,000/- from PW1. Though the counsel for defence cross examined
PWs 2 and 11 at length, he has not elicited any grave or glaring discrepancies in their evidence. It may be true there may be minor
C.C.No.11/2022-36- CBI Court,Knl.
discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 2 and 11 on non vital aspects.
Those minor discrepancies cannot be taken into consideration to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 2 and 11. The evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 11 categorically proved the post-trap proceedings Ex.P88. It may be true that the evidence of PWs 4, 5, 6 and 10 show that accused is not competent person to process the loan applications of PWs 1, 7 and 8. I do not find any merits in the contention of counsel for defence who argued that as accused is not competent to process the loan applications of PWs 1, 7 and 8, he cannot said to have demanded and accepted the bribe. There is catena of decisions wherein it was held that it is not necessary for the Court to consider whether or not the accused was capable of doing or intending to do favour to the complainant vide decision in Shivraj Singh vs Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1968 SC 1419. In another decision the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held in a case State vs Premchand reported in 1984 Crl. Law Journal (NOC) 104 Delhi that regarding the question as to capacity of the accused to do favour or dis-favour at the time of demand of bribe, the fact that he was not in a position to show any favour is of no consequence. As such, I hold that there is no any force in the contention of counsel for defence who argued regarding competency of the accused for processing the loan applications of PWs 1, 7 and 8. The evidence of
PWs 2, 4 and 11 categorically established that Phenolphthalein Sodium
Carbonate Solution Test was conducted under cover of Ex.P88. The evidence of PWs 2 and 11 sufficiently prove that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.9,000/- from PW1.
35.After thorough and careful scrutiny of entire evidence of PWs 2 and 11, I am of the view that their evidence cannot be disbelieved only
C.C.No.11/2022-37- CBI Court,Knl.
basing on minor discrepancies on non vital aspects. The evidence of
PW11 sufficiently establishes about receipt of Ex.P2 report from PW1, sending of said Ex.P2 to the C.B.I. Office, Visakhapatnam by fax, giving of instructions by Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam, securing the presence of mediators, preparation of pre-trap proceedings-
I, pre-trap proceedings-II and going to the E.P.F. Office, Kadapa. I do not find any merits in the contention of counsel for defence who argued that PW2 is interested person and his evidence cannot be believed.
Admittedly, PW2 is Assistant Manager of National Assurance Company
Ltd., Tirupathi as such he cannot be treated as partisan or interested witness. He is an independent witness. I do not find any malafide intention for PW4 to depose against the accused. The counsel for defence has not elicited any material which shows malafide intention for PW4 to depose against accused. I do not find any merits in the contention of counsel for defence who argued that since no independent witness is present at the time of preparation of Ex.P189-pre trap proceedings-I drafted at R&B Guest House, Kavali, it cannot be believed. PW2 categorically stated that in his presence accused asked PW1 whether he brought bribe amount and then PW1 removed bribe amount and gave same to the accused. He also deposed that accused received said bribe amount, counted the same with his both the hands and he kept bribe amount in the left side pocket of his pant. Thus, the evidence of PW2 categorically establishes the demand and acceptance of bribe of
Rs.9,000/- by accused from PW1. The evidence of PWs 5 and 6 reveals the procedure for sanction of the loans to the members of E.P.F.
organization (private employees). The evidence of PW12-investigating officer categorically established the examination of the witnesses and preparation of scene of offence done by him. Thus, consisting cogent
C.C.No.11/2022-38- CBI Court,Knl.
and trustworthy oral evidence of PWs 2, 4 to 6 and 9 to 12 sufficiently establish the demand and acceptance of bribe by accused.
36.However, when we come to question of law, as rightly contended by counsel for defence, there is a grave lacuna in the case of prosecution. The counsel for defence mainly contended that the C.B.I.
violated mandatory sections 3 and 4 of P.C. Act and Sec.5 of Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act (for short D.S.P.E. Act). He contended that subsequent to bifurcation of combined Andhra Pradesh State, the
Government of India did not issue notification u/s.5 of D.S.P.E. Act extending the powers of C.B.I. Visakhapatnam to 4 Rayalaseema districts. And it is further contended that as the charge sheet was filed on the file of Principal Special Judge Court for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad the cognizance was taken by said Court on 24.11.2016. And he nextly contended that by that date, the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Hyderabad lost jurisdiction over 4 Rayalaseema districts. As such, the cognizance taken by Principal Special Judge Court for C.B.I. Cases,
Hyderabad is not in accordance with law and it is void. In support of his contention, the counsel for defence relied on the judgment of Division
Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati given in “A.
Satish Kumar vs. The Registrar (Administration), Hon’ble High
Court for the State of A.P., Amaravati and 4 others (WP No.26990
of 2021 and 5441 of 2022, date of judgment 13.04.2023).” In A.
Satish Kumar case,the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh held that “If the sequence of events is examined, it is clear that the FIR was registered on 09.05.2017 for an offence that occurred in Nandyal at Kurnool District in Andhra Pradesh. The trap was laid in Kurnool only. Thereafter, investigation started and charge sheet was also filed in the Special Court for CBI cases at Hyderabad on 28.12.2017.
C.C.No.11/2022-39- CBI Court,Knl.
As per the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization Act 2014, the appointed date is 02.06.2014. With effect from that date, the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed and thus two States came into existence-The State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. Kurnool, admittedly, is in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.158 on 28.11.2014 extending the general consent given earlier in 1994 for the territorial jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh. This was followed by G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 01.06.2016 mentioning certain offences in the annexures to the said G.O. This was the followed by G.O.Ms.No.184 dated 05.12.2017, wherein, the consent is given against the officials of Central Government, Central Government undertakings and private persons. This is further followed by G.O.Ms.No.109 dated 03.08.2018. These Government Orders pertain to the State of Andhra Pradesh only. Therefore, it is crystal clear that as on date of the registration of the FIR, there was no power vested in the Officers of the CBI in Telangana to register the crime with regard to an offence that took place in Kurnool in the State of Andhra Pradesh because by that date, two distinct States are carved out and the State of Telangana 10 and the State of Andhra Pradesh came into existence. The consent that was the necessary is not available for the Officers in Telangana to lay a trap, register an FIR for an offence at Kurnool in the State of Andhra Pradesh. (2) Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are as the follows: 3. Power to appoint
special Judges.—(1) The Central Government or the State Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint as many special
Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas or for such case or
group of cases as may be specified in the notification to try the following offences, namely:— (a) any offence punishable under this Act; and (b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a). (2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a special Judge under this Act unless he is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional
Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). 4. Cases triable by special
Judges.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by special Judges only. (2) Every offence specified in sub- section (1) of section 3 shall be tried by 11 the special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the
special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more special
Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be
specified in this behalf by the Central Government. (3) When trying any case, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.’ Therefore, it is clear that it is not every Court that can entertain, hear and dispose of a case registered under the PC Act. Only if a Court is specifically designated by the State or Central Government, it will have the power to entertain the case. The counter affidavits filed by the respondents only speak of G.O.Ms.No.88 dated 07.08.2012 by which the CBI Court at Hyderabad was given the power to exercise jurisdiction over the Districts in Telangana and also Rayalaseema Districts of A.P., namely Chittoor, Anantapur, Kadapa and Kurnool. Therefore, from 2012, in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, the CBI Court at Hyderabad had the jurisdiction to entertain the case, but after the State Re-Organization Act was passed in 2014 and the 12 States were bifurcated, in the opinion of this Court, the Special CBI Court at Hyderabad did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the case under the PC Act. With effect from June, 2014, the G.O.Ms.No.88 could not apply since the four (4) Rayalaseema districts
C.C.No.11/2022-40- CBI Court,Knl.
are in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The offence was committed in Andhra Pradesh and no special court was notified for these offences.”
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that “A reading of Section 4 of the P.C. Act states that notwithstanding anything in the Cr.P.C or in any other law, an offence under the Act, shall only be tried by the Special Judge in the area within which it was committed or a Special Judge appointed for the case. (emphasis supplies).
In addition, the learned counsel has also cited judgment in the case of Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana and others, the following was held in paras 28 and 29: 28. Section 26 of the Code divides offences into two categories, namely, (i) offences under IPC and (ii) offences under any other special law. Insofar as offences under IPC are concerned, clause (a) of Section 26 states that they may be tried by (i) the High Court or (ii) the Court of Session or (iii) any other court, by which such offence is shown in the first Schedule to be triable. In respect of offences under any other law, clause (b) of Section 26 states that they shall be tried by the court specifically mentioned in such special law. In case the special law is silent about the court by which it can be tried, then such an offence may be tried either by the High Court or by any other court by which such offence is shown in the First Schedule to be triable. 29. But clause (a) of Section 26 makes the provisions contained therein, subject to the other provisions of the Code. Therefore, a question arose before this Court in State of U.P. v. Sabir Ali [State of U.P. v. Sabir Ali, AIR 1964 SC 1673 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 606] as to whether a conviction and punishment handed over by a Magistrate of First Class for an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1948 were void, in the light of Section 15(2) of the Special Act. Section 15(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Private Forest Act made the offences under the Act triable only by a
Magistrate of Second or Third Class. Though the entire trial in that case
took place before a Magistrate of Second Class, he was conferred with the powers of a Magistrate of First Class, before he pronounced the judgment. This Court held that the proceedings were void under Section 530(p) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (as it stood at that time). It is relevant to note that Section 461(l) of the 1973 Code is in pari materia with Section 530(p) of the 1898 Code. The conclusion is found at para 35, wherein the Bench held that the question of jurisdiction with regard to the power of a Court to try the particular kind of offences goes to the root of the matter and that any transgression would vitiate the entire trial. In 18 the opinion of this Court the CBI Court at Hyderabad could not, therefore, entertain the case after 02.06.2014 as the required notification under the PC Act was not issued. This Court also relies on a leading judgment of Mayawati v. Union of India7. In that case, the CBI has registered an FIR to investigate the irregularities of Taj Corridor Project. This was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that the CBI did not have the jurisdiction to investigate this case. This ultimate order is passed because this Court holds that there is a bar under the concerned Act that the institution and continuation of the proceedings are contrary to law, in line with the landmark judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal8, this power is being exercised. This Court, in conclusion, holds that the registration of the FIR and filing of the charge sheet are clearly vitiated by law. This goes to the very root of the matter and therefore, this Court has to hold that all the proceedings taken thereafter are bad in law.
The last ground urged is that the High Court of Telangana cannot transfer the cases. This Court is of the opinion that the respondents
C.C.No.11/2022-41- CBI Court,Knl.
are better placed in this. This Court is conscious of the fact that the situation with regard to the transfer has arisen because of the formation of two States with a combined High Court. Residuary power is left with the High Court of Hyderabad to transfer proceedings to the newly constituted State of Andhra Pradesh as per Section 105(1) and (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act. G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 09.01.2020 was also issued transferring II Additional CBI Court itself from Visakhapatnam to Kurnool and for exercising the territorial jurisdiction over the four Districts of Kurnool, Kadapa, Chittoor and Anantapur. In that view of the matter, after reviewing the sequence of events., this Court is of the opinion that the transfer of the case is not per se wrong and is in accordance with law. However, in so far as the lack of consent is concerned, it is clear that the petitioner has a good case on the date of registration of the FIR as the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh was formed, there was a necessity for the express extension of CBI’s jurisdiction by the 20 State Government. In its absence, the prosecution has to fail. Similarly, the lack of a notification for a Special Court under the PC Act also goes to the root of the matter. The steps taken in the said Court are also held to be bad. Accordingly, W.P.No.26990 of 2021 is allowed. No order as to costs. As far as W.P.No.5441 of 2022 is concerned, the issue of fact and law in this case are also the same. The case pertains to another Rayalaseema District of Anantapur and the FIR was registered on 20.11.2017. The charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge for CBI cases at Hyderabad on 29.03.2018.”
Said decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In A. Satish Kumar caseF.I.R. was registered on 09.05.2017 and said case was registered in respect of the offence which is said to have taken place in Nandyal of Kurnool District. In the present case the F.I.R. was registered on 25.07.2016 in respect of the offence which is said to have taken place in YSR Kadapa district. By the date of registration of F.I.R. in this case, the Government of India has not issued any notification u/s.5 of D.S.P.E. Act extending the powers to C.B.I. to investigate the offences in 4 Rayalaseema districts after new Andhra
Pradesh State was formed subsequent to bifurcation of combined Andhra
Pradesh. As per notification dated 21.04.2017, the Government of India issued notification u/s.5 of D.S.P.E. Act extending the powers of C.B.I. to entire State of Andhra Pradesh. As such, it can safely be said that by the date of registration of F.I.R. in this case i.e., 25.07.2016, there was no notification issued by Government of India u/s.5 of D.S.P.E. Act. As on the date of registration of F.I.R., the C.B.I., Visakhapatnam was not
C.C.No.11/2022-42- CBI Court,Knl.
having jurisdiction over 4 Rayalaseema districts. There is another grave lacuna in the case of prosecution i.e., filing of charge sheet by C.B.I.,
Visakhapatnam in Principal Special Judge’s Court for C.B.I. Cases,
Hyderabad and cognizance taken by said Court. As already mentioned supra, the cognizance of the case was taken on 24.11.2016 and the case was made over to the III Addl. Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad and said Court framed charges on 22.02.2017. By the date of taking cognizance, the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad lost jurisdiction over 4 Rayalaseema districts. Moreover, the Government of
Andhra Pradesh has not issued any notification u/s.3 and 4 of P.C. Act appointing the Principal Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases, Hyderabad for trial of the offences committed in 4 Rayalaseema districts under P.C. Act.
The Judgment of Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A. Satish Kumar casethoroughly dealt with sections 3 and 4 of P.C.
Act and Sec.5 of D.S.P.E. Act. As such, said decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
37.The Public Prosecutor relied on the judgments of (1) Fertico
Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. vs Central Bureau of
Investigation and Ors. (2) Union of India vs Prakash P. Hinduja &
Anr. and (3) State of Punjab & Ors vs Balbir Singh Etc.
38.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the above referred judgment, considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India given in Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd.
The other two judgments relied by Public Prosecutor are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. As such, those two judgments cannot made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present.
C.C.No.11/2022-43- CBI Court,Knl.
39.In view of the non compliance of mandatory provisions of
Sec.5 of D.S.P.E. Act and Sec.3 and 4 of P.C. Act, and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh given in A. Satish Kumar case, I hold that prosecution failed in establishing the guilt of the accused in accordance with law. As such, I found accused not guilty for the offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and he is entitled to be acquitted.
40.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the same offences. MO-1 cash of Rs.9,000/- shall be confiscated to State of
Andhra Pradesh. MOs 2 to 6 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
The amount of Rs.13,300/- lying in Time Deposit Advise (Fixed Deposit
Receipt) dated 15.06.2017, along with interest accrued shall be paid to the accused.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court this the 7th day of July, 2023.
Sd/-M.Venkata Ramana,
Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Kurnool.
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined For
Prosecution:
PW.1:Malli Ankaiah PW.2:R.Nanda Swaroop Reddy PW.3:Mohammad Baba Tajuddin PW.4:Subbian Azhahiya Manavalan PW.5:M.Sammaiah PW.6:R.Shivashankar Reddy PW.7:B.Mala Kondaiah PW.8:Sulluru Balaji PW.9:S.Muralidhara PW.10:P.Veerabhadra Swamy PW.11:P.Srinivasa Rao
C.C.No.11/2022-44- CBI Court,Knl.
PW.12:D.Vasu Krishna
Defence: -None-
Documents Marked For
Prosecution:
Ex.P1:Application of P.W.1 for advance from the fund and connected papers. (Return Application). Ex.P2 :Original Written Report. Ex.P3 :Form No.31 application for advance from the fund and connected documents submitted by P.W.1 to E.P.F. Office. (Fresh Application). Ex.P4 :Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P5 :Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P6 :Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P7 :Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P8 :Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P9:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P10:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P11:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P12:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P13:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P14:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P15:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P16:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P17:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P18:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P19:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P20:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P21:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P22:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P23:Contradiction portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Exs.P24 to :Signatures of P.W.1 in Pre-Trap Proceedings-I dated P28 25.07.2016. Exs.P29 to :Signatures of P.W.1 in Pre-Trap Proceedings-II dated P36 25.07.2016. Exs.P37 to :Signatures of P.W.1 in Post-Trap Proceedings dated P46 25.07.2016. Ex.P47:Written proceedings prepared at Room No.203 of Hasmi Residency. Ex.P48:Sheet of paper which contained specimen seals and signatures of P.W.2 and L.W.3-Manohar Reddy. Ex.P49:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by Malakondaiah. Ex.P50:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by Ch.Suresh Ex.P51:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by R.Venkateswarlu. Ex.P52:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by R.Rutamma. Ex.P53:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by
C.C.No.11/2022-45- CBI Court,Knl.
G.Krupaiah. Ex.P54:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by T.Peda Venkateswara Rao. Ex.P55:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by R.Govindamma. Ex.P56:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by T.Lakshmamma. Ex.P57:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by A.Kondaiah. Ex.P58:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by M.Subba Rathnamma. Ex.P59:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by T.Kiran Kumar. Ex.P60:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by B.Vijayamma. Ex.P61:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by M.Kondaiah. Ex.P62:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by Ch.Kondaiah. Ex.P63:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by G.Ravanamma. Ex.P64:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by Ch.Dasu. Ex.P65:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by K.Syamalamma. Ex.P66:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by K.Subbamma. Ex.P67:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by Y.Venkamma. Ex.P68:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by V.Lakshmi. Ex.P69:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by S.Manemma. Ex.P70:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by P.Jayamma. Ex.P71:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by N.Chinnamma. Ex.P72:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by V.Bujjamma. Ex.P73:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by S.Malakondaiah. Ex.P74:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by G.Isher. Ex.P75:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by M.Kondamma. Ex.P76:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by J.Padma. Ex.P77:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by R.Venkateswarlu. Ex.P78:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by M.Chinnaiah. Ex.P79:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by D.Sharadha. Ex.P80:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by M.Hajarachamma. Ex.P81:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by Ch.Raja Gopal.
C.C.No.11/2022-46- CBI Court,Knl.
Ex.P82:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by M.Malakondaiah. Ex.P83:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by S.Chinna Malakondaiah. Ex.P84:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by D.Thirupataiah. Ex.P85:Form-31 and other connected papers submitted by M.Peda Ankaiah. Ex.P86:Rough sketch showing the place inside E.P.F. Office where the office table of accused is placed. Ex.P87:Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P88:Post-Trap proceedings mediatornama. Ex.P88A:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P88B:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P89 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P90 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P91 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P92 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P93 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P94 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P95 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P96 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P97 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P98 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P99 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P100 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P101 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P102 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P103 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P104 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P105 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P106 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P107 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P108 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P109 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P110 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P111 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P112 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P113 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P114 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P115 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P116 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P117 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P118 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence
C.C.No.11/2022-47- CBI Court,Knl.
Act, 1872. Ex.P119 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P120 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P121 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P122 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P123 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P124 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P125 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P126 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P127 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P128 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P129 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P130 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P131 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P132 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P133 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P134 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P135 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P136 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P137 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P138 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P139 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P140 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P141 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P142 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P143 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P144 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P145 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P146 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P147 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P148 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P149 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P150 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P151 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P152 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P153 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P154 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P155 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P156 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P157 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
C.C.No.11/2022-48- CBI Court,Knl.
Ex.P158 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P159 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P160 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P161 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P162 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P163 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P164 :Copy of Claim Status Query Member Wise. Ex.P165 :Copy of Member Ledger. Ex.P166 :Certificate issued by P.W.6 U/Sec.65-B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Ex.P167:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P168:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P169:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P170:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P171:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P172:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P173:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P174:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P175:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P176:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P177:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P178:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P179:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P180:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P181 :Call Data Records. Ex.P182 :Certificate issued by P.W.9 U/Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P183 :The letter dated 01.11.2016 under cover of which P.W.9 submitted Exs.P181 and P182 to the Superintendent of Police H.O.B., C.B.I., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P184 :Sanction Order dated 21.09.2016 issued by P.W.10. Ex.P185 :The letter dated 21.09.2016 under the cover of which P.W.10 had sent Ex.P184 to R.Gopalakrishna Rao I.P.S., Superintendent and Head of the Branch, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam. Ex.P186 :Attested copy of C.C.A. Rules 1971 consisting of 2 sheets. Ex.P187 :Attested copy of Circular dated 18.01.1989 issued by Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi consisting of 2 sheets. Ex.P188:Fax copy received in C.B.I. Office, Visakhapatnam when P.W.11 had sent Ex.P2 through Fax. Ex.P189:Pre-Trap Proceedings-I dated 25.07.2016 conducted in R & B Guest House, Kavali. Ex.P190:Printed proforma of F.I.R. issued by P.W.12 in
R.C.No.12(A)/2016.
Ex.P191 :Examination Report issued by Seema Srivasthava Assistant Director, C.F.S.L., Hyderabad (L.W.10). Ex.P192 :Letter dated 26.08.2016 addressed by L.W.10 Seema Srivasthava under cover of which Ex.P191 was sent to Superintendent of Police. Ex.P193 :Term Deposit Advice (Fixed Deposit Receipt) dated
C.C.No.11/2022-49- CBI Court,Knl.
15.06.2017 for Rs.13,300/-.
Defence:
Ex.D1:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2. Ex.D2:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.D3:Part of portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.D4 :Office Order No.7/2015 dated 09.09.2015 under which the Transfers/Postings are ordered.
Material Objects:
Prosecution:
M.O.1:Cash of Rs.9,000/-. M.O.2:The Cover. M.O.3:The glass bottle which contained left hand finger wash of Danam. M.O.4:The glass bottle which contained right hand finger wash of Danam. M.O.5:Glass bottle which contained left side pant pocket wash. M.O.6:Piece of cloth which contained four specimen seals.
Defence:
-Nil-
Sd/-M.Venkata Ramana,
Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Kurnool.
C.C.No.11/2022-50- CBI Court,Knl.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
DISTRICT OF KURNOOL
Calendar of Cases tried by the Special Judge for C.B.I Cases, Kurnool. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence: 25.07.2016 Date of report or complaint: 25.07.2016
Date of apprehension of accused: 25.07.2016
Date of release on bail: 08.08.2016
Date of commencement of trail: 16.06.2022
Date of close of trial:25.05.2023
Date of sentence or order: 07.07.2023
Explanation of delay and remarks:
This case was taken on file on 24.11.2016 against the accused.
Accused was appeared before the Court of Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Hyderabad on 27.12.2016. On 22.02.2017 charges were framed against the accused.The examination of witnesses was commenced on 16.06.2022.
On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 12 were examined and
Exs.P1 to Ex.P193 and MO-1 MO-6 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced but marked Exs.D1 to D4. The trial was completed on 25.05.2023,Judgment is pronounced on 07.07.2023
Judgment in Calendar Case No.11/2022 (R.C. No.
12(A)/2016-CBI/ACB/VSKP) on the file of Special Judge for
C.B.I., Cases, Kurnool.
Complainant:State, Rep. Inspector of Police, S.P.E., C.B.I., Visakhapatnam. Accused:Sri Sigamala Danam, 54 years, S/o late S. Subbanna, The then Lower Divisional Clerk, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office, Kadapa, R/o D.No.1-4-165, C/o Smt. Aruna Kumari, Road No.22, O, Santhi Nagar, Kadapa. Permanent R/o Nadimpalli Village, Buddayyapalli, Kadapa Mandal and District.
Offence:U/s. 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988. Finding:Accused is found not guilty. Sentence:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. for
C.C.No.11/2022-51- CBI Court,Knl.
the same offences. MO-1 cash of Rs.9,000/- shall be confiscated to State of Andhra Pradesh. MOs 2 to 6 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The amount of Rs.13,300/- lying in Time Deposit Advise (Fixed Deposit Receipt) dated 15.06.2017, along with interest accrued shall be paid to the accused.
Sd/-M.Venkata Ramana,
Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,
Kurnool. Copy to:
1. The Honourable Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District, PIN: 522237.
2. The Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Visakhapatnam.